Aquarius wrote:
Keep in mind a couple of things :

- Doping doesn't work the same for every one. Imagine both of us would be clean and have exactly the same level. Then we'd start the same doping program, and keep training the same. It's unlikely that we would react to the dope in the very same way.
How fair would it be to legalise doping then ?

- Doping hurts dope heads bodies on the mid or long term. Many of them will get various cancers, diseases, etc. Did you ever read about Gianni Bugno ? Or Berzin ?
You can't wish the same thing for other cyclists, unless you're a sadistic bastard, but you're not one, are you ?
Another thing : in my country, the health system is financed by the nation. With my money then. I don't want to pay for guys who will destroy their own body on purpose, in order to gain shitloads of money that I'd never earn in 5 lives.

- Would you force guys who don't want to poison themselves to take dope too ? Or would you tell those guys that it's fair that some others take pills to be stronger than them ? That's not the spirit of sport, I reckon.

Guido Mukk wrote:
I am shure your attention are good and yes I am also shured that most of the top riders is some how involved with doping.
They test a lot ..but they should do that even more. They should punish positive riders for two years ban right away if A and B result showing same result (dont need that stupid half year lenght court marathons). 2 (maybe 3) year ban is enough for first timers..to give them a chance to come back (belive me it isnt easy for them).
If they have a proof wich doctor is insolved - Nice if they had possibility to take away this guy licence to practise to cure even cold in the future (because they have a corrupt-money doctors and dont give a shit about peoples health).
It's very hard fight because every one likes to play with limits ( alphouses-greated at first to finish ski team). Astma cures etc.
Fight against it is very complicated and also political issue..but it should be done. Because if not, we dont we lose a meaning what sport really means its about movment and health.

Enqlebass wrote:
I believe that every one of the TOP-RIDERS are doped some way or another. But I really don't care about it.. Instead of detroying the cycle-sport with these scandals all the time they should just accept the fact that doping will always be in sports and particular cycling.

If they just legalize it, it would be the same for every rider and they would compete on equal terms. Then it's just who is in the best shape who will win.

And Cycling is still exciting eventhough they are doped right ??

sakai5 wrote:

I'm not accusing no one, but you literally mean that 150 riders are doped? (in grand Tours) I think they take energy bars and liquids just to recover faster for the day stage.
Top rider: Shelck doped? Ricco doped?
What are we watching? New talents or new dopers?
I think new talents because they don't dope they eat a lot of Corn Flakes

Guido Mukk wrote:
So if Di Luca,Mazoleni etc. gets little help with doping to get bit better then Schleck is lousy rider and only doping give him a wings in climbs?
Schleck brothers is 3-rd. generation cyclist..also good rider Fränk was warning to the cycling world that ..ok about me but my brother is coming.

sakai5 wrote:
You (Enqlebass) have a very scary theory.
I think that it would be approved in the 90s, but nowadays is not the case. T-mobile is doing a great job to clean their name, and stand against doping. However there is some mystery around Gonchar.

SportingNonsense wrote:
No offence, but I really dislike cycling fans such of you.

When someones goes well - instead of putting it down to talent, you put it down to doping.

Enqlebass wrote:


Non taken .. I don't put it down to doping.. If you read it through.. I said that doping doesn't make it all.. "Just keep in mind that doping is not doing all the hard work for you. It just gives to a litte extra" (quotation from one of my former posts) How do you interpretate that ?? It just gives you a little extra = If you don't have a talent at all you can't be the best no matter how doped you are.

cmfos wrote:

I do understand where you are coming from Englebass. These days, the accomplishments of the riders are completely overshadowed by the doping allegations. I find it very distracting and, as you rightly point out, it is killing the sport. . . slowly. And certainly if you decide to enjoy the sport for what it is today, a set of highly trained and talented athletes many of whom could be taking banned substances: if you can accept that, then the races are no less competitive than they have ever been. DiLuca won the Giro by what, 2 minutes? Hell, Cunego whips on everybody in PCM, winning by 10 minutes or more. How competitive is that, watching him win every single mountain stage!

So cycling is still exciting as hell. For myself though, I would very much like to see the sport cleaned up, for the following reasons

1) Say what you'd like but doping puts rider health at risk. I believe in the 90s, a group of Belgian cyclists died during races due to extraordinarily high hematocrit levels brought on by illegal doping. Prolonged steroid use also has major permanent detrimental health effects. You can say, "Well the riders have a choice to do this. No one is forcing them to!". But then you consider a rider like Alex Zulle who was once quoted as saying that he could dope, and ride professionally as a cyclist and make lots of money, or not dope, and then just paint houses in the summer. That's a powerful inducement to cheat! And even if a particular rider doesn't get as much a boost from the doping as Zulle, these athletes are so very competitive that I'm sure they will do whatever they can to get an edge on their opponents. It's just how they are and we love them for their competitive nature.

2) If the riders dope, then you get into the murky world of their success. If DiLuca wins the Giro, and he's clean, you can attribute his success to talent, hard work, a good team around him, good equipment, better training etc. But if he's doped up, wellll, then you have to wonder if his pharmacology is a bit better than the guy who finished second. Maybe DiLuca just had a better cocktail of drugs in his system that enabled him to beat Schleck who had a cocktail that wasn't as good. Doping minimizes the human side of the sport and instead puts doubts into the mind of the fans.

3) There is no reason to dope! The races will be every bit as exciting and competitive and as wonderful to watch if the athletes aren't taking the stuff. Unlike track sports where a sprinter is trying to set the world record in the 100 m dash at the Olympics, in cycling, the absolute amount of time it takes to finish the stage doesn't matter. If Freire finished Milan San Remo 2 minutes ahead of Petacchi's time in 2006, no one cares! What matters is that Oscar won the godamned race! it's the competitive aspect of the sport that fans crave and this is the same whether the riders dope or not.

Anyway, those are my reasons for continuing to stamp this out. I know that we'll probably never be free of the spectre of doping and that will always have to fight it. But that doesn't mean the fight isn't worth it.

Smoothie wrote:
. ( sorry did something by accident )

Phanekim wrote:
Seems like Piepoli, Mayo, and Petacchi failed their tests. lol.