Pro Cycling - what does the future hold?

[john]

Nicely put as ever Anthony.

Now he will be villified and disgraced and who will all his titles be given to? Somebody who took just as much drugs as he did.

It's my understanding the Tours will not be re-awarded in retrospect. Not sure how far down the list they'd need to go to find someone who didn't have a drugs ban at some point. God forbid some of the titles would end up going to someone like Virenque, France's favourite plucky drugs cheat / climber / baby / housewife's choice.


Now the teams are starting to sort themselves out (and in many cases have already done so) surely the UCI need to do the same. The past is the past and at some point a line needs to be drawn. None of the greats in cycling did it on cheese sandwiches alone.

As an interesting aside wonder how riddled with drugs cycling is in comparison to other sports? Know athletics also has a bad rep but many other sports which one would imagine would benefit from similar medication seem to get little mud thrown in their direction. I'm thinking things like swimming, rowing, skiing, football, rugby and more or less anything with an element of endurance and strength.

 

[john]

UCI statement released earlier on, overview on BBC News > http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20008520

Good in a way they accepted it. Bit knee jerk though. Surely McQuaid can see he needs to step down though?

 

[NeilM]

And will McQuaid and Verbruggen now drop their case against Paul Kimmage? Who, it would seem, was actually reporting factually.

Somehow I doubt it.

I am currently reading A race for madmen and have just got to the 1960's and Tommy Simpson. At that time amphetamines were the chosen enhancement, and although Simpson was highlighted, due to his death, he was far from alone with some riders feeling that there was nothing wrong with what they were doing, and taking. Of course, it was all about winning and earnings.

 

[David B]

I was mulling over the whole Rabobank business during breakfast this morning - the cynic in me thinks they may just have been looking for an easy get-out from cycling sponsorship in order to save a few bob, after all we're talking about a Eurozone-based bank here, so their own business climate is likely to have been a bit shaky in recent times. Plus, there wasn't the same drop-of-a-hat sponsorship pull-out when one of their own riders (Rasmussen) was caught up in a doping scandal a few years back. Hmm.

David

 

[Sirreal]

Inclined to agree with David B on this one. Banks involved in sports sponsorship in the middle of a global economic crisis doesn't necessarily look good to shareholders and the non - interested majority.

Having said that, and generally agreeing that this is an economically driven move fortunate enough to find an popularist excuse, it is worth bearing in mind that the public perception of the sport as a competition between chemists doesn't help, as many of my friends in other sporting circles believe. The tours are one of the greatest demonstrations of people using their brawn, their intellect, and their inately social nature to the extreme in order to succeed there is. Would that they were seen to be such

 

[ededwards]

I find the whole thing pretty sad as, once again, the credibility of cycling is pretty much non-existent. Super human feats are shown to be just that, super human - it's probably completely unfair but doesn't it provide a prism through which to view Boonen's stellar Spring? And that's the point, it's tricky not to be cynical and have unfounded doubts about riders who are clean ("amazing ride, must be juicing") but get fooled once and it's those that fool you that are to blame, get fooled multiple times and you only need to look at yourself.

The sport has probably never been cleaner yet what happened 10, 15, 20 years ago is dominating the headlines.

We've heard lots of times riders declaring how they don't dope/would never dope/have too much to lose. We've had riders sign contracts. And then they test positive. Given that most of the teams are run by ex-pros (many with murky pasts themselves), I'm really struggling to genuinely believe that the sport is cleaner than previously and Wiggins dropping of the c bomb directed at anyone who had the temerity to even question his performances at the 2012 TdF is lacking in awareness - asking the question should not be welcomed but it should at least be understood why it is being asked even if must be really trying to cover the same subject time and time again. Not wanting to pick on Sky, but they didn't hire David Millar because of his previous ban but they did take on others with a past with USPS/Discovery including a former DS who has been photographed with his arm around an alleged drug mile. Where will they go with this now?

One thing that is interesting is that some riders are vilified and their careers effectively ended (Landis, Rasmussen) while others serve their bans and resume their careers (Vinokourov, 'Dirty Bertie' Contador, Basso, Valverde, the saintly David Millar) and in some cases win Grand Tours or Olympic Gold. Message loud and clear from the UCI - doping can be worth it.