updated below
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Ken Abe
>>>Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 7:43 AM
>>>Subject: Re: D20: NO JAN ULLRICH IN THE TOUR
>>>
>>>Definitely a blow to the image of cycling.
in what way is it a blow to the image of cycling? i'm not asking this as a rhetorical question.
There are years and years of history of doping in the peleton. just this morning, i was getting an ebay auction together for an old copy of paris match with a great picture of louison bobet on the cover and photos inside of a rider who dies while riding the tour and the controvery surrounding the "race doctor" and the issues of "dopage". the date is julliet, 1955.
and not much has changed. recent studies have shown that among professional sports, cycling has the highest positive rates. look at the festina affair. read the books of the people who were really involved. look at the raids that the italians have been conducting since 1999. look at the ferocious coverage of lance in the french press. look at the sad trajectory that musseuw's career took at the end. can you count the number of cycling heroes who have served suspensions? are we still hoping that tyler hamilton will be able to race, like a phoenix rising from the ashes?

seriously man, there's not a lot left to tarnish. but i think you're looking at it in the wrong context. you're saying this is a blow to the image of cycling. it's only a blow to the image of cycling if you held these guys out as some sort of gods: classic, heroic ideals of sport. their bodies are temples. the competition is fair and well won. that shit may have played back when you won a wreath of olive branches.

in my limited travels to other countries, i've never seen the kind of puritanical zeal against doping that we seem to have here. note that i'm not saying doping is good, i'm just saying that cycling in it's current format (a professional sport with sanctioning bodies and sponsors and budgets, salaries and staffs which would make formula 1 and nascar team owners blush) is not some sort of idealized and fair compeititon. it's been almost two millenia since that was the case for most any sport. now, cycling is a business. big business.
your statement may be true for companies that try to use professional cycling for marketing. so maybe we should have a moment of silence for the big name sponsors whose stock prices may take a hit and who's quarter over quarter sales may be impacted. but cycling is so much more than that. cycling is us racing for fun on weeknights and the weekends. cycling is spinning along skyline drive. cycling is taking your kids out on the trail. cycling is so much more than you're making it out to be. check with these guys, they know what time it is.
let's be clear that with the notable exception of the recent arrival of fuentes, the larger doping issues don't really matter a whole lot around here. we'll all still watch tour stages. we'll all still ride and race our bikes and commute to work. nothing has really changed that affects us.
update
I had thought everyone pretty much had this in perspective. i was incorrect. for that i apologize.
>>>-----Original Message----
>>>From: Dwayne Neal
>>>Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 11:49 AM
>>>To: uscf-district20@topica.com
>>>Performance Enhan...
>>>
>>>You so casually call the defamation of characters and the loss of career
>>>simply a matter of entertainment. I think the confusion here is that the
>>>whole picture is not being considered in context. The people that have
>>>the most invested in the sport are not the advertisers/sponsors, it is the
>>>athletes. To just casually say that what happens to them does not matter
>>>as long as the integrity of the sport is saved is not logical or the kind of
>>>justice all people deserve. The integrity of the sport, indeed all
>>>sports, has been lost a long time ago. What has not been lost is the integrity
>>>of individual athletes until recently when anyone who has been successful
>>>has been casually accused of illegally enhancing his/her performance. The
>>>issue of whether or not drug use is criminal, in the end, is irrelevent (except
>>>for the individual athlete).
yes, we all owe a huge apology. where to start? raffy palmiero? barry bonds? tyler hamilton? casting aspersions on these people would be terrible. these people only lied. repeatedly. in the case of the former under oath, and in the case of the latter, on the body of his beloved and recently deceased dog tugboat. that they had not taken performance enhacing drugs. period. pinnacles of virtue.
now no one said that everyone in the tour is doped. but you just have it ass-backwards. bill brings the info...
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Cusmano
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 10:58 AM
Let's not get too confused here about the difference between a criminal justice system and what is going on with the current pulling of riders from tomorrow's Tour start. Yes, the suspensions or whatever they are involve the livelihood of these people, reputations, etc. -- all that is true. But they are not criminal prosecutions. What is at stake is the perceived integrity and therefore the entertainment value of what is, at bottom, entertainment. Commercial entertainment. If the public perceives professional cycling as a dirty enterprise, the whole point of why the trade sponsors pour their money into cycling disappears. Poof. The whole deal becomes a loser for the people who put the money up.
Which the sponsors really would like to avoid. If that costs the riders their "presumption of innocence" in a civil, non-criminal context, so be it. They have no presumption of innocence, unless it's in their contracts, which I have to doubt. Likely their contracts give their masters, the trade sponsors, much more control over the riders' destinies than that. It's just the deal they struck because they could. That's commerce, that's entertainment.
this is all about money and sponsors. i've seen statements from the aso basically stating the position that doping is a sponsorship problem. from the perspective of the organizers, i'm not saying that they don't care about development of the sport or the health of the riders, though i think we've all snickered about the fact that riders with hematocrits over 50 are given a "holiday" for "health reasons". what a joke. this is basically analagous to an office drug policy. it's not illegal to take them. it's illegal to get caught because it reflects poorly on the organization.
oh, and you're unpatriotic if you quesiton the morality of people who work in an environment like this.
- - - posted by scott