The difference between sports

Kurgan Gringioni a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Other professional sports [snip ]are organized differently, in leagues, with franchises.

Not to pick a nit, but this was the entire purpose of the Pro Tour. US
(crossing into Canada) sports - baseball, etc. - are specifically
exempted from antitrust laws. The Pro Tour attempted (I am trying to
sing a dirge, in advance) the same, by granting teams (with funding, but
not with linked sponsors) nearly exclusive rights to participate in
certain races, relegating other "franchised" teams to the minor leagues.

Quoted message said:

In cycling, there aren't franchises. There are teams, but they come and
go with the sponsors.

see above ...

Quoted message said:

There are no rich, powerful franchise owners with
a vested interest to protect the image of the sport. It's left up to
the UCI and their attempts to "clean" the sport have backfired.

The Pro Tour was not about cleaning house for drugs, but for fringe
participants, eager to take the place of enfranchised teams. The teams
have no real reason to get drugs under control, save for random bad
publicity.

--

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
-
The belief in a relation of cause and effect is a superstition.
Wittgenstein, L
Tractatus logico-philosophicus

Whining about others being as bad or worse is never successful in
justifying one's own position in the public eye -- especially when the
majority of the (car-driving) public regards cyclists as an irritant.

Best,
Bill Black

Kurgan Gringioni said:

The drug use is mostly kept under wraps and the result is
that the media focus is on competition rather than drug tests.

Well, if that pitcher is telling the truth, it isn't that much under
wraps. All you have to do is open the door and look at the bowl on the
table. Or sniff the special coffee. Wonder if Landis had a cup of
coffee with a Major League reliever.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

billb said:

Whining about others being as bad or worse is never successful in
justifying one's own position in the public eye -- especially when the
majority of the (car-driving) public regards cyclists as an irritant.

So you envisage the "He's just a doper so who cares" defense being used by
this professor from Texas (where else).

Totally agree, the course of the UCI seems almost suicidal to me
sometimes...

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Other professional sports have at least as much drug usage as cycling,
but they are organized differently, in leagues, with franchises.
Soccer, football, baseball, basketball, hockey - they're overrun w/
drugs as much as cycling, but their leagues treat the problem
differently. The drug use is mostly kept under wraps and the result is
that the media focus is on competition rather than drug tests.

In cycling, there aren't franchises. There are teams, but they come and
go with the sponsors. There are no rich, powerful franchise owners with
a vested interest to protect the image of the sport. It's left up to
the UCI and their attempts to "clean" the sport have backfired. They
don't recognize that drug use cannot be eliminated, only controlled,
and that infractions need to be handled in such a way that offenders
are punished, but with little fanfare and not in the court of public
opinion.

The UCI's got it backwards and the result is that they're shooting
themselves in the foot. They need to take a page from the NFL. Control
the drug use and keep the drug infractions process discreet. The way
they're handling it now, they're ensuring that the focus of the media
is on the drug tests and not the competition on the road. It's a shame
for anyone who enjoys the competitive aspect of cycling more than the
soap opera.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Kurgan Gringioni said:

The UCI's got it backwards and the result is that they're shooting
themselves in the foot. They need to take a page from the NFL. Control
the drug use and keep the drug infractions process discreet. The way
they're handling it now, they're ensuring that the focus of the media
is on the drug tests and not the competition on the road. It's a shame
for anyone who enjoys the competitive aspect of cycling more than the
soap opera.

But does the NFL do anything to control drug use or penalize anyone in
any meaningful way for infractions?

The reason that the focus of the media is on the dope tests and has
turned into a soap opera is that news outlets (L'equipe) have aligned
themselves with the test labs (or cops - El Pais) in order to get the
inside scoop on dope scandals. The labs have allowed this, as has the
UCI (which is seemingly encouraging the leaks). And the people who
have developed or promoted the various testing methods have made entire
careers out of "bringing down the cheats" instead of being scientists.

There needs to be a clear separation of power: Separate the
development of tests from the testing. WADA/USADA should be limited to
A) Funding research for the development of tests and B) collecting
athletes' urine/blood. The execution of the tests should be contracted
out to labs that have had no stake in developing the tests. I find it
to be a huge conflict of interest that the heads of labs are both
developing tests then having the responsibility for executing the
tests. Of course they're going to want a few high-profile positives to
ensure that their methods and labs continue to get contracts with WADA,
and to ensure they get to appear on the cover of Newsweek.

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Other professional sports have at least as much drug usage as cycling,
but they are organized differently, in leagues, with franchises.
Soccer, football, baseball, basketball, hockey - they're overrun w/
drugs as much as cycling, but their leagues treat the problem
differently. The drug use is mostly kept under wraps and the result is
that the media focus is on competition rather than drug tests.

In cycling, there aren't franchises. There are teams, but they come and
go with the sponsors. There are no rich, powerful franchise owners with
a vested interest to protect the image of the sport. It's left up to
the UCI and their attempts to "clean" the sport have backfired. They
don't recognize that drug use cannot be eliminated, only controlled,
and that infractions need to be handled in such a way that offenders
are punished, but with little fanfare and not in the court of public
opinion.

The UCI's got it backwards and the result is that they're shooting
themselves in the foot. They need to take a page from the NFL. Control
the drug use and keep the drug infractions process discreet. The way
they're handling it now, they're ensuring that the focus of the media
is on the drug tests and not the competition on the road. It's a shame
for anyone who enjoys the competitive aspect of cycling more than the
soap opera.

The biggest difference that I see is that the is no strong union for the
riders in cycling but most major sports have a very strong players union.
If there was a strong union in cycling no one would have been denied a start
in the Tour de France.

shane said:

Totally agree, the course of the UCI seems almost suicidal to me
sometimes...

Then they would have to shoot themselves in their ass, where their
brains are located, than in their foot. Enough powder in the bullet,
they could hit their heads at the same time.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On 2 Aug 2006 08:02:15 -0700, "yeahyeah" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

But does the NFL do anything to control drug use or penalize anyone in
any meaningful way for infractions?

In the U.S., that's not the issue. Yes, they do something and at any
given moment there are a boatload of football professionals on
multiple game and even year long suspensions. The difference is that
the average U.S. sports fan knows of dozens of football players by
name and know that there are hundreds more at the professional level
alone, so if they read of two-three suspensions, they see it as a drop
in the bucket - even a big name like Ricky Williams or someone.

They know maybe three-four bike racers tops. If one is continually
accused of doping, one is finishing a suspension for doping and the
other is facing accusations, they see three of three or three of four
possible dopers. So the whole sport looks dirty from the casual
ESPN/SI sports fan point of view.

If you nominated ten football/soccer players as dopers, the average
ESPN/SI fan would see the sport as dirtier than U.S. football but not
as dirty as cycling, because they 'see' more soccer players making up
the sport, so ten of many is a smaller percentage than 3 of 3 or 3 of
10. They may know there are more cyclists, but that doesn't go into
their 'how dirty is cycling?' equation.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

yeahyeah said:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

The UCI's got it backwards and the result is that they're shooting
themselves in the foot. They need to take a page from the NFL. Control
the drug use and keep the drug infractions process discreet. The way
they're handling it now, they're ensuring that the focus of the media
is on the drug tests and not the competition on the road. It's a shame
for anyone who enjoys the competitive aspect of cycling more than the
soap opera.

But does the NFL do anything to control drug use or penalize anyone in
any meaningful way for infractions?

Why yes, they do. They just don't release preliminary results, leak lab reports
or otherwise discredit themselves. Though their main PR problems are with party
drugs. Ullrich would've been out longer for the X bust than the PER suspicions.

Quoted message said:

The reason that the focus of the media is on the dope tests and has
turned into a soap opera is that news outlets (L'equipe) have aligned
themselves with the test labs (or cops - El Pais) in order to get the
inside scoop on dope scandals. The labs have allowed this, as has the
UCI (which is seemingly encouraging the leaks). And the people who
have developed or promoted the various testing methods have made entire
careers out of "bringing down the cheats" instead of being scientists.

Yes.

Quoted message said:

There needs to be a clear separation of power: Separate the
development of tests from the testing. WADA/USADA should be limited to
A) Funding research for the development of tests and B) collecting
athletes' urine/blood. The execution of the tests should be contracted
out to labs that have had no stake in developing the tests. I find it
to be a huge conflict of interest that the heads of labs are both
developing tests then having the responsibility for executing the
tests. Of course they're going to want a few high-profile positives to
ensure that their methods and labs continue to get contracts with WADA,
and to ensure they get to appear on the cover of Newsweek.

Again, yes.

Ron

Curtis L. Russell said:

- even a big name like Ricky Williams or someone.

what 'cha picking on ricky for? so the man liked to smoke
marijuana.....wasn't he fined $650,000 for that second offense? man, i
miss watching him.

see africans on the tour?

On 2 Aug 2006 14:26:38 -0700, "oddball" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Curtis L. Russell said:

- even a big name like Ricky Williams or someone.

what 'cha picking on ricky for? so the man liked to smoke
marijuana.....wasn't he fined $650,000 for that second offense? man, i
miss watching him.

Find cable with Canadian football. Although based on what ESPN
reported, you would have to watch carefully to see him.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Other professional sports have at least as much drug usage as cycling,

You COULDN'T possibly believe that the Packer's front line are all naturally
large men?