Given all the current furor surrounding Lance Armstrong and his team’s testimony against him, it seems we’re now forced to admit that Lance is likely guilty of at least some level of blood-doping. As of today, he is out as a spokesperson for Nike, and he has officially stepped down as chairman of his Livestrong charity organization.
My question is two-fold:
[ul]It seems as if almost every major champion and competitor in the Tour de France over the past 15 years has been caught cheating or doping in some way, shape or form – at least, if this article on Wikipedia is any indication. Is it a matter that cyclists are more likely to use controlled substances to gain miniscule edges over their competition? Or is it a matter that the International Cycling Union has created a chokehold on the types of substances that are relatively benign, and now athletes who are taking substances that would be legal in other sports are simply getting caught in a wide-reaching net?[/ul]
[ul]In the wake of all of this, how has The Union (and cycling fans in general) chosen to handle the bad publicity? How can fans take a sport seriously when the champion will almost certainly in the future have that title stripped from him for cheating?[/ul]
For what it’s worth, Colibri, I disagree with you that this thread is best suited for The Game Room. Primarily because I’m looking for factual answers to my questions. Or… y’know, answers. Any at all.
I’m not an expert on bicycle racing or the TdF. But you have a class of super-athletes, and you have a days-long endurance event that is decided by a narrow margin.
This is the forum dedicated to sports - it’s going to be frequented by a much larger number of people capable of answering your question than in GQ. Why don’t you think an answer would be procurable here?
That thread has plenty of factual information on doping issue. I think people interested in the issue are more likely to come across the thread here than in GQ.
I think the answer to your question is that other sports do not have anywhere near the anti-PED testing regimen that modern professional cycling does. To cycling’s credit. From what I’ve read of cognoscenti analyzing TdF splits from the mid-90s to now, the sport is quite a bit slower than it was. Which, I’m inferring, means it’s a lot cleaner than it used to be.
All that said, I think it would be hilarious to subject, e.g., the NFL to the drug testing that cycling currently has. WAG, what percentage of the NFL would run afoul? 30%? 50%?
I agree with this. The NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB are all big-time American image sports entertainment with lots of $$, lawyers, and organization, and I am sure any minor doping scandal is swept under the rug real quick. Big scandals like Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire happen only rarely, and probably to give the public the impression that “something” is being done about it.
IMHO, Cycling has no such organization or power, at least in the US, so it is easy to see why this is happening to Lance, et al. They have no blanketing organization with power to help make the situation go away - they are exposed. Also, I suspect that since the stakes are so high in cycling ($$) and only one man wins the event as opposed to a team (even with a team behind him), there is intense focus on gaining an edge, any edge, over the competition. Hence the level of testing for the athletes, and the likewise more positive results for cyclists. Again, IMHO.
I’d argue that athletics/track and field is at least as well tested as cycling, and has been for a longer time. Take a look at the women’s world records here, particularly in the sprints and field events, and note the large number of records that date back to the early and mid 80s when PED use was rife.
Cycling’s only just catching up to the level of testing that athletics has enjoyed since the late 1980s.
A counterpoint, though I couldn’t begin to evaluate how comprehensive WADA’s drug testing is compared to the ICI’s. If this SI article’s any indication, I’m not sure there’s evidence for PED use in track one way or the other beyond whispering. Guess we’ll have to wait for Track’s version of Jose Canseco, and hopefully he’ll be better sourced than Darrell Robinson.
I will agree with you that women’s athletics is infinitely cleaner than in the days of the Soviet Bloc. Judging by the men’s weight events’ records, it’s cleaner now than then too. (World Records’ Year’s Set: Hammer Throw, 1986; Discus, 1986; Shot Put, 1990; Javelin, 1996—Zelezny was one-of-a-kind.) Though the Pole Vault and Long Jump records haven’t been broken since 1994 and 1991 respectively, so I dunno. If you were just going by his photos, Bubka was about the least likely looking guy to be on PEDs, but his wiki article made it sound like his higher-than-normal strength and speed were key to his success. Hmmmm. Weird that the Long Jump hasn’t been broken yet, as fast as sprinters go these days.
I agree the testing regime in athletics isn’t perfect (and probably never can be) but it’s certainly as good as cyclings. You are of course right that the men’s records are just as revealing as the women’s.
Top line sprinters don’t seem to do long-jump anymore, too much risk of injury perhaps?
It’s as much technique as speed. When you’re running all out, you’re not quite as precise with your foot placement. The take-off board is only 8 inches wide.
Watch a few videos of Carl Lewis. He’s not going near as fast on the runway as he does in the 100m. Here’s one.
And here’s some rather grainy footage of Lewis and Mike Powell giving the greatest display of long-jumping of all time at the 1991 World Champs.
Oh and here’s a comparison of top speedsof long jumpers against the 10m split times of top sprinters. They’re not that much slower. Just for giggles look at Bolt’s reaction time in Beijing in 2008 - 0.165 seconds. If he’d started as fast as Lewis or Jonson (about 0.13) he might have clocked a 9.39!
And besides, if a thread is moved, it will most likely be seen by readers of BOTH the prior and new forums.
Accordingly, if you aren’t sure what forum a thread belongs in, but you want maximal exposure, it might even be a good strategy to post deliberately in the most-likely-wrong forum, on the theory that it will get relocated.
ETA: This thread itself being a case-in-point. I rarely look at Game Room, but I saw this thread while reading GQ.
I’m no expert, but it’s at least plausible that doping matters more in cycling than in many other sports is that long-distance team cycling doesn’t really test skills or anything other than endurance and occasionally some sprinting power (there are tactical decisions that can make a difference, but that’s what the team coach is for). Give me a shot that produces Armstrong’s muscles and endurance and within a month (at worst a year) I could learn all the skills I need to be a top TdF rider. As opposed to giving me Federer’s muscles and endurance, which even after a year of practice wouldn’t help me beat an average high school tennis player.
It could be because cycling requires no skill. It is simply a matter of energy output. Running would be in this category too, but there’s nowhere near as much money at stake in that field. I’m sure some cyclists will pop in and claim there’s all sorts of skill involved, and I’ll remind them that they are doing something I did at 5 years old and the only difference is the speed and distance involved.
