Call it cheating, not "various doping-related issues"

On May 6, 10:26*pm, "F. Kurgan Gringioni"
wrote:
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message

...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bass...e-in-giro-prep
"Basso remains the only Italian among the race favourites, with last
year's
runner-up Danilo Di Luca, 2008 climbing sensations Riccardo Ricco and
Emanuele Sella and Pellizotti absent for various doping-related issues.
Basso declined to comment on his teammate's situation."

"...various doping-related issues." Maybe part of the problem is that we
don't call it what it is- cheating. This assume of course that we accept
the
idea that it *is* cheating and not the athlete's contention that it's
something they do to recover.

Dumbass -

"Doping" is more specific.

"Cheating" is a very broad term. For instance, holding onto the team car
while getting bottles is "cheating" but it's not the same as doping.
Drafting the car after getting a wheel change is "cheating" but it's not the
same as doping. Closing the door on an opponent in a sprint is "cheating"
but it's not the same as doping. Etc.

thanks,

Fred. presented by Gringioni.

Closing the door isn't cheating it's just a tactic and sometimes gets
called as a rules violation. But that's not cheating anymore than
going over the centerline is.

This assume of course that we accept the
idea that it *is* cheating and not the athlete's contention that it's
something they do to recover.


Mike - recovering faster might be the real reason for 'cheating/
doping' and these are all connected.

Recovering faster means ability to stress the system earlier and
harder than your opponents. It also means subsequent efforts are
going to be less of a % of maximal capacity and thus less stress on
the system and a favorable performance loop towards higher
performance.

In most elite athletes coaches/trainers have te restrain them as
motivation and desire are already there as well as capacity to train
(and very likely overtrain) - reducing the recovery cycle might be the
# 1 benefit of doping as we know many physiologcal attributes are
genetically bound and limited.

VO2 max might only incrementally increase with doping but ability to
maintain higher percentages of VO2 max more often and for longer
periods would be ab attribute of faster recovery and subsequent
incresed training sessions of frequency, duration and intensity.

In article ,
"GoneBeforeMyTime" wrote:

DA74 wrote:

The real problem is the inability of you ****ing retards to get
the fact that it's not cheating if the top percentage of riders
on a given team are participating.

DA74

Yeah, just breaking the rules then, but what about a rider who has the
money, technology, connections, etc, to bring considerable resources to bear
on a sport many times over what any other rider can do, including the best
team, trainers and coaches. Would that be cheating then, although it's not
breaking the rules. Kind of reminds me of so many legal practices in all
kinds of things, but let's stick with cycling. I also wonder if in the end,
the riders are going to teach the doping agencies a lesson, and that is
don't mess with the cycling culture. It's been going on since the beginning
in some form or another and the fans never used to mind so much until the
press rubbed our noses in it day in and day out. I used to really enjoy
watching the Pros race until a few years after the Festina Affair. It just
became more about doping then about cycling.



However what never happened before is the spectacular use of science and
technology which in this case, blew the sport out of the water for 7 years
in a row. I actually think that was pretty cool in a way, but perhaps it's a
form of cheating since no one else has those resources. So doping is
obviously the poor man's option but since so many are doing it, it's not
cheating, just status quo, part of the cycling culture. However, it's always
admirable when someone can beat the chemisty culture at the game by riding
clean, and without considerable resources.

Agree.

Getting an big edge through science and technology seems to have a bigger
application in cycling then some sports,

Not when compared to other endurance sports;
and that includes football and futbol.
I claim all strength and speed sports are
heavily doped.


and perhaps seems like cheating
rather then a purely physical accomplishment. A lot of other sports don't
use a machine in conjuction with their body to gain an edge over other
competitors. Talking about sports like Soccer, running, probably many track
and fields sports, others. I am talking about sports that are more purely a
human endeavor of the physical body and not where a machine is involved. HTC
for instance locally here have bikes vastly superior to some of the bikes
that some cat-2 or 3 riders use in the same races, and of course just about
every other edge other riders and teams don't have. Is that cheating?

--
Michael Press

In article ,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:

"Fredmaster of Brainerd" wrote in message
...
On May 6, 4:09 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:

Doping must be regarded as cheating if there's even to be a possiblity of
the typical individual athlete deciding that it's not something they want
to
do. And even then, many would still prefer to cheat if they thought it
would
help them to win. But fewer, I think, than now, where doping is certainly
considered less-serious or obvious than, say, taking a shortcut or
intentionally crashing the competition.
===============
Wait, so we treat cutting the course or riding the competition
into the barriers as more serious than doping? That explains
why the penalty for getting caught cutting the course is two
years' suspension.

Oh wait, it isn't.
===============

You're actually illustrating my point. Riders don't cheat in the manner you
mention because it would be considered way-wrong by the riders themselves.
The riders themselves treat it as more serious. There's no means to
rationalize it like you can doping. The two year suspension obviously
doesn't have much effect on the riders themselves; it's done to make it
appear the organizers are doing something about the problem. It's for us,
not them.

The war against doping won't turn the corner until the competitors
themselves see it as something like cutting the course. Perhaps, as others
have pointed out before, penalties for doping that affect the entire team as
much as the individual... that might encourage a social stigma. If a rider
gets caught doping in a race, perhaps everyone on the team suffers a
three-minute penalty, with no provision for leniency in the event of
confession.

No matter what you do, what the governing bodies do,
what people think, riders will never treat doping as
dishonorable.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:

"F. Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in message
...

"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
You're actually illustrating my point. Riders don't cheat in the manner
you mention because it would be considered way-wrong by the riders
themselves. The riders themselves treat it as more serious. There's no
means to rationalize it like you can doping. The two year suspension
obviously doesn't have much effect on the riders themselves; it's done to
make it appear the organizers are doing something about the problem. It's
for us, not them.

The war against doping won't turn the corner until the competitors
themselves see it as something like cutting the course. Perhaps, as
others have pointed out before, penalties for doping that affect the
entire team as much as the individual... that might encourage a social
stigma.

snip



Dumbass -

There won't be a social stigma.

The highest form of esteem isn't riding clean. The highest form of esteem
is riding dirty, winning, and not getting caught.

thanks,

Fred. presented by Gringioni.

Self-esteem or esteem among your peers? It may make *you* feel superior that
you can engineer a doping scheme that allows you to beat the other guys and
not get caught, but is it safe to let others know what you're up to? I doubt
it.

And do other riders really feel that good about someone who can cheat the
system better than they can? I doubt that too. The whole thing about "If
only I could get the good stuff like he has" probably builds jealousy and
resentment as much as admiration.

No more than being born with a better engine,
training smarter, having more sponsor money,
having a better tactical toolbox, having a
smarter DS builds jealousy and resentment.
Such a team with the above mentioned advantages
mostly makes other riders want to join that team,
not shun it.

--
Michael Press

On May 6, 8:45*pm, DA74 wrote:
On May 6, 4:09*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:





http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bass...e-in-giro-prep
"Basso remains the only Italian among the race favourites, with last year's
runner-up Danilo Di Luca, 2008 climbing sensations Riccardo Ricco and
Emanuele Sella and Pellizotti absent for various doping-related issues.
Basso declined to comment on his teammate's situation."

"...various doping-related issues." Maybe part of the problem is that we
don't call it what it is- cheating. This assume of course that we accept the
idea that it *is* cheating and not the athlete's contention that it's
something they do to recover.

There's little stigma attached to doing what you feel you have to do to
remain "competitive" because cheating isn't generally part of that
conversation. You tell your kids that you took whatever it was because
without it, you couldn't hold up day after day in a Grand Tour. You couldn't
survive. When your kid asks if everybody's doing the same, you reply with
something like "How could they ride like that and not be taking something?
I'm just as good a rider as they are.

"Cheating" just doesn't come up in the conversation, nor in the press. We
can suggest that it doesn't have to, that we know when people are caught
doping, that it's cheating. But I'm not convinced. Look at the way we laugh
when someone is prosecuted for "sporting fraud" but isn't that description
spot-on? And yet even "sporting fraud" implies but does not state.

Doping must be regarded as cheating if there's even to be a possiblity of
the typical individual athlete deciding that it's not something they want to
do. And even then, many would still prefer to cheat if they thought it would
help them to win. But fewer, I think, than now, where doping is certainly
considered less-serious or obvious than, say, taking a shortcut or
intentionally crashing the competition.

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

The real problem is the inability of you ****ing retards to get
the fact that it's not cheating if the top percentage of riders
on a given team are participating. The domestiques who don't
dope don't give a **** as they're happy to support a winner.
The quality riders who are clean either leave the sport or shrug and
become quality domestiques.

Let's put it this way, if doping really was isolated the riders would
lynch the dopers who got caught. But your answer lies in the fact
that none of the riders speak out and bash these guys. If they
were truly clean think about how ****ed they would be if some
asshole took their prize money and prestige.

As it stands now the guys in the standings adjacent to these dopers
have their own skeletons and don't want their closet doors opened.

And yes, this includes the "clean teams".

And no, the controls don't work very well.

And yes, they do catch some but only the complacent or unlucky ones.

WTFU.
You're Welcome,
DA74- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

that's where you allow your paranoia get the better of you in order to
try to justify your own failing. simply put- you ain't good enough,
never was, never will.

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
Self-esteem or esteem among your peers? It may make *you* feel superior
that you can engineer a doping scheme that allows you to beat the other
guys and not get caught, but is it safe to let others know what you're
up to? I doubt it.

And do other riders really feel that good about someone who can cheat
the system better than they can? I doubt that too. The whole thing about
"If only I could get the good stuff like he has" probably builds
jealousy and resentment as much as admiration.

But for now, just curious if you're talking about self-esteem or from
your peers?

I don't think most pros see this in the emotional light that
you do. Dope has always been part of the job, since the very
beginning. It was old when Henri Pélissier told Albert Londres
"We run on dynamite."

Riders are quiet about it because it is a competitive advantage.
I can recall one conversation with an ex-pro who told me about
conversations after his retirement with more successful riders
that were doing stuff that he would have been happy to do if
he were closer to the leading edge. He was quite certain that
being behind in the science was what cost him his contract.

He was very matter of fact about it. He had been out-competed.
He had fallen behind in his preparation, and lost his job as a
result. C'est la vie.

Fred Flintstein

The war against doping won't turn the corner until the competitors
themselves see it as something like cutting the course. Perhaps, as
others
have pointed out before, penalties for doping that affect the entire team
as
much as the individual... that might encourage a social stigma. If a
rider
gets caught doping in a race, perhaps everyone on the team suffers a
three-minute penalty, with no provision for leniency in the event of
confession.

No matter what you do, what the governing bodies do,
what people think, riders will never treat doping as
dishonorable.

--
Michael Press

The media has helped the riders create this whole other world of
infractions, where it's OK because it's not really cheating, it's doing what
needs to be done to stay in the game, or recover, or whatever. I think the
#1 reason the riders don't look at it as "cheating" is because it doesn't
change the podium.

That was then. This is now.

Some of the (doping) riders are doing some really dumb stupid stuff these
days, and I think that might change thinking. We saw the beginning of it
with Ricco, coming out of nowhere and trash-talking everyone else before he
got busted... and then other morons pushing the limits a bit too far for
their meager financial resources (meaning they couldn't afford to do it,
doping, "right", so they did it on the cheap and got caught). It all works
as long as the results are reasonable. It (riders thinking it's OK) could
fall apart if there are many more Riccos out there, re-ordering the podium
and causing too much trouble when caught.

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


"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:

"Fredmaster of Brainerd" wrote in message
...
On May 6, 4:09 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:

Doping must be regarded as cheating if there's even to be a possiblity
of
the typical individual athlete deciding that it's not something they
want
to
do. And even then, many would still prefer to cheat if they thought it
would
help them to win. But fewer, I think, than now, where doping is
certainly
considered less-serious or obvious than, say, taking a shortcut or
intentionally crashing the competition.
===============
Wait, so we treat cutting the course or riding the competition
into the barriers as more serious than doping? That explains
why the penalty for getting caught cutting the course is two
years' suspension.

Oh wait, it isn't.
===============

You're actually illustrating my point. Riders don't cheat in the manner
you
mention because it would be considered way-wrong by the riders
themselves.
The riders themselves treat it as more serious. There's no means to
rationalize it like you can doping. The two year suspension obviously
doesn't have much effect on the riders themselves; it's done to make it
appear the organizers are doing something about the problem. It's for us,
not them.

The war against doping won't turn the corner until the competitors
themselves see it as something like cutting the course. Perhaps, as
others
have pointed out before, penalties for doping that affect the entire team
as
much as the individual... that might encourage a social stigma. If a
rider
gets caught doping in a race, perhaps everyone on the team suffers a
three-minute penalty, with no provision for leniency in the event of
confession.

No matter what you do, what the governing bodies do,
what people think, riders will never treat doping as
dishonorable.

--
Michael Press

"Anton Berlin" wrote in message
...

Closing the door isn't cheating it's just a tactic and sometimes gets
called as a rules violation. But that's not cheating anymore than
going over the centerline is.


Dumbass -

Anything that gets called as a rules violation is, by definition, cheating.

thanks,

Fred. presented by Gringioni.

In article ,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:

The war against doping won't turn the corner until the competitors
themselves see it as something like cutting the course. Perhaps, as
others
have pointed out before, penalties for doping that affect the entire team
as
much as the individual... that might encourage a social stigma. If a
rider
gets caught doping in a race, perhaps everyone on the team suffers a
three-minute penalty, with no provision for leniency in the event of
confession.

No matter what you do, what the governing bodies do,
what people think, riders will never treat doping as
dishonorable.

The media has helped the riders create this whole other world of
infractions, where it's OK because it's not really cheating, it's doing what
needs to be done to stay in the game, or recover, or whatever. I think the
#1 reason the riders don't look at it as "cheating" is because it doesn't
change the podium.

No, the media have done no such thing.
I speak of what the riders think. The
media is irrelevant.

--
Michael Press