Professional Cycling · Public discussion

Perhaps there is a plan....

Started by Mansmind · · Last activity · 6 posts · 1,187 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Professional Cycling
Published
30 July 2007
Last activity
30 July 2007
Original author
Mansmind
Posts
6
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,187
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–6 of 6
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. It seems apparent that everyone in this area of the forums believes that there is at least "much" doping in cycling. Many believe they all do, and always have.

    Media has increased the public's awareness to doping in cycling. This has been going on for years now, but is getting more prevalent.

    The organizations making $ from cycling, sponsor's or otherwise...have to realize that at least the "doping perception" must be dealt with. It doesn't take much savvy to realize this. The point has been raised multiple times on this forum.

    Food for thought:

    1. I've heard it said that noone tested positive at the tour during "Lance's" years, correct?

    2. Certainly the following year, people started getting caught.

    3. It is worse this year, although up till this point at least the yellow jersey is intact.

    4. As Lim or Doc pointed out, there is a distinct pubilicity push toward "the younger generation is clean"...whether that be true or not.

    5. Currently, it DOES seem to be the older riders that are getting caught regularly.

    Is it possible this is a long range plan to clean up cycling? From a business perspective, you can't do that in a short period of time:

    1. They have to protect the product. the professional sport of cycling could very well die quickly if they expose all the "dopers" at once. Sponsers would go away.. ratings of what little broadcast it does have would reach a peak initially then plummet as the sponsors drop out.

    2. They have to protect the riders. It wouldn't be very good for business if people are dying on the climbs would it? Hence the hematocrit controls. They even state it's for health reasons. 🙂 It also sets some limit to at least have "some" control on what these guys are doing.

    3. They have to address the issue. They're in this for profit, but I really don't believe they WANT doping in the sport. Aside from that, it's become enough of a buzzword that even if they did...they still must start cleaning it up.

    It would seem if you look at the last two years, they have started. Perhaps the whole idea is to remove it slowly, one generation of cyclists at a time.

    Discuss

  2. After reading your first numbered point I shook my head and thought "do some research and then come back when you know the facts" once you got to agreeing with Lim and Doctor.House, I stopped.

  3. Maison said:

    After reading your first numbered point I shook my head and thought "do some research and then come back when you know the facts" once you got to agreeing with Lim and Doctor.House, I stopped.


    I consider the discussion on forums as a type of "research", imagine that.

    I'm not sure where you're saying I agree with Lim or Doctor.House. If you're referring to the "publicity push" statement I believe that was DoctorSpoc that originally brought it up. Regardless, I'm not sure whether I agree or not...but it's an interesting point to make.

  4. Mansmind said:

    I consider the discussion on forums as a type of "research", imagine that.

    I'm not sure where you're saying I agree with Lim or Doctor.House. If you're referring to the "publicity push" statement I believe that was DoctorSpoc that originally brought it up. Regardless, I'm not sure whether I agree or not...but it's an interesting point to make.

    1) How can you make a post like this when you have a false assumtion about your own first point? Questioning your own point just throws the rest of the post into question.

    2) I apologize about mixing up DoctorSpoc and our resident obsessive. Though it changes nothing about Lim.:p

  5. Maison said:

    1) How can you make a post like this when you have a false assumtion about your own first point? Questioning your own point just throws the rest of the post into question.


    Because I know I've read it here, but I'll allow that sometimes doesn't mean anything. 🙂 Many people here know the answer for sure, and I'm too lazy to spend the next couple of hours looking...I was more interested in the overall hypothesis.

    Quoted post said:

    2) I apologize about mixing up DoctorSpoc and our resident obsessive. Though it changes nothing about Lim.:p


    Don't feel bad, when you originally asked I had to go back and look to make sure it wasn't him..:p

  6. yes, i believe each side has an agenda. because both sides are antagonistic towards the other, the agenda is muddled, compromised, diverted; collateral damage be damned. regardless of said "plan", those in "leadership" lack the clarity and fortitude to exersize whatever course they seek. the end result is chaos and corruption.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.