Doge

It was the USA Travis Taggart that went after Lance. The Euros I knew mostly rolled eyes at the time. Something about America is willing to eat their own.

avole

avole

Lemond1985

Off-competition recreational PED use? Is that like when you inject EPO or steroids just for the rush? Snort some lines of human growth hormone in the bathroom at a disco? (who hasn't?) Freebase cortisone?

Doge

Pantani was never determined by officials to have used PEDs (or did I miss that).

Doge

Questioning a pro athlete, questioning the referee call is what fans do. Doubt is cast on great performances.

Actively prosecuting your own country's athlete in an international sport while creating a cloud around everyone else that might win fairly is another thing.

Still, I have no issue getting at the facts. I do have an issue retroactively determining outcomes. I think UCI would do well following how FIFA (soccer) determines winners.

avole

Yes, but I was meaning more commentators and journalists were voicing their suspicions, and they were clearly not fans. Initially I thought it was merely sour grapes as Armstrong was never a popular rider here, albeit admired for his tenacity.

OBoile

That's not the same argument. In CA its convicted people being compared to other convicts. The OP's logic is akin to saying Lance should not be "executed" because other people, who haven't been found guilty, have not been executed.

OBoile

It was the USADA, an American organization, that brought Lance down. Not the "euros".

OBoile

Or at least one American had a sense of honesty and fair play. Morals are far to rare these days it seems.

fietsbob

Best place to watch the races would be from a Sidewalk Cafe with a nice bottle of Champagne, on ice in front of me...

Doge

It is a game. Just like soccer, basketball, baseball, football. They all break the rules. The rule enforcement should be on the officials, not the participants.
Left to the participants, each has their own sense of morality. Unless we want to make this a religious discussion, how is one to determine breaking one rule is immoral and another is not?

My answer - morals are separate from a game/rules of a sport and when you have professional officials, it is their job to decide. Sure, every athlete has their own view of what is right or not. The athlete with the most "morals" is the most handicapped. This needs to be all on the officials and rule makers and removed from the competitors. The competitor's job is to win. They can make the calculation of what will be penalized or not, just as they make the calculation of how fast to take the corner, or any other risk/reward. A miscalculation can get the rider penalized, DQ'd, crashed or dead. I still don't see the moral part.

All cycling aside there are moral and immoral behaviors. I don't see what that has to do with cycling. You can be immoral in life or on the bike.

Doge

That is the significant point.
That and the backwards results removal. I believe unique to sports - going back that far for something that the UCI and WADA, or USADA never discovered themselves.

OBoile

USADA are officials, not participants.
Are you implying that you think it is okay to cheat? Does honesty mean nothing to you?

Doge

I got that. Maybe we are talking past each other. Cycling has so many rules along with PEDs they cannot possibly enforce them at reasonable cost while respecting the rights of individuals.
Unlike police work, I don't think randomly catching some as a deterrent works, and it is certainly not "fair". Rules need to be enforceable.

It would be like telling folks that all Strava records have to be done obeying laws. It just is not going to happen. The rider that turns right to avoid a red light, U turn, right again may be immoral to some, while others will just blow through as long as it is clear. As an observer, I would rate their integrity on how they acted vs what they agreed to. But I'd bet, the winner would be of the lower integrity (they'd run the lights). So why would someone who agrees to obey all rules even play? They wouldn't. Cause they would have no chance. An uphill Strava - well, maybe. Even then folks have a hard time figuring out what a bike is (Gaimon - who was riding a non-road bike baiting folks like me).

My point is unless you can really enforce things, there is little point in making a rule about it, and the winners will be the ones that ignore the rules, or artfully dodge them - most of the time. The "moral" ones, don't play.

Doge

I'm stating that the willingness to "cheat" is pretty much required to win pro sports. I don't see every rule deviation as cheating. I leave it to the officials. In the Lance case - the officials had nothing to do with it (until 9 or so years later - politics).

Do you watch pro sports? If so, you are likely a supporter of cheating. Many do not have that conflict as they think sports do not involve cheating and really don't want to see how the sausage is made.
Making sausage involves killing intelligent pigs and putting other generally un-sell-able animal parts into an intestine. Sold as Italian Sausage, it is really good stuff.

I seriously doubt a NFL team does not benefit from someone cheating. Same true for most other sports. It is too hard to catch.

On the personal note that you introduced - Honesty means a lot and why I encouraged my very capable of being a pro son, not to be a pro. The politics, the money, and that and he wanted to be a fighter pilot were also factors.

Anyway, no sport is effectively officiated by shaming/moral code. The "moral" folks are called the loosers. Just how it is.

Doge

Here is what I consider an immoral act. There is no soccer law that says you can't stomp on an opponent's head. There does not need to be one. The kid could have also been a teammate, it is just as immoral.
Point being, breaking a rule or not has little to do with morality.

This has been removed a number of times from YouTube. But - kids are kids right?
https://vimeo.com/306934016/bc531f2571

OBoile

No rule is ever 100% enforceable. By your standard, you'd have no rules.

For some sports, this is the case. Not all.
That's pretty much the definition of cheating.
Who cares? He did the crime. He deserves the punishment he received.
I'm not so naive as to believe everything or everyone is playing honestly. I simply want the ones who aren't to be punished when caught.
Sure, but the fact that refs miss a bunch of calls doesn't mean they should stop trying to officiate the game. The fact that some players manage to beat drug tests doesn't mean they should be dropped completely.
Based on your posts, I don't believe this at all. If honesty mattered, you'd be happy Lance was punished.

That may be true in many cases. Some of us would rather be/support moral losers than dishonest winners. Others don't seem to care.

Doge

@OBoile rather than re quoting let me try to summarize my thoughts on doping, Lance etc.


Cycling, as in all sports, is a secular event that participants of many beliefs, and moral codes can do. As such it is important that rules cover all areas to ensure fairness and that these rules can be enforced by those officiating. This is a requirement for professional sports used for entertainment. It is nice for recreational sports too, but under the thread topic - speaking of pros.


When: Should be what is generally acceptable. Better yet spelled out. For most rule violations, it should be before starting the next race. For drug testing it should be a time shortly after test results come in. It should not be months and years later. This hurts the sport more than the benefits of catching someone.


Caught: The officials need to be able to catch (enforce) the rules that they make - at a rate riders are convinced they will be caught. Because of the differences moral codes of riders some things are OK for some and not for others. There should not be an expectation professionals will follow un-enforced rules that are not to their perceived benefit.


So Punishment (when caught) is good. Punishment should be for being a deterrent to others doing it, more than justice.


So rather than make drug list so long and hard to manage, make them short. Stop the things that can be enforced, leave the rest off the list.


If the list was small then pros would certainly take the legal PEDs they thought helped, and stay away from the ones they would expect to be caught by using.

I certainly hope for safety sake that most the ones they can't detect of enforce do not have the same health risks. But cycling is hazardous. Taking a corners too fast or sprints, you can die!

Some would think it immoral to use any PEDs, some would have no issue with it. The ones that didn't want to take legal PEDs would choose not to be cycling pros.

I met some juniors that thought eating meat was immoral. Finding vegan cyclists is not hard. Finding vegan World Tour pros is. There is likely a reason for that. There are rules, they should be enforced. If they cannot be, they should not be rules.

hobbs1951

Think you'll find it was David Walsh of the Sunday Times who set the Hares running* on the Armstrong issue.

John.

*in 2001

OBoile

It is truly amazing how much you and I disagree.

But this was/is kind of my point. He got caught. He should be punished. Whether it is "good for the sport" isn't what matters.

avole

Exactly, well said.

fietsbob

Its antihistamine season ... bring it on..

Rajflyboy

OBoile

As someone who is neither American nor European (so, in theory at least, an unbiased observer) I would say this is not true.