Brett’s recent post about Jensie brings up the dilemma of professional cycling for me. I admire many of cycling’s famous riders yet I don’t admire cheaters. Luckily for me I can fervently embrace opposable ideas within my consciousness and sleep well at night. Which also means I would have been one of those cheaters. I also see the tangled, messy, complicated history of professional cycling and embrace it but not too tightly.
Edwig Van Hooydonk and Inga Thompson were two hugely talented racers who retired in their prime rather than dope. I wish I had the moral fortitude of either of them. Inga was the best American female road cyclist in her time and until recently, an important part of her story went untold.
Warning: If you are American this is guaranteed to piss you off. The upper level of the United States Cycling Federation was as compromised and immoral as the UCI of Hein Verbruggen’s day. The point of this rambling rant is to introduce people to this interview, so ignore the rest of this post, if you must and read it.
When the experienced adults and coaches in the room are pushing youth toward doping, what chance does a young ambitious racer have? Inga rode for 7-Eleven seemingly as a one woman team. I remember watching the women’s races before the 7-Eleven dominated men’s races and there she was, beautiful, powerful, a long braid safely pinned to her jersey. Inga slayed all. She did have this to say about her experience with the men’s squad.
“My friend [name withdrawn], who was on those 7-Eleven men’s teams when I was on their women’s program -he has tons of doping stories from that time. I’m still surprised that no one has written a book specifically about the doping on that team – way before the whole U.S. Postal mess.”
Yes please, I would read the hell out of that book.
Let us not forget, every war that has ever been waged has been fought on the backs of eighteen year old young men. They will do anything. Doing up some crank to make sure your team wins that day’s criterium, that is not a problem.
I have to always remind myself, the real cycling is each of us, riding for our own reasons: joy rides, deposits at the pain bank, Cogals, Keepers Tours or the occasional amateur race. I never had to make that ethical doping decision, thankfully.
Recent musing from the V-bunker were about a little espresso as good quality legal doping. In 2014 the pros are still enjoying a little legal pot belge of crushed up pain killers and caffeine to get them to the finish. This is legal?
It is a common practice to use a mix of water, caffeine and pain killers. This can make you quite crazy, which is why I have never used it. I don’t want to, and it seems quite dangerous. -Mini Phinney.
Do I want to draw a line between these two stories? There are a few actually, the obvious one is between Davis Phinney, a long standing member of the 7-Eleven cycling team and his son Taylor Phinney, now racing for BMC. I’m fans of both of them and maybe I do need drugs to sleep well. Taylor is outspoken on his ambition to make cycling a cleaner sport. The second is Jim Ochowicz, the original 7-Eleven team manager and presently manager at BMC. Who is mixing up those bidons of caffeine and pain killers, Jim?
A forthright book about 7-Eleven’s powerhouse days would shed some light on a lot of things. Bob Roll, get busy.
I know as well as any of you that I've been checked out lately, kind…
Peter Sagan has undergone quite the transformation over the years; starting as a brash and…
The Women's road race has to be my favorite one-day road race after Paris-Roubaix and…
Holy fuckballs. I've never been this late ever on a VSP. I mean, I've missed…
This week we are currently in is the most boring week of the year. After…
I have memories of my life before Cycling, but as the years wear slowly on…
View Comments
@therealpeel
I think if you asked fans they would prefer the sport to be clean. Barry Bonds isn't exactly a hero is he.
But NFL and Baseball are more businesses than sports so it isn't surprising that they persuade the fans they are getting what they really want.
And people are usually quite happy to ignore the nasty background and concentrate on the immediate gratification - otherwise chicken nuggets wouldn't exist.
I read a very interesting article last week about the decline in the ratings and attendance of baseball games since the steroid ban, which on the surface appears to have caused fewer home runs and generally less excitement.
But it also noted that camera technology was brought in at the same time and there's been a huge effect on strike calls - it has effectively extended the bottom of the strike area by 10-15% and pitchers are more likely to throw low breaking pitches which previously would often have been called as Balls. Then you have the effect of batters being behind the count and playing more conservatively.Fascinating analysis, both for the unintended consequences of merely enforcing something which was supposed to happen anyway, and also for the danger of confusing correlation and causation.
@andrew I think you missed the part about my not endorsing doping or defending Lance. My issue is with double standards, where some dopers are held in high esteem on this site and others are vilified.
My other point was that, in my opinion, doping will continue as long as their is financial gain and a lack of effective analytical methods.
@Mikael Liddy It needs to be said every time someone misunderstands. Again, I don't endorse doping, but in the example you gave, the playing field wasn't level because you compared a doper to a non-doper. I do, however, understand and very much appreciate your point.
@TheFish
it seems in fact that you missed his point. @Mikael Liddy is not comparing a non doper to a doper, he is comparing two humans with different physiological characteristics, where one has a natural hematocrit level of 41 and we can assume is able to keep up with another with a natural level of 47, given that they are both racing the same race at the world tour level. by raising his crit level to 50, mr. 41 sees a 21.9% increase to his crit level, whereas mr. 47 only sees a 6.4% increase. obviously one of them is better off, and its not mr.47
also, @andrew in fact explained to you why some dopers are held in lesser esteem than others. Lance is considered an asshole not because he doped (which certainly doesnt help his case) but because of the manner in which he acted while he doped.
@mpalazzi92 "in fact" you misunderstood
@Mikael Liddy I understood your argument and agree. My question is: Given that some people will always cheat, would it be more fair if everyone had the same 'crit level through doping, than to let some of the people cheat while the honest ones get screwed.
Mountain climbers can use an altitude tent http://www.hypoxico.com/about-altitude/ to adjust blood composition. Do you think this would be cheating if used in a bike race? This is likely impractical, but it's interesting to think about what constitutes cheating and what is simply "training."
@ChrisO Nicely said, after more reflection I would agree that it is more multi-faceted than just what the fans "want." I guess I just get tired of the time spent on doping and want to find a culprit.
@TheFish
I didn't say anything about you endorsing doping or defending anything. If you -- just for a minute -- accept that most of the peloton doped for a while some years ago, and if -- stay with me -- you assume at least some of them weren't arseholes, then there is no double standard. You just don't have to judge douchery or esteem purely by doping history. Easy, see?
You seem to have argued (I use the word loosely) a couple of different ways in your posts above regarding hematocrit levels, but ignored the financial and health aspects. There is no 'level playing field' in sport; different athletes have different access to training quality, technology, team-mates, etc. Doping is no different, apart from being, well, illegal and counter to the spirit of the sport. (I'll get arguments about the final point, but if it had ever been in the spirit, why the history of dissembling and outrage?) I also get slightly shirty when people talk about the idea of 'if everyone is cheating' when there were those who didn't, and also those who died because they were betrayed by those the trusted and respected.
Most of the great stories are great because there was no level playing field; it's the performance against the odds that makes them compelling.