Tour de France '04
Posted by: ErikL on 03 July 2004
Go Tyler, go!
I hope the Spaniards on Phonak can help him through the mountains, and that he avoids another broken clavicle. Plus he's 34 and I get the feeling it's now or never!
I'm tired of Armstrong and Ullrich, but if Hamilton can't do it I'd be amused to see Ullrich as Armstrong's little wench yet again.
I hope the Spaniards on Phonak can help him through the mountains, and that he avoids another broken clavicle. Plus he's 34 and I get the feeling it's now or never!
I'm tired of Armstrong and Ullrich, but if Hamilton can't do it I'd be amused to see Ullrich as Armstrong's little wench yet again.
Posted on: 31 July 2004 by Mike in PA, USA
Even if the whole peleton is drugged, that only raises the level playing field. The danger in doping is not that it is unfair, it is that it is unhealthly, and that is why substances should be banned. Athletes may be pressured by team management to comply with team "medical programs" and that is wrong, but if they are all doping, then they are all doping. It is true that some individuals may respond differently to performance enhancing substances (some may get more a benefit than others), but I still don't believe doping can make a tour winner out of a nobody. Training, and perhaps to a greater extent genetics, play a significant role in ability, PEDs are only a percent or two at the most. You cannot take away from the fact that Pantani was a great climber, and Armstrong is a great cyclist all around.
The big problem here is that competitive pressures are causing athletes to seek dangerous means of improving their performance, and in many cases this may be encouraged, or even mandated, by their teams.
The big problem here is that competitive pressures are causing athletes to seek dangerous means of improving their performance, and in many cases this may be encouraged, or even mandated, by their teams.
Posted on: 01 August 2004 by Nigel Cavendish
Patrick
My point is to do with the concept of natural and criminal justice: that someone is held to innocent until proven guilty.
You seem to take the view that, on the basis of doubt alone, or envy, spite, prejudice, someone should be condemned first and we'll worry about the proof later.
Is this the attitude you would take if summoned for jury service?
cheers
Nigel
My point is to do with the concept of natural and criminal justice: that someone is held to innocent until proven guilty.
You seem to take the view that, on the basis of doubt alone, or envy, spite, prejudice, someone should be condemned first and we'll worry about the proof later.
Is this the attitude you would take if summoned for jury service?
cheers
Nigel
Posted on: 01 August 2004 by Former member
quote:Clearly not, but as I said about 3 pages back I don't think those standards of 'proof' apply where cheating in sport is concerned: I think the onus is on the 'champion' to prove to us he's worthy of the label.
Is this the attitude you would take if summoned for jury service?
I'm not seeking to send Lance to Jail (although I suppose if he is cheating, he is probably guilty of fraud and gaining money by deception), I'm simply asking him to do a couple of reasonable things (see my earlier posts), before I give him my undying love and due admiration for his great achievement.
That doesn't only apply to Lance; I shall watch the Olympic Games in a couple of weeks, and wonder whether I am watching heros or cheats.
Posted on: 01 August 2004 by Tim Jones
I'm sure all pontential contributors to any threads on the Olympics will be really looking forward to your input Patrick.
Tim
Tim
Posted on: 01 August 2004 by long-time-dead
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Dixon:
I think the onus is on the 'champion' to prove to us he's worthy of the label.
I think he did - by winning.
The authorities in charge of the race did perform tests on all the top teams. That should be good enough for the fair minded.
What should be enforced is the random testing during all times of the season and at a totally random time, without prior notice.
Posted on: 01 August 2004 by ErikL
Tim,
Posted on: 01 August 2004 by Mike in PA, USA
My question is still why is Lance singled out just because he won, and because he won the GC at that? What about Verenque, who stayed away for quite a while on some very long solo mountain breakaways to claim the climbers jersey? AND what about all the other riders? I guarantee that IF Lance is doping, he is DEFINATELY not the only one.
Posted on: 01 August 2004 by Bruce Woodhouse
Just to return to the point raised in Mike's article-I have some issues with that. Seems to me that ultimately an athlete should be responsible for the products that they put into their body. I accept that they are in vulnerable situations and may perhaps be replaced if they refuse to follow team orders but until the cyclists (or other sportsman) take the step of refusing and then naming/shaming those who offer drugs then little will change. It has hardly been the case that those athletes who have apparently exposed doping have been lauded as heroes either.
Athletes will only refuse drugs if they believe they will a) be caught b) if caught are banned completely for life from that sport. Neither of these criteria is met at present so we mostly rely on morality in a competitive environment where winning has very great reward, and morality does not pay the same wages.
Bruce
Athletes will only refuse drugs if they believe they will a) be caught b) if caught are banned completely for life from that sport. Neither of these criteria is met at present so we mostly rely on morality in a competitive environment where winning has very great reward, and morality does not pay the same wages.
Bruce
Posted on: 02 August 2004 by Former member
quote:Back to those 'brave' personal comments again Tim. Just because drugs in sport is not an issue for you, doesn't mean we all have to share your view.
I'm sure all pontential contributors to any threads on the Olympics will be really looking forward to your input Patrick.
Posted on: 02 August 2004 by matthewr
I think the point is, Patrick, that your rather uncompromsing and, arguably, rather pious attitude allows no room for enjoying cycling. Other people seem able to be concerned and appalled by its well known problems with drugs and still manage to enjoy the sport. You seem to think it, morally, mandates stopping watching and enjoying the sport.
Of course you have every right to stop watching the sport becuase of its problems but to argue that others should inhernetly adopt your moral standards is wrong headed IMHO.
I watch Baseball and I know a bunch of them are on drugs but it doesn't really spoil my enjoyment. I wish it would stop and think the game should take the issue more seriously but I am not going to stop watching becuase of the drugs rumours however unpleasant and uncomfrotable they may be. I think most people take this view so when you come along with an attiutde which (more or less) says "Stop watching or you support drugs" you are going to annoy people. Annoy them enough and they will be rude.
There is also a question of double standards. Football has drugs (not as many as cycling but it still has drugs), financial corruption is endemic, many of its star players have drug and sex orgies, etc. Morally you might want to stop watching football for the similar reasons.
Personally I think the problem with drugs in sport, especially athletics, is that people will stop watching. But they wont stop watching beucase people are taking drugs, they will stop watching beucase all the stars have been banned for taking drugs. So bans don't stop drugs but they do seem to ruin sports -- which is why somebody needs to approach the problem froma different angle.
Matthew
Of course you have every right to stop watching the sport becuase of its problems but to argue that others should inhernetly adopt your moral standards is wrong headed IMHO.
I watch Baseball and I know a bunch of them are on drugs but it doesn't really spoil my enjoyment. I wish it would stop and think the game should take the issue more seriously but I am not going to stop watching becuase of the drugs rumours however unpleasant and uncomfrotable they may be. I think most people take this view so when you come along with an attiutde which (more or less) says "Stop watching or you support drugs" you are going to annoy people. Annoy them enough and they will be rude.
There is also a question of double standards. Football has drugs (not as many as cycling but it still has drugs), financial corruption is endemic, many of its star players have drug and sex orgies, etc. Morally you might want to stop watching football for the similar reasons.
Personally I think the problem with drugs in sport, especially athletics, is that people will stop watching. But they wont stop watching beucase people are taking drugs, they will stop watching beucase all the stars have been banned for taking drugs. So bans don't stop drugs but they do seem to ruin sports -- which is why somebody needs to approach the problem froma different angle.
Matthew
Posted on: 02 August 2004 by Former member
quote:Thank you so much for allowing me that right Matthew, but I don't think I ever argued that others should not watch - simply that they should be aware of what they were watching
Of course you have every right to stop watching the sport becuase of its problems but to argue that others should inhernetly adopt your moral standards is wrong headed IMHO.
quote:Who said I watch football?
Morally you might want to stop watching football for the similar reasons.