Dopers suck

[dre]

If the technology is there to use lets use it.

I know i am wrong but listen me out here:

To me anything that is Performance enhancing must be banded then. 12 speed bikes should go then.

Your supplements on and off the bike that enhances your performance should go then. .

If epo and the lot is performance enhancers why not use it? 

if you can build a safe bike as light as you want allow it. 

If we want to use stuff in our bottles to make us race harder faster or recover better why not use the best stuff!

 

Yeah no, agree with Squire here.

 

It is very much black and white:

Banned substances - banned for EVERYONE

Rules regarding bikes and gear used - same for EVERYONE

The rest is legal and available to EVERYONE - supplements, nutrition, gear, etc..

 

This is how the playing field is even. 

 

Every now and then the regulatory bodies catch up with science and research, and then either ban something new, or un-ban (if this is a word?) something that was on the banned substances list; but while something is on that WADA list it is very simple - don't use it. 

 

The debate on whether it SHOULD be as above is a longer one, but this is the way it is...for now.

[DieselnDust]

Don't think I agree. To what extent supplements are performance enhancing is debateable, however, it can definitely not be grouped in the same category as drugs like testosterone, HGH, steroids and EPO.

 

Giving everyone in the pro-peleton free reign with EPO would not be the issue. It'll be managed by team doctors so should theoretically be pretty safe. The issue comes in when this culture starts to fizzle down to the non-pro peletons of the sport. Juniors deciding to dope themselves etc. We've all heard the stories of people not waking up the next morning.

 

The other thing is; imagine one of your kids were keen on cycling and now needed to inject themselves with all kinds of drugs just to have a chance of getting in...

 

 

Bingo!

the biggest health issues arise from abuse of HGH and testosterone. This also has the biggest impact on adolescent bodies and hence ban the crap out of it. And its abuse of these drugs that should be criminalized. 

There is probably a few others that should be treated the same way but the lower order stuff is really just trimmings giving you an extra 1-2%.

[Quagga]

yeah, Hincapie already proved that rule to be worthless. 

The Epic rule is from a certain date, Hincapie was before said date

[Skubarra]

I always find this argument a bit illogical. If true they must all be doping because the pros seem to always have sponsors. Sure there is a tie ring of sponsors as there is all sports. Sponsors are looking for the best return on investment. That means they will look for the sportsmen and women who are either exceptional or willing to do what it takes to get to the top because that’s what corporates want and identify with. They are not looking for people who hope and pray. They want athletes with a plan. Doping is just on element of a plan and a risk element that is easily managed with exit clauses. Hence I found the whole Oakley, Trek, USPS, thing wit. lance to be a big joke because they knew what was going on. Our local boys sponsors know what’s going on. They are managing the risk just the same.

If no athlete doped then sponsors would be looking only for the exceptional athletes and there’s far fewer of them so therefore fewer sponsors too.

And herein lie the dilemmas ...

 

There might be some truth in this but certainly not in all cases. I remember when DG got pinged Nedbank immediately suspended the sponsorship of the whole 360Life team and Nedbank never bothered to sponsor a pro team since - hard to argue that things like that doesn't hurt the sport. I am sure there are potential team sponsors that keep away from the sport or stick with sponsoring funrides because they wont risk being tainted by being associated with dopers.

[Danger Dassie]

There might be some truth in this but certainly not in all cases. I remember when DG got pinged Nedbank immediately suspended the sponsorship of the whole 360Life team and Nedbank never bothered to sponsor a pro team since - hard to argue that things like that doesn't hurt the sport. I am sure there are potential team sponsors that keep away from the sport or stick with sponsoring funrides because they wont risk being tainted by being associated with dopers.

Also recall how many wanted to take DG and burn him at the stake, mainly because he isn't a 'likeable' character or some such. 

Yet out of all the busts he was pretty much the only person who put his hands up and took the punishment without any stories or self victmising. 

Like him or loathe him, personally have some respect for that.

[Quagga]

Classy Brandon, just like one night at Sani

Can you tell us what happened? I have hear many references to this night but no-one has ever told the full story?

[Andrew Steer]

There might be some truth in this but certainly not in all cases. I remember when DG got pinged Nedbank immediately suspended the sponsorship of the whole 360Life team and Nedbank never bothered to sponsor a pro team since - hard to argue that things like that doesn't hurt the sport. I am sure there are potential team sponsors that keep away from the sport or stick with sponsoring funrides because they wont risk being tainted by being associated with dopers.

The whole Neotel sponsorship and team folded on Nolan's positive... there are plenty more examples. And it's hard not to pick up the negative public perception on doping in cycling. Some large co's will not touch the sport as a result of that perception...

 

Some might even say it's the reason many other sports are a little casual with their anti-doping efforts... 

[Danger Dassie]

The whole Neotel sponsorship and team folded on Nolan's positive... there are plenty more examples. And it's hard not to pick up the negative public perception on doping in cycling. Some large co's will not touch the sport as a result of that perception...

 

Some might even say it's the reason many other sports are a little casual with their anti-doping efforts... 

Like schools rugby .... 

[Danger Dassie]

Interestingly CSA/head of MTB have issued no statement or support. Zero since Carmen Buchacher's sanction.

[DieselnDust]

The whole Neotel sponsorship and team folded on Nolan's positive... there are plenty more examples. And it's hard not to pick up the negative public perception on doping in cycling. Some large co's will not touch the sport as a result of that perception...

 

Some might even say it's the reason many other sports are a little casual with their anti-doping efforts... 

 

the Neotel thing I believe was smoke and mirrors. Neotel was rumoured to be looking at getting out because the cost to beenfit just wasn't there. the team needed results to attract another sponsor.

the stars aligned they exited after Nolan was caught. 

Many times the sponsorship is tenuous already and the doping violation is just a convenient excuse.

For companies not directly involved in cycling the justification to sponsor cyclists is really generally about someone in senior managements passion for cycling and built on weak business cases. Those sponsors would be lost anyway. Call them disruptors if you like.

If sponsors were that concerned about reputation then one needs to consider the behaviour of sponsors to whom the sport in question is core business.

Nike didn't stop making cycling shoes because of doping. 

[Skubarra]

the Neotel thing I believe was smoke and mirrors. Neotel was rumoured to be looking at getting out because the cost to beenfit just wasn't there. the team needed results to attract another sponsor.

the stars aligned they exited after Nolan was caught. 

Many times the sponsorship is tenuous already and the doping violation is just a convenient excuse.

For companies not directly involved in cycling the justification to sponsor cyclists is really generally about someone in senior managements passion for cycling and built on weak business cases. Those sponsors would be lost anyway. Call them disruptors if you like.

If sponsors were that concerned about reputation then one needs to consider the behaviour of sponsors to whom the sport in question is core business.

Nike didn't stop making cycling shoes because of doping. 

 

Nike is not really the best example because they often go for controversial athletes (disruptors if you like) - that is part of their brand.

 

I cannot think of a single very large bank or financial company sponsoring a local cycling team (despite the growth of the sport the last few years) yet almost everyone sponsor a big fun ride or stage race  - cannot be a coincidence.

[Craai]

Ironman now own Cape Epic... hopefully they can embrace the Cape Epics life time ban rule 

Was thinking the same thing, let's hope...

[DieselnDust]

Nike is not really the best example because they often go for controversial athletes (disruptors if you like) - that is part of their brand.

 

I cannot think of a single very large bank or financial company sponsoring a local cycling team (despite the growth of the sport the last few years) yet almost everyone sponsor a big fun ride or stage race  - cannot be a coincidence.

 

 

marketing value on an event is much higher than for a team.

Easier to manage your risk.

In Europe, because of the ease of commerce afforded by the EU, large financial institutions do sponsor teams as those teams are cheaper than flighting adverts in 7 different languages on highly competitive broadcasting networks. Risk reward is skewed more favourably. And look at the banks sponsoring the cyclist teams ; mostly agricultural banks. They also haven't bailed on the sport until their focus shifts to a different platform

SA is a small market. much easier or banks to appeal to the well healed customers through hospitality at events then through sponsoring a team of cyclists. Nedbacnk sponsoring Kevin and co was an anomaly. Not many saw what they were trying to do and I suspect it was a crime of passion

[Andrew Steer]

the Neotel thing I believe was smoke and mirrors. Neotel was rumoured to be looking at getting out because the cost to beenfit just wasn't there. the team needed results to attract another sponsor.

the stars aligned they exited after Nolan was caught. 

Many times the sponsorship is tenuous already and the doping violation is just a convenient excuse.

For companies not directly involved in cycling the justification to sponsor cyclists is really generally about someone in senior managements passion for cycling and built on weak business cases. Those sponsors would be lost anyway. Call them disruptors if you like.

If sponsors were that concerned about reputation then one needs to consider the behaviour of sponsors to whom the sport in question is core business.

Nike didn't stop making cycling shoes because of doping. 

 

I was close enough to the Neotel sponsorship to tell you that was absolutely not the case. The main driving force behind the team was absolutely gutted to pull the plug, but it was his call to do so. They had specifically put a clause into the sponsorship stating as much... as a deterrent, yet it still went South when a rider crossed the line and cost all his friends their jobs...

The owner could of kept it going, but he was adamant a stance must be made.

 

Not that it ever seems to change anything - but it was a noble act at the time. That team found a lot of talent at least 

[obree]

the Neotel thing I believe was smoke and mirrors. Neotel was rumoured to be looking at getting out because the cost to beenfit just wasn't there. the team needed results to attract another sponsor.

the stars aligned they exited after Nolan was caught. 

Many times the sponsorship is tenuous already and the doping violation is just a convenient excuse.

For companies not directly involved in cycling the justification to sponsor cyclists is really generally about someone in senior managements passion for cycling and built on weak business cases. Those sponsors would be lost anyway. Call them disruptors if you like.

If sponsors were that concerned about reputation then one needs to consider the behaviour of sponsors to whom the sport in question is core business.

Nike didn't stop making cycling shoes because of doping. 

 

Just some useless information.... Nike never made the shoes themselves, DMT make Cavendish's shoes and put Nike branding on them

[DieselnDust]

Just some useless information.... Nike never made the shoes themselves, DMT make Cavendish's shoes and put Nike branding on them

 

 

I am also referring to an era in the 90's. Not sure who made the Nike shoes back then. But the point is they stopped because it was a weak business case