Do people here care about doping?

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Just curious whether it matters to the general public that professional
cycling is having more than its share of doping scandals lately.

I could ask this question in RBR (rec.bicycles.racing), but that's not a
good cross-section of typical cyclists. Not that there isn't a lot of
pre-selection in the sample here, either, but better than RBR, where
everything takes on the emotion of a helmet war.

So...

Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed the
same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?

Also, are there people here who took up cycling because of the coverage on
TV/radio/newspapers of Lance Armstrong (just an example), and do the current
scandals give you pause, perhaps making you less-likely to try and get
others invovled in cycling?

Just curious-

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

I don't follow racing so the various controversies are basically
irrelevant. I encourage people to cycle but as utility cyclists.
Until, reminded, I forget there is such thing as bicycle racing.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Just curious whether it matters to the general public that professional
cycling is having more than its share of doping scandals lately.

I could ask this question in RBR (rec.bicycles.racing), but that's not a
good cross-section of typical cyclists. Not that there isn't a lot of
pre-selection in the sample here, either, but better than RBR, where
everything takes on the emotion of a helmet war.

So...

Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed the
same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?

Also, are there people here who took up cycling because of the coverage on
TV/radio/newspapers of Lance Armstrong (just an example), and do the current
scandals give you pause, perhaps making you less-likely to try and get
others invovled in cycling?

Just curious-

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

I care about what is true and real. Unfortunately reporting and news
are not consistent with that same value system. If LA and FL were able
to win a tour(s) without the benefit of illegal pharmaceuticals they are
the true champions that should rightfully be respected for the
accomplishment, as were all other "clean" TDF champions.

OTOH is they were products of how far an elite human can be pushed with
the right combination of drugs, my interest declines. I will enjoy
cycling all the same for my own pleasure but the associated [censored]
with association with the sport follows from the less informed.

SHould gasoline continue to rise in price and alternate means of
transportation continue to rise in popularity more people will take
advantage of the sport and perhaps increase their own knowledge and
recognize the value of a Tour or even local race win.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Just curious whether it matters to the general public that professional
cycling is having more than its share of doping scandals lately.

I could ask this question in RBR (rec.bicycles.racing), but that's not a
good cross-section of typical cyclists. Not that there isn't a lot of
pre-selection in the sample here, either, but better than RBR, where
everything takes on the emotion of a helmet war.

So...

Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed the
same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?

Also, are there people here who took up cycling because of the coverage on
TV/radio/newspapers of Lance Armstrong (just an example), and do the current
scandals give you pause, perhaps making you less-likely to try and get
others invovled in cycling?

Just curious-

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

I never really followed racing until last year. The scandals
have not changed my interest in the sport; it is irritating that there
appear to be a lot of cheaters. I firmly believe that there is at
least one pro accused of cheating who did not. Unfortunately, those
who are advantaged by cheating are able to keep the non-cheaters out
of the race nearly forcing all to cheat, except for the Clark Kents of
the world.
I am not sure why I started riding again two years ago. I am not
sure it had anything to do with the media, although it didn't hurt. I
think Floyd's problem with no published TDF winner now is causing
fewer people to join in following the sport.
I try to encourage others to ride.

Ted.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Just curious whether it matters to the general public that professional
cycling is having more than its share of doping scandals lately.

....

Quoted message said:

Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed the
same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?

It's gone down, for me, largely because of Operation Puerto and the
fallout. The TdF is the one race I get a chance to watch a fair bit
without major preplanning, because of its length and because OLN (now
VS) had it every night for most of July. After OP taking out the
leading contenders, last years Tour was mostly notable for the feeling
that it was amateur hour. There were no leaders.

And I'd really like to know if Floyd's charge was possible because he
doped, or because the rest of the teams were incompetent, or because of
the constant cold water showers his support vehicle provided. You can
label me as one of those who now thinks the French lab is incompetent
and/or corrupt, so I don't think I'll ever get the answer to that
question. But if random top riders are going to be kicked out because
they've been accused and convicted by the press before any evidence is
presented, I think I'll pass on watching UCI races until they can get
their house, and WADA's, in order.

Except if the Tour de Georgia still goes by my folks' house next year,
and I can get off, I think I'll go watch those guys climbing the insane
grades of Lookout Mountain.

Pat

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
:: Just curious whether it matters to the general public that
:: professional cycling is having more than its share of doping
:: scandals lately.
::

I say let them all eat dope and let it be known and get on with it. Then, I
won't need to worry about my lousy 12 mph average speed.

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just curious whether it matters to the general public that professional
cycling is having more than its share of doping scandals lately.

I could ask this question in RBR (rec.bicycles.racing), but that's not a
good cross-section of typical cyclists. Not that there isn't a lot of
pre-selection in the sample here, either, but better than RBR, where
everything takes on the emotion of a helmet war.

So...

Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed the
same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?

Also, are there people here who took up cycling because of the coverage on
TV/radio/newspapers of Lance Armstrong (just an example), and do the
current scandals give you pause, perhaps making you less-likely to try and
get others invovled in cycling?

Just curious-

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

I don't really care, I ride for health and recreation which is not affected
by their desire to win at any cost. They're pro's, same as the baseball &
football players who use steroids, until we take these jerks off their
pedestals and start getting some real role models, nothing will change.
They'll continue to do anything for the money. The TDF sure smells of
politics to me.

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed
the same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?

Diminished somewhat, as far as top level racing goes.
Widespread scandals have diminished my interest in
other sports.

Quoted message said:

Also, are there people here who took up cycling because of the
coverage on TV/radio/newspapers of Lance Armstrong (just an example),

That's not among my list of reasons to ride. I started out
riding recreationally. When gas prices passed $2, I started
commuting by bike.

Quoted message said:

and do the current scandals give you pause, perhaps making you
less-likely to try and get others invovled in cycling?

No. People who ask me about cycling are interested
health benefits, gas savings, and traffic concerns.

Quoted message said:

I never really followed racing until last year. The scandals
have not changed my interest in the sport; it is irritating that there
appear to be a lot of cheaters. I firmly believe that there is at
least one pro accused of cheating who did not. Unfortunately, those
who are advantaged by cheating are able to keep the non-cheaters out
of the race nearly forcing all to cheat, except for the Clark Kents of
the world.

One commonly-held belief in the past was the the super-duper guys didn't
need to cheat; most of the doping happened at the domestique (the guys who
help the leader) level, where they lacked the extraordinary drive to excel
of the team leader, and perhaps the freakish genetics that allowed for
increased V02 capabilities as well.

But Basso admitting guilt kinda blows that theory out of the water.

Quoted message said:

I am not sure why I started riding again two years ago. I am not
sure it had anything to do with the media, although it didn't hurt. I
think Floyd's problem with no published TDF winner now is causing
fewer people to join in following the sport.

That, of course, is what I am concerned about. There are so many great
things about riding a bike; as I said in a piece on our website, "Life
happens at just the right speed when you're out on your bike." But some
people like to feel that they're a part of something much bigger than
themselves, and seeing coverage on TV helps them rationalize what they enjoy
doing, both to themselves and others.

Quoted message said:

I try to encourage others to ride.

As do I!!! (Of course, not entirely for altruistic reasons, although anyone
who knows me realizes that the only time I'm really at ease with myself is
when I'm out riding).

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Just curious whether it matters to the general public that professional
cycling is having more than its share of doping scandals lately.

I could ask this question in RBR (rec.bicycles.racing), but that's not a
good cross-section of typical cyclists. Not that there isn't a lot of
pre-selection in the sample here, either, but better than RBR, where
everything takes on the emotion of a helmet war.

So...

Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed the
same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?

Also, are there people here who took up cycling because of the coverage on
TV/radio/newspapers of Lance Armstrong (just an example), and do the current
scandals give you pause, perhaps making you less-likely to try and get
others invovled in cycling?

Just curious-

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Interest remains the same. I've believe that all/most top racer dope
and have done so for at least 60 years. I understand that it is
cheating but all societies have formal (laws) and informal (behavior)
norms. In the case of doping and sports I think that whatever the law
that the behavioral norm is to dope.
I also have a hard time drawing the line on the continuum of varios
perhformance enhancing aids. So, is having a coach moral? What about
using drinks such as Gatorad? What about energy gels? So there is
clealry a lot of "performance enhancing" things that are both ok by
the formal and informal norms. But where should the line be drawn? And
how does it change over time? For example EPO. If one used EPO 30
years ago it would have been legal. Now its not. Why? Probably because
they can now test for it.
My preference is to bring all the performance enhancing aids into the
open. By doing so we could take them out of the closet and hopefully
make the situation safer.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed
the
same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?

It's gone down, for me, largely because of Operation Puerto and the
fallout. The TdF is the one race I get a chance to watch a fair bit
without major preplanning, because of its length and because OLN (now
VS) had it every night for most of July. After OP taking out the
leading contenders, last years Tour was mostly notable for the feeling
that it was amateur hour. There were no leaders.

I was at the TdF last year, and know what you mean. Until Floyd took charge,
things seem to be floundering. You really need someone to focus on, someone
to use as a reference point. We just didn't have that last year until
Floyd's incredible comeback.

Quoted message said:

And I'd really like to know if Floyd's charge was possible because he
doped, or because the rest of the teams were incompetent, or because of
the constant cold water showers his support vehicle provided. You can
label me as one of those who now thinks the French lab is incompetent
and/or corrupt, so I don't think I'll ever get the answer to that
question. But if random top riders are going to be kicked out because
they've been accused and convicted by the press before any evidence is
presented, I think I'll pass on watching UCI races until they can get
their house, and WADA's, in order.

You sound like you've either spent some time on Floyd's website or attended
one of his fund raising events. Floyd definitely had a huge advantage on
that VERY hot & humid day, by having his own car with an infinite supply of
water available to him. And tactically, he had nothing to lose and
everything to gain by taking off so early in the race that others would
either consider it suicidal or just an attempt to break things up a bit in
order to maybe get 3rd place on the podium, but certainly not go it alone.

Re-watching the coverage, you can see just how badly the other teams screwed
up. Floyed didn't just win from a heroic effort; he won just as much because
the other teams didn't want to bother expending the energy to chase him
down. By the time they took him seriously, it was too late.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just curious whether it matters to the general public that professional
cycling is having more than its share of doping scandals lately.

Nope. I don't care about doping. I don't care about drug use in any sport.
As a matter of fact, I think drug use should be considered just another
facet of training, and should be legal AND monitored. I don't think anybody
does the TdF without using something. Steroids are used at all levels of
sports, and the ones who don't get caught are the athletes who are
successful and important enough to avoid the tests. Let them all use under
doctor's supervision.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed the
same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?

I only follow racing in the vaguest "it's neat to see bikes going fast"
sense. I have trouble generating more than an apathetic 'meh' about
doping in cycling.

On the other hand, I do think the French lab testing procedure was
pathetic. Was he guilty, wasn't he? Probably not IMO, but irregardless
the whole proceedings should be thrown out based on how flawed it is.

As to reasons to cycle, sports figures never entered into my personal
reasons list.

--
Dane Buson - [email hidden]
Clones are people two.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Just curious whether it matters to the general public that professional
cycling is having more than its share of doping scandals lately.
...

I don't care, really.
With most US sports at least--half the game seems to be using drugs and
dodging the drug tests. Other sports have drug scandals too (US
basevall-Barry Bonds?) maybe you just didn't notice....

I never had much interest in watching pro road cycling, or really any
other type. If I could *go* to the I.H.P.V.A. trials I would, but even I
don't think it's interesting enough for broadcast TV.

--------

"Competitive sports" is going to become an antiquated pastime.
Eventually everyone will just show up for genetic testing, and the UCI
will declare whoever has the best stamina genes the winner.
~

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just curious whether it matters to the general public that professional
cycling is having more than its share of doping scandals lately.
...

I don't care, really.
With most US sports at least--half the game seems to be using drugs and
dodging the drug tests. Other sports have drug scandals too (US
basevall-Barry Bonds?) maybe you just didn't notice....

Track & Field, Soccer, "American" Football, Baseball... all have big
problems with doping. The difference between them and cycling is that their
federations have a lot more power and essentially have told WADA and USADA
to go stuff it; they'll handle things temselves. Soccer, from what I
understand, is a near-joke in terms of actually trying to get rid of doping.

As for Barry Bonds, in my humble opinion, if the guy has class, he'd hit
homer #754, one shy of the record, lay down his bat and retire. I can't see
that happening, but wouldn't it be a great way to go out, given all the
controversy?

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

gds said:

Interest remains the same. I've believe that all/most top racer dope
and have done so for at least 60 years. I understand that it is
cheating but all societies have formal (laws) and informal (behavior)
norms. In the case of doping and sports I think that whatever the law
that the behavioral norm is to dope.
I also have a hard time drawing the line on the continuum of varios
perhformance enhancing aids. So, is having a coach moral? What about
using drinks such as Gatorad? What about energy gels? So there is
clealry a lot of "performance enhancing" things that are both ok by
the formal and informal norms. But where should the line be drawn? And
how does it change over time? For example EPO. If one used EPO 30
years ago it would have been legal. Now its not. Why? Probably because
they can now test for it.
My preference is to bring all the performance enhancing aids into the
open. By doing so we could take them out of the closet and hopefully
make the situation safer.

My interest remains the same as well, but I disagree with your take. I
won't venture to draw the line between "food" and "drugs," but it is
not impossible to do so. If the sponsors of teams had the incentive,
drugs could be eradicated simply by enforcing a "one and done" rule.
The problem is that to do so would be antithetical to sponsorship:
only winners make money for the sponsor, and winners can't compete on
a level playing field without doping. So it is a vicious circle.

You suggest that bringing dope into the open might "make the
situation safer." But who defines what's "safe"? How many years of
testing and waiting will determine whether or not there are long term
side effects? Who will be the human guinea pigs? And stretching your
argument to its extreme, when we will reach the point of the now
science fiction but maybe soon to be fact, genetically altered human?

I might be naive, but I'm thinking that what is a better choice is a
world where "organic" athletes compete on "food" (however defined),
and where technology testing for "non-food" dope gets as sophisticated
as software firewallers catching hackers. Where the majority of
dopers, rather than a tiny minority, get caught, and where if you get
caught, one strike and you're out for good.

But that will happen just about the same time as a cure for cancer,
global warming reversal, honest politicians, peace on earth, etc.

Great question, Mike.

I don't really care about watching sports. I'd rather be doing sports.
The only time I really enjoy watching sports is when I see
relatively ordinary shlubs like me, or someone who's battled deep odds
(i.e. Lance) giving something their all and succeeding (i.e. the
amateurs in an Ironman Triathlon). That inspires me to try harder to do
better.

I don't really care about pros using drugs. Make it legal and monitor
it. Some of the rules make no sense to me. For example, taking a
transfusion of your own red blood cells shortly before a race is
illegal. For heaven's sake - it's part of their own body. Or, another
example, a TdF rider gets stung by a bee and has to drop out because the
drugs used to treat his life-threatening reaction to the sting is
banned. Yeah, like anyone is really going to put his life on the line
to get a minimal chemical advantage.

Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.

Jeff

I fall in the first group, those who follow bike racing, albeit more
casually than say most American football fans follow their chosen
sport and I have to say that my interest level has dropped due to the
doping scandals but not for the usual reason. I'm no forensic
scientist but I do deal with forensic scientists on a regular basis
and IMO the more recent doping accusations (post-Festina) are
scandalous not because of any allegedly positive test results but
because of the totally unprofessional attitudes of the testers. If the
forensic scientists I deal with leaked test results to the press,
refused to provide split samples for outside testing, and tried to
cover up violations by them of basic lab procedures they would not
only be committing professional suicide but they would draw court
sanctions, a fancy term meaning a judge would throw their butts in
jail. WADA seems to just thumb their nose at anyone that challenges
them like Floyd Landis has. Until WADA cleans up its own act -or some
other agency takes over the testing- there's no way we'll ever watch a
race and *know* the results are a measure of the riders and not their
pharmacists.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Just curious whether it matters to the general public that professional
cycling is having more than its share of doping scandals lately.

I could ask this question in RBR (rec.bicycles.racing), but that's not a
good cross-section of typical cyclists. Not that there isn't a lot of
pre-selection in the sample here, either, but better than RBR, where
everything takes on the emotion of a helmet war.

So...

Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed the
same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?

When I first began to follow racing it was only the local racers and
only those that I also rode with socially and only in comparison to my
own results (as a way of seeing just how [censored] I was because I hadn't
wanted to race and was only doing it to please the bike shop owner).

I became actively interested in racing when I discovered that the "man
with the Colnago pedals" who was giving the local racers free lessons
last June wasn't just "some older guy who had once been in a few real
races" but had actually represented China at the 1984 Olympics and
been an all-Asia champion rider and oh yeah was also a real cycling
coach who was involved with the current national team on occasions
when he wasn't in Hainan.

I watched bits and pieces of the 2006 TdF in the bike shop in Chinese
because I was watching it with my friends. With the exception of the
fact that we were eating sunflower seeds instead of popcorn it could
have been a superbowl party.

I started following racing because a pro race was going to happen in
Hainan and even if I had clearly made a very bad impression of myself
at the dinner with the UCI Comissaire from the Chinese Cycling
Association and wasn't going to get to work at it and probably wasn't
even going to volunteer at it I figured I ought to know at least
enough to be able to understand what was going on.

I started studying racing when I got asked incredulously by a member
of the organizing committee "you mean you _want_ to volunteer?" at the
same time as I said "you mean you'll _let_ me volunteer?" He thought
what with me being a student that I would consider my studies more
important than ten 14 hour work days in a row.

I started cramming racing rules and regulations and anything else I
could get my hands in a pre-exam fervor when I found out that they
were going to _pay_ me for my work.

Then, the weekend before The Race happened I had a race of my own and
it didn't involve much climbing and it was on a not very good bike and
I was (how'd that happen?) the fastest woman in the province. This
not only made racing much more important and interesting it also made
me that much more aware of how awesomely difficult and utterly cool
the pro racer boys' achievements were.

Especially when I _met_ the pro racer boys. They were doing these
awesomely difficult things and were still Real People. People made of
flesh and blood who got sick, who fainted, who crashed, who broke
bones, who sat down and ate meals with me, who looked starry eyed when
talking about ProTour contracts that were going to start in just a few
months, or who did things like cry because it was the first race
they'd ever not finished and who were going to have to go home and
tell their _mom_ that they hadn't finished. Let them be genetic
freaks or those willing to "eat bitter and drink dry" (Coach's
description of a professional training regimen) or even on drugs they
were still Real People.

I couldn't give a damn about doping scandals. No one I know and no
one I've met is involved. I believe in the personal integrity of the
people I ride with and with the exception of the the very top levels
(Moscow Omnibike Dynamo, Japan National, China National, Marco Polo
Cycling, Polygon Sweet Nice, and the team from Australia) of those I
saw at "my" race and the United Arab Emirates national team (which
wasn't particularly exceptional but unsurprisingly had a lot of very
very expensive equipment) I don't think they or their teams had the
money to be blowing on the pharmaceutical route when maybe (at least
in the case of Qinghai, Ningxia, Beijing, the PLA, and the Mongolian
National teams) shaving another five or six pounds off of the
domestiques' bikes might be a better and more lasting way to spend
that money (after all you can always use the same good bike on the
next good rider).

(Wish I could remember which team had the spare bike that was steel.)

Quoted message said:

Also, are there people here who took up cycling because of the coverage on
TV/radio/newspapers of Lance Armstrong (just an example), and do the current
scandals give you pause, perhaps making you less-likely to try and get
others invovled in cycling?

No and no.

-M

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Just curious whether it matters to the general public that professional
cycling is having more than its share of doping scandals lately.

I could ask this question in RBR (rec.bicycles.racing), but that's not a
good cross-section of typical cyclists. Not that there isn't a lot of
pre-selection in the sample here, either, but better than RBR, where
everything takes on the emotion of a helmet war.

So...

Of those who follow bike racing, has your interest in the sport stayed the
same, diminished, or increased as a result of the doping scandals?

Also, are there people here who took up cycling because of the coverage on
TV/radio/newspapers of Lance Armstrong (just an example), and do the current
scandals give you pause, perhaps making you less-likely to try and get
others invovled in cycling?

Just curious-

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

If it weren't for this group I would have assumed FL was guilty; now
I'm not at all sure. Still, I have nothing but admiration for the guys
doing these races even if some of them are doped somehow. As I
struggle up the 59th Street Bridge on my commute, I can't even begin
to imagine how someone can climb mountains, and do it day after day.
Lance Armstrong is just something otherworldly.

I live near a Velodrome, and the Kissena Cycling Club has races there
from now through Labor Day, and I sometimes stop by on the way home
from work to watch (http://kissena.info/track/). I'm pretty much in
awe of those guys, and they aren't even climbing mountains.

One night a week they had messenger races, for guys who are messengers
in Manhattan. I contend that, to make it more realistic, they should
have folks walking across the track during the races, but my
suggestion was ignored.