Word on the street (at least according to Agence France Presse) is that T-Mobile, the German telecommunications company, may be about to ditch T-Mobile, the professional cycling team. And if they do, the ongoing saga of Patrick Sinkewitz may have a great deal to do with the demise of the long-standing sponsorship arrangement. More to the point, Sinkewitz may be the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.
As AFP reports:
Despite their contract running for another three years, German telecommunications giants Deutsche Telekom are meeting this week to discuss the possibility of ending their sponsorship of T-Mobile.
Stefan Althoff, who is chief of the company’s sponsorship portfolio, said their contract runs until 2010 but admitted that Sinkewitz’s confessions has forced a rethink.
Althoff told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: “We could go on as if nothing has happened. (But) new information has come to light, and we can’t ignore it.
“Theoretically, we could end our (sponsorship) contract, the question is more to do with under what conditions we do it.”
The question is what to make of Althoff’s last comment. Theoretically they can end their contract. Sure, theoretically, anything is possible — if you have an escape clause, some good lawyers, or both. The question is: With the ongoing revelations and allegations of organized doping activities at T-Mobile in years past, are these the kinds of conditions that T-Mobile will use to walk away from the sport? The way Althoff’s statement is being reported suggests (at least to a cynical mind) that they are building a case to drop the cycling team like a hot potato.
Allegations of wide-spread doping in professional cycling are old news. Such stories have been around about as long as there have been journalists writing about the sport. Any organization that gets into a sponsorship deal with a professional team — especially a European sponsor funding one of the most prominent European teams for a sport that is the equivalent of baseball or basketball in the United States — ought to have done due diligence and understand what, exactly, they’re getting into. Sort of like someone buying the naming rights for … oh, I don’t know, maybe Giants stadium … and then being shocked, shocked I tell you, to find out there’s doping going on in baseball. Sad to say, but it comes with the territory.
What’s changed over the years is not that there is more or less doping now than way back when. What’s changed are our attitudes towards doping. When Danish cyclist Knud Enemark Jensen died of sunstroke, with a possible link to amphetamine use, while competing in the team time trial at the Rome Olympics in 1960, here’s what Robert Oubron, the coach of the French Olympic cycling team told The New York Times:
Many pros are drugged, of course, but we don’t drug amateurs.
Almost 50 years ago it was acceptable — almost expected, even — that professional athletes were doping. Today, not so much.
Any company sponsoring a cycling team over the last 50 years ought to have known how their athletes were training and racing. The implicit bargain between those sponsoring and those sponsored is this: You win races and give us some good publicity, and we’ll give you money for equipment, salaries and whatever else it takes to win. Bad publicity was neither encouraged nor wanted. To think that a company like T-Mobile didn’t know at least some of what was going on with the team from the moment they started writing them checks is a bit far-fetched.
The reason T-Mobile might bail out now is clearly all the bad publicity from all of the scandals over the last year. Former riders Bjarne Riis and Erik Zabel admitted that they used EPO while members of the magenta and black crew. Two team doctors were sacked in May after they admitted to supplying various riders with banned substances over the years. And then there’s Sinkewitz, busted for using testosterone in during a training camp in June, who is providing more and more detail to allegations of systematic doping at the German squad.
There’s an old saying that “there’s no such thing as bad publicity.” With all the doping scandals that have hit professional cycling — and all professional sports — over the last few years, it’s time to rethink that saying. Apparently, there is such a thing as bad publicity, and it’s the scourge of demon dope driving sponsors and fans away from the sport.
If professional cycling is to survive, it’s going to take some sponsors with iron constitutions who are willing to weather the inevitable storms that will occur as the sport tries to right itself. When T-Mobile signed on for a few more years as the team’s title sponsor, they appeared to be bucking the trend of sponsors fleeing the sport. If T-Mobile does drop their sponsorship of the cycling team, they will just become the latest sponsor to flee.
Eventually another sponsor may come along to replace them. But when established sponsors drop out due to the ongoing anti-doping wars, it’s much harder to recruit a new Daddy Warbucks than if a sponsor merely decided to change course and go in a different direction. Without sponsors, professional cycling (and even amateur cycling) will wither away.
That would be a sad end to what has been a popular sport (OK, popular in other countries) for many years. We’ll still be able to go ride our bikes, and we’ll still be able to race against our buddies if we wish — even if it’s only informal races. But there’s a very real possibility that someday in the future, there will be no more stories of grit and determination as a rider performs some heroic achievement, simply because there will be no more pros and no more pro races.
Perhaps T-Mobile are just making the cycling team sweat in order to make the riders realize that the gravy train isn’t unlimited. For the long-term viability of the sport, some sponsors have to have the courage to stay with their teams through the hard times. There are huge benefits to be earned from seeing this tough period through. T-Mobile should stick with their team even if things will be rocky for a while longer. In the long-term it will do good for both the sponsor and the sponsored.
I think T-Mobile is meeting because for the first time – a SPONSOR is actually getting “close” to having embarrassing questioned asked. Like perhaps – how could no one at T-Mobile Not Know that there was doping going on?
–
If doping was, in the past such a widespread practice- then the sponsors, the Team personnel – had to have know. As the Sinkewitz story keeps coming out more – it is obvious that the “culture of doping” was not started by those “selfish, cheating, egocentric, money motivated, cheating, etc.,” pro-riders! Not if it involves a “culture of doping.”
–
T-Mobile is possibly bailing because for the first time, the SPONSOR is indirectly shown to be directly implicated. The whole “public” performance of T-Mobile has been to indicate “shock and dismay” – yeah – I bet they are shocked – the politicians in Germany and the “spin” has gotten out of their control.
–
It all means now that the SPONSOR will now have to answer “embarrassing questions!” One thing that the ultra conservative T-Mobile sponsor – does not wish is to be “implicated in being party to the doping. I think their “meeting” is just about this. The situation is making them vulnerable as a corporate entity that may just be found to be in a “conspiracy” of long standing.
–
And thems fighting words people – they do not want the blame shifted to them – as long as we all were hand fed the “spin” about cheating dopers, they felt safe. People like sponsors don’t like to be caught with their hands in the “cookie jar!”
–
Five hours of testimony from a “true-blond” participant – and all we are getting is “sound-bytes” in then paper. Anybody else wondering what the actual “testimony was all about?
OK, we’re onto my number one hot button topic: cycling and its sponsors.
…
The issue of sponsorship is the single most important issue in professional road cycling. It’s more important than doping (a sport can survive a doping scandal), it’s more important than the inequities in the ADA system. Like any professional sport, cycling needs money to survive. And unlike any other professional sport, professional cycling has no box office. You can’t charge people for the privilege of sitting on the side of a road and watching the peloton go by.
…
You want to solve the problem of doping in cycling? The first person you might want to consult might be a doctor or a scientist, but right after that you’d better talk to a banker or a wealthy patron, because better drug testing is going to cost you. (When the folks at WADA and UCI add up the costs of setting up and running their new “biological passport” program, you’ll begin to see what I mean.) You want a fairer system to decide cases like the FL case? Then you better save at least some of the money you raised for better drug testing, because better legal process is costly, too.
…
If the money is there, then anything is possible. But if the money runs out, then our problems get worse. Our sport deteriorates. It will go the way of indoor track cycling, which believe it or not was once a more popular sport (in New York City, at least) than professional basketball.
…
So. God Bless Our Sponsors.
…
OK, OK. We might all write letters to our congressmen about the evils of ADA arbitration, but we’re probably all too cynical to write a letter to CSC (a California software company, for heaven’s sake) to thank them for sponsoring a European cycling team. That’s ok, though. We can be as cynical as we want to be when it comes to cycling sponsorship. And we probably SHOULD be cynical. T-mobile doesn’t care about cycling. They sell cell phones. It doesn’t matter to t-mobile whether professional cycling lives or dies, and why should it? T-mobile exists to provide a rate of return for the people who invest in the company, to provide a living for tens of thousands of employees, and to provide a communications service to its customers. If cycling is really important to t-mobile, if they are willing to sacrifice profits or cut employee wages or provide a lower level of customer service just to make the cycling thing go, then something is seriously wrong over at t-mobile.
…
We can express all the surprise we want that t-mobile’s commitment to cycling is being affected by the doping scandals. We can accuse them of being naive, or even disingenuous. They didn’t know there was doping going on? Come on! I’m sure that ten years ago, sponsors told team management to win at any cost, in the knowledge that team management would use doping as a means to win. There may still be sponsors out there who think like that. Now sponsors want clean teams. What changed? Not the sponsors. The sponsors are here for the same reasons now as then: to make money. They haven’t changed.
…
WE changed.
…
It’s not up to t-mobile to do anything for cycling. That’s not the way this sponsorship thing works, and the faster we get that through our heads, the better off we’re going to be. No, think not about what the sponsors can do for you. Think about what you can do for the sponsors.
…
You can look at any individual sponsor, like t-mobile, and you can make excuses for why they’re leaving cycling, or teetering on the brink of leaving cycling. And it’s true that sponsors come, and sponsors go. Only lately, they’re going but not coming. I had a current list at one time of all the sponsors that have left the sport in the past couple of years. It was a long list.
…
So I’ll repeat. The sponsors don’t need us. T-mobile has a thousand different ways to generate publicity (POSITIVE publicity). We need the sponsors. We have no other way to generate the revenue we need to sustain the tours we love so much. So, the next time we sit down and think about the changes we’d like to make to the sport … we ought to think a little bit about t-mobile, and CSC, and Slipstream and Chipotle and anyone else crazy enough to get in bed with this sport … and we ought to ask them, is there anything you’d like while we’re up? Something cold to drink? No, no, it’s no trouble. We’re happy to do it.
Larry,
You make some very good points. Certainly the sponsors don’t need us as much as we need them. Then again, there are many times the cycling fans in Europe and other parts of the world as there are here. And they have money to spend on cell phones and other things, so they do need the cycling fans — at least a bit.
…
Given that T-Mobile has been on a path to creating a dope free team, and my own suspicion that part of the conversation last year with the title sponsor as they were looking to renew their contract had to do with cleaning up the cycling team’s act, it seems odd to me that they’re thinking of bailing out now, as the cycling team is finishing its first year of a program to rid itself of doping allegations.
…
Surely in sticking by the team originally, they must have known that a team-sponsored anti-doping program would not be an overnight success, but require a period of time before it completely changed the course and structure of the team. If they didn’t realize that, then they’re quite naive. It does seem to me that such programs, whether at CSC, T-Mobile or Slipstream are — at least in part — geared towards protecting the sponsor’s good name. Perhaps not overtly, but as an indirect outcome of the program’s success. T-Mobile (the company) seemed to be on board with that, or so it appeared.
…
The problem is that these scandals always look to the past. And with always looking to the past, people lose sight of the present and the future. Programs like those by Slipstream/ACE, CSC and T-Mobile have the potential to turn the tide. T-Mobile, by sticking with their team, have the potential for building a reputation as a company that helped save cycling. I’m sure that kind of reputation might build some brand loyalty, and maybe even cause some to switch to their service. I’m not a customer of theirs, but could be in the future, if my wife and I decided at any point to switch away from the folks who keep asking, “Can you hear me now?”
…
Admittedly, there aren’t great profits to be had if the Rant clan switches mobile phone services, but imagine a few hundred thousand such clans switching and there are some real bucks/euros to be made. Certainly more than what they’re pouring in to the team. It may be a small market, but given the profit potential, it’s not one I’d ignore.
…
That said, the cycling team does need to have a conversation (again, I suspect) with their title sponsor centered around the very question you mention: What can we do for you? Finding ways to avoid further embarrassment would probably be at the top of the list. But some of that is unavoidable. The press and the ADAs and the governing bodies seem to have a penchant for chasing after the ghosts of dopers (or alleged dopers) past, while ignoring the ghosts of dopers present or future.
…
At some point, the attention needs to turn to the here and now. T-Mobile, the cycling team and the CSC team and Slipstream/Chipotle all have good ideas for changing the future. They need sponsors with the iron stomachs it will take to get through until such time as the media and the ADAs quit perseverating on the past and focus their own attentions on the present and future, too. What will the sponsors get out of such an arrangement? Good question. If they don’t feel that it’s worth the investment they won’t spend any of their money on cycling and the sport will die a slow death.
…
Hopefully, the teams will be able to sell the folks who pony up the money to keep the cycling road show going on the idea that there’s a benefit to be had from sponsorship. And hopefully, the teams will be able to show how they help those sponsors and do good for them.
…
If not … well, I’d rather not think about that.
Rant –
…
I agree with what you wrote. Still, you can’t describe what a sponsor is like or what a sponsor should be like in terms we use for human beings. Sponsors (well, at least the giant corporate sponsors like t-mobile) are not “naive” and they don’t have “stomachs”, “iron” or otherwise. They are organizations designed to generate profits, and at any point in time (like now) they’re supposed to think about what is best for their bottom line. If today t-mobile wakes up and determines that sponsoring cycling is no longer good for its bottom line, then subject to its obligations under contract, t-mobile is going to leave the sport. That’s the way it is, and under capitalism, that’s the way it’s supposed to be.
…
(oh-oh, I just described t-mobile waking up in the morning. Not easy to avoid describing corporations in human terms!)
…
I worked once for a lawyer who liked to tell a story about changes in the business environment. The story (evidently a true story) was about a shrimp farmer. This shrimp farmer was a bit of a scientist and a good capitalist, and he decided to do a systematic study of what are the best possible environment for growing shrimp. Do shrimp like to grow in warmer or colder water, salty or less salty water, more sunlight, less sunlight, more food, less food, different kinds of food. He tried every possible combination. And what did he find? He found that shrimp can thrive in nearly any possible environment, so long as the environment stays the same. What shrimp don’t like is a rapidly changing environment.
…
Think about t-mobile as shrimp.
…
OK, maybe t-mobile has some built-in tolerance for changes in the environment. Maybe t-mobile should have expected that Stapleton’s clean cycling program could not instantly eliminate all of the doping problems on the t-mobile team, that the effort would need some time to succeed (or maybe not, I don’t know what promises Stapleton might have made or what conditions t-mobile might have placed on its continuing to act as team sponsor). But could t-mobile have reasonably expected the cycling world to have degenerated to its current condition? That UCI would lose much of its power to govern the sport? That Team Discovery would leave the sport, meaning that casual U.S. fans would no longer have an established U.S. team to support? That the 2007 TdF winner would himself fall under doping suspicions and end up signing with a team (Astana) that may not be permitted to race in the 2008 TdF? Need I go on?
…
Another point. Agreed, sponsors like t-mobile do not want to turn their back on cycling fans. But obviously, there are ways to market to cycling fans that have nothing to do with cycling. Verizon does not sponsor a team, yet they have my business (and yours, evidently). This is why I say that the sponsors do not need cycling. They have other ways to advertise, even to avid cyclists and cycling fans.
…
I mean, do you have your checking account at Rabobank? ;^)
Larry, i love the shrimp analogy. Well it looks like T-mobile have decided to stick with the environment they have found themselves in and have expressed faith in the direction the team is taking with Bob Stapleton and their antidoping policies. http://www.t-mobile-team.com/tmo_team/servlet/pages/972978/ref/889390. They are looking forward to 2008 season. I am glad that they have chosen to support cycling as the team has always provided a lot of drama in the tours.
I think we need to put the idealizing cat back in the bag. Larry — I am not against sponsors. I also know that “Sponsorship” is the way teams exist. I think it is only logical if I am being “sponsored” by a company — I admit that they are paying my bread and butter. Like you Larry, sponsors are also a hot button topic for me — but I do not see them as the beneficent entities that you seem to think of them.
–
Let’s get down to tacks — Sponsors have the money to finance a pro team — no argument there pal. We do need sponsor participation to have big, world wide successful racing teams. When a top end pro bike costs 15-50 thousand — you won’t have too many people being able to fork out that kind of money to race for themselves — although — I did know some who did.
–
Just as any good employee will look out to make his company profit from him being there every pro racer should realize who butters his bread. No argument there either — but here is where I start to see sponsors a bit differently from you.
–
I also ask myself — does the sponsor have no responsibility for the team? May a sponsor treat their team as nothing more then a stable of sleek horses? As long as they can run great! But have them go lame — or worse and the horse is “put down” — nothing personal — “running a stable is a business.” Larry — are you not outraged that pro racers are no better then race horses? Because sponsors do treat them that way — maybe not all, but the mentality is still — “so how is my racing stable of adds doing this week?” Are my “ads” the sleekest, the prettiest, the most colorful? If they are — great — but if they are not — I have a real hard talk with my handlers and I let them know in no uncertain terms that I am disappointed — that I expect results. And in the end — the sponsor will ask — “How much and what would it take to “improve” my stable?” My Team!
–
I find it a bit unbelievable that you don’t seem to see this aspect of the sponsor. I don’t care if it is a billionaire or a “corporate entity” that is the sponsor. Let us not delude ourselves — sponsors want results — I can live with that. Sponsors, unless they are especially atypical — know only one thing — winning. They did not become sponsors because they played fair — they played to win. So I believe that most sponsors today have had knowledge of and was the pressures behind the pros going into “additives.”
–
You do have it right when you say that “we changed” — we meaning the general outlook of the viewing public”¦Although I do not think that the general viewing public does much thinking — yeah — that should score me some popularity points. Whether it is the “public” crying for a dope free sport world or just the echoes of the “spin” that keeps saying that “doping is cheating” — I can’t really find a hard answer. I accept that it seems for now — doping is considered a no-no — fifty years ago — not so much.
–
If I follow the money — I can only come to one source for this — sponsors and race promoters — I guess I am not as easily forgiving as you Larry — since I feel that sponsors and race promoters have been sacrificing their stables — merely that they don’t get the taint of their own stink.
Luc, I hope you’re right, but your cite is to an announcement from the TEAM, which is not the same as an announcement from the corporate sponsor.
…
This is the latest I’ve seen on cycling news, and it doesn’t sound very good:
…
…
“According to the dpa, the sponsor will allegedly meet this week to review its options. Stefan Althoff, director of sponsoring for Deutsche Telekom, said that there is “a new set of facts, which we have to deal with”. While he emphasized that the company has a valid contract with the team through 2010, he implied that the company could seek to end its involvement and compensate the squad for its early withdrawal. “Contracts can always be cancelled, the question is only what the terms might be,” pointed Althoff. “We can’t pretend that it could go on like this. Things have happened, that we now realize we misjudged in the past. Who would have thought that such things would happen in Freiburg? Not I.”
Althoff also indicated that Rolf Aldag’s position as Sport Director must also be reviewed. In May Aldag joined Team Milram’s Erik Zabel, a former T-Mobile rider, in confessing to the use of EPO while riding for the squad during the 1990s.”
…
…
The reference to “Freiburg” is a reference to a police raid on a German university clinic and the homes of two doctors suspected of supplying doping producs to cyclists. The two doctors in question were employed by the t-mobile team up until May of this year.
…
T-mobile does NOT want to be associated with police raids on the offices of doping doctors.
…
For the fun of it, try googling “t-mobile doping” and see the links you hit. Worse, try googling “t-mobile cycling” and see how many of the links refer to doping. Let’s hope that no one on the board of directors of t-mobile does this! In contrast, google “CSC doping” and see how many of the links refer to “anti-doping” efforts. In any event, those of you who wonder what t-mobile is thinking and how they could walk away from the sport of cycling — just TRY the google test, then tell me what you think. If google is any indication, and if the equation “t-mobile” + “cycling” = “doping”, then they’d be crazy to continue their sponsorship.
Larry,
Nope. No checking account at Rabobank. They don’t have a Milwaukee office. 😉
…
The shrimp analogy is pretty apt. I agree that sponsors are like shrimp, they don’t like an uncertain, changing environment. I do, however, think we can grant corporations some “human” traits. Corporations are run by humans, however rational or irrational, emotional or unemotional those making the decisions might be. And so we can talk about “stomachs” iron or otherwise, among other things.
…
Cyclingnews’ article seems to be a bit of a rehash of others already out there. With, perhaps, some of that additional information either from a separate call for comment, or from a longer story that hasn’t been posted in English prior to now. Interesting that the home office wants Rolf Aldag’s position with the team reconsidered. I suspect that if T-M stays as a sponsor RA is going to need to seek new employment opportunities. Or, as they used to say in a previous job, he may leave the team to “pursue business and travel opportunities.” [Translation: He might be fired.]
…
Your Google exercise is pretty telling. With all the stories about T-Mobile, it’s no wonder that equation works out as it does. Given who’s behind the CSC cycling team, I’m surprised there’s not a greater link, what with Bjarne Riis admitting to using EPO way back when.
Larry, i googled t-mobile doping etc and Ouch. Not good. I think i previously saw the article you are referring to but on my ‘My Yahoo’ site i have cycling as one of
my headings in french and english and the french headline is “Cyclisme: T-Mobile continue, assure Stapleton -mar 06 nov, 16h13”. Easy to translate headline. I tried to find the Reuters source for english but couldn’t. Sorry. The article goes on to say that despite the Sinkewitz revelations the team will continue on in 2008. The rest was essentially the T-mobile team article. There may be another meeting scheduled but as a sponsor though, i think that if they can hold on, they, like CSC and Slipstream, will be seen as championing the new and better and cleaner face of cycling.
Morgan, damn, I love your posts.
…
I think I see every aspect of the sponsors that you’re describing. I said that we should be grateful for their presence in the sport, because we need them to have a sport and they have other places to go to get publicity. I said we should be very, very nice to them. We should write them thank you letters. You bet.
…
I never said they were good guys. I said that we should understand them for what they are, and for what motivates them. Which is money, pure and simple. That’s the nature of capitalism, that’s how the system works. We can hope that sponsors act nobly, responsibly and loyally towards the sport, but if they act this way, it’s because they figure that’s the best way to make money from their sponsorships.
…
And to be honest, we can’t complain too much that the sponsors are all about money, because it’s their money that we want. That’s the only reason we tolerate them. Outside of a few strange situations like Unibet, we could not care less about the nature or the business of the sponsor. They make hearing aids, or deliver the mail, or write computer software, or show animals on TV. Do you really care what they do, so long as you’re happy with the color of their money?
…
If you want to see sponsors as evil, I’m OK with that. Then they’re a necessary evil.
…
OK, OK. I can hear the corporate responsibility types screaming at me. Actually, I believe in corporate ethics. They ARE important. I don’t want to invest my retirement funds in a company that exploits child labor in Malaysia, or rapes the environment in the rain forest (actually, I work reasonably hard to make sure I don’t do these things). Shifting our focus back to cycling, yes I’m sure that the sponsors helped create the culture of doping in cycling. I said as much in my first post. Yes, they deserve their share of responsibility, not just for the legacy of doping problems that we now have to solve, but also for the deaths caused by doping and the effect of doping on public health (which I think is the biggest problem of all). You want to heap blame on the sponsors for this? Good, I’ll be right beside you.
…
But if T-Mobile (or as we used to know the company, Deutsche Telekom) is responsible for helping create the doping mess, that does not mean we can expect them to hang around and help us clean up. Sorry, that’s not how it works. This is our house; we invited them to this party. Yeah, maybe the party got out of hand and now the house is trashed. But they never promised to come by the next day to help us clean up. If we want them to help us with the clean-up, we’ll have to make it worth their while — promise them a few pizzas, cold beer, and the game playing on the big screen in the den.
…
And at the end of the day, they’re not going to do anything that doesn’t make sense on the bottom line.
Larry, I don’t wish to cast sponsors as evil — heck no. But I would like to see a little fairness in how our present “doping” situation is presented.
–
Here I confess — I am biased towards the riders, don’t make too much of that though — since having a Don Quixote streak in me doesn’t necessarily mean that I throw out my brains just because I find myself relating more with one group rather then the other. But this line of thinking will lead you down the wrong path.
–
What really gets my shorts in a twist is how “blame” is heaped on the riders. We have, if we are to believe everything we read in the media, NOT ONE RIDER with enough sense of honor or ethics to fill a thimble. I resent that! Character assassination is a very ugly thing — and once out — it cannot be taken back, even if there is an effort at taking it back.
–
Lets face it Larry — it takes a particular kind of human being to plant his butt in a saddle for around eight hours a day, day after day — I’ve done it and I admit it is weird. My admission is not to imply that I was any where near to what the worlds best can do — or that I am an authority on the racing mentality — nope merely that I’ve done such things myself, even rode across the US by myself and since I wasn’t racing — I did it in like nineteen days. So much saddle time does give one a chance to contemplate while keeping the eyeballs busy looking for potholes and or wayward loose cattle.
–
What makes me chew leather is the simple fact that not only are the riders being used like toilette paper, with just about the same amount of respect, but they are being used to blow smoke about the reality of the last 50 to 100 years of cycling.
–
If we cannot see that there is a direct relationship between the doping problem and what sponsors see as their goal — then we have little chance of really doing anything more about the doping problem — other then have the riders take the fall and the sponsor pulls out without being dirtied. Great for the sponsor but rather sucks for the rider, don’t you think?
–
So Larry — I am glad you like my posting — I very much enjoy yours and not only that — I find myself marveling often at your insight — but my issue is not that I see the sponsor as evil — nope. I just don’t want them to get away without some of the blame falling on their rightful shoulders. And Larry — I think T-Mobile is less worried of their “image” and a heck of a lot more worried about “liability.”
Morgan, we heap blame on the riders, the same way we heap praise on them. They’re the face of cycling, they’re why we watch the sport. Honestly, I’m not going to stand in line in a bookstore for 2 hours to get the President of t-mobile to sign a book! If I invest 3 hours a night during the month of July to root for a particular rider, I’m going to be mad as hell if that rider is shown to be a cheater.
…
But I agree with you, when I’m in a rational state of mind, I’m also reluctant to blame riders for doping. Yes, the riders are responsible for the decisions they make. But in a certain sense, the riders are like the sponsors. Sponsors “expect results” – that is in their nature. Riders are highly competitive creatures by nature (why else sit in a saddle for 8 hours a day?), and they will go to extreme ends to be winners. The temptation to dope must be almost overwhelming.
…
We have to set up a stable environment that’s good for the riders, and good for the sponsors. We know the sport has lost sight of what’s good for the riders. My point (illustrated all too well by the situation with t-mobile) is that the sport has also lost sight of what’s good for the sponsors.
…
Rant, granted that corporations are made up of human beings and thus have human qualities, diluted as they might be. But if you had your retirement savings invested in t-mobile, and the stock price was sinking under the weight of all these doping allegations, how long would YOU hold onto the stock? Personally, I would not hold on for five minutes — MY stockholders (well, my wife and daughter) are not interested in any obligation I might think I have to the sport of cycling. If you want to think of my propensity to dump a sinking stock as a “human” trait, then that’s the number one human trait I’m willing to attribute to corporations.
Larry,
To be honest, if I held stock in T-Mobile and the price were sinking and I thought that fundamentally the company was in good shape except for the doping scandals which will some day pass, I’d buy more stock (assuming I had the funds to do so). My logic: Some day the price would climb again and I’d maximize my profits over the long term by getting more at a discounted price.
…
I tend to take a long-term view when it comes to investments (or even when purchasing big-ticket items like cars, etc.). More corporate-like, probably, than “human.” 😉
I wholeheartedly agree with you Larry – every racer is responsible for making their own choices. And they should be held accountable.
–
You are right – a stable environment – was that on purpose Larry? (:-)
–
The temptation to win is what is overwhelming – the doping for riders I believe was more along the lines of – “I’ve got myself prepared. I’ve got the best bike, I’ve got my miles, intervals, speed training. I eat right, at least during the racing season and about a month or two before. I take my supplements, what’s this? I can get 10% better recovery and I can do better hill intervals with this stuff – give me enough for an entire years supply.”
–
In otherwords – pretty stupid and very short sighted. But it does happen and may be still happening now. If we really want to clean up the sport of cycling – then the first step is to have one set of rules and bylaws for everyone concerned – on and off the saddle, racers and sponsors and promoters and teams and testing. But I believe we see eye to eye on this.
–
So in the end – thanks for the “back and forth.” As always, a pleasure. Stable environment indeed. (:-))
–
One question Larry – should reading work being done on TbV – Integration for Idiots – cause ones eyes to roll up into the back of the head after a while? Followed by a loss of consciousness? I can barely follow it – but it is interesting and I for one am glad that the nice people are taking time and energy to
teach me something. Something almost “nieghingly” impossible if you ask my wife.
A few moments for a cynical post:
_
Doping has existed “forever” – as the term doping is defined today. I assume we can all agree on that. 100-years ago it was caffeine, cocaine and ether-coated sugar cubes. Today it is EPO, blood doping, THG, HgH, and modafinil.
_
The definition of “cheating” has merely evolved – as stated above by Rant.
_
Maybe it’s our expectations that need to change.
_
Cycling grew in popularity and wealth (despite the doping?) until Dick Pound and his type decided that they must stop the cheats (who can argue against that?). Well during this noble crusade against the evil cheats (remember that doping has gone on forever) they discover that there are hundreds, if not thousands of professional athletes that are supposedly doping. Of course, nearly half the things they consider doping might be found in my medicine cabinet – just to get my sorry rear-end to work every single day. Athletes might take ephedrine for a cold, diet pills for weight loss, amphetamines to overcome fatigue, cortisone for saddle sores, ventolin to overcome that hacking cough, IVs to overcome dehydration; the list is virtually endless. Now here is the six-million dollar (euro) question: what exactly is doping, and what kind of doping constitutes real cheating? Cheating to the extent that we are no longer looking at a level playing field. As a follow-up, how aggressive should a sport be about catching dopers when there is apparently no upside?
_
American sports are slowly addressing the doping issue only to the extent that is demanded by the public authorities. Has this lack of aggressiveness hurt their bottom line? Has cycling’s aggressiveness helped it’s bottom line?
Michael, I think you have something there. In the short run, at least, sports like American football and baseball seem to be benefitting from having lax doping rules. The perception seems to be that cycling is rife with doping, and maybe that perception is based entirely on the fact that cycling works so much harder to combat doping. But then, we run into a situation like with Saugy (the lab director at Lausanne), who declares 80%+ of the TdF peloton guilty of doping without any evident proof. So in all likelihood, the thing that has hurt cycling is not its aggressive anti-doping posture but the extreme incompetence of the people in charge of the sport.
…
Morgan, no excuses! I’m in there every day, lobbing posts into the science guys at TbV, looking like the kind of idiot they say they’re trying to educate. Come on and pitch in! Could it be any scarier than a 50 MPH descent? Don’t be a neigh-sayer!
…
Rant, if you’re going to invest as a contrarian, you’re probably proving my point, but I’m not sure!
Michael, I think you have something there. In the short run, at least, sports like American football and baseball seem to be benefitting from having lax doping rules. The perception seems to be that cycling is rife with doping, and maybe that perception is based entirely on the fact that cycling works so much harder to combat doping. But then, we run into a situation like with Saugy (the lab director at Lausanne), who declares 80% of the TdF peloton guilty of doping without any evident proof. So in all likelihood, the thing that has hurt cycling is not its aggressive anti-doping posture but the extreme incompetence of the people in charge of the sport.
…
Morgan, no excuses! I’m in there every day, lobbing posts into the science guys at TbV, looking like the kind of idiot they say they’re trying to educate. Come on and pitch in! Could it be any scarier than a 50 MPH descent? Don’t be a neigh-sayer!
…
Rant, if you’re going to invest as a contrarian, you’re probably proving my point, but I’m not sure!
Larry,
Actually, I do invest as a contrarian. Most investors — whether they realize it or not — are working on at least a partly emotional level. The markets ebb and flow because of how investors feel more times than because of real changes. Just look at how quickly a stock can tank when a company makes a profit but not as much as the analysts predicted. The company is still doing well, so why the sell-offs? Because some guy pulling numbers out of the air predicted they would do better? How much sense does that make?
…
And, in a way, that does prove your point. Corporations often make cold, calculated decisions, just like you say. But investors — even the “pros” — often fall prey to our human frailties.
…
Now, if I just had a big enough bankroll to buy up a bundle of T-Mobile stock when they tank due to the ongoing doping scandals. 😉
…
By the way, the only thing scarier than going downhill at 50 mph is going downhill at 50 mph with your rear triangle out of alignment (the bike shakes violently — been there, done that, don’t ever want to repeat it).
Rant, I’m an efficient market guy myself.
Have we some real proofs of the Saugy’s incompetence?
Do we not have an aggressive pro-doping posture against people in charge with sport?
I’m sure that Saugy could easily explain why 80% of the riders have abnormal blood values which are showing blood manipulation in a recent past before the TDF.
There is few months, many unaware people were thinking that doping was done only by few riders… and every days we are learning that doping was common for the vast majority of riders.
Since 2-3 years, only few teams under extern pressure were forced to change. When the performance of the riders decrase, we will know that doping is decrasing too.
I have no doubt that sponsors, management, UCI, organizers and journalists knew exactly what was going in cycling (and other major sports)!
Jean.
Jean,
Good to hear from you again. I’m not sure we should say that M. Saugy is incompetent. He may well do a very good job at running the lab in Lausanne, for all I know. I find his comment about how many riders in the 2007 Tour were using EPO a bit mystifying, however. I’m not sure how he comes by his number, especially since I’m under the impression that LNDD, and not Lausanne, did all the lab work for the Tour. If he’s going to throw out a number, I’d like to see him back it up with some data we can all look at.
…
I don’t know if hockey is followed much in France, but Dick Pound once stirred things up by claiming that one-third of all hockey players were doping. Last year, a New York Times reporter asked Pound how he came by that number. From the article:
I would hope that M. Saugy has real data behind his assertion, but the way it’s been reported makes me suspect that he’s pulling a number out of thin air, just like Pound did. If that’s the case, he’s not helping his own credibility or the credibility of the lab or even the credibility of the anti-doping system, in general.
…
Now, given the stresses on one’s body by undertaking such extreme athletic activity as doing the Tour, I wouldn’t doubt that many, if not most, of the athletes have some unusual blood values by the end. The haematocrit levels used as an indicator of potential EPO abuse, or blood doping, are notoriously susceptible to other influences, too. Like dehydration, which riding day after day for hours on end in extreme weather (hot or cold) can bring on. The tests used during the Tour aren’t as accurate as the tests done at other times (because they need quicker results), so one can’t take such data as automatic proof of doping.
…
That said, it wouldn’t surprise me terribly much if a significant number of riders are cheating, either. The temptation is great, and for the domestiques who don’t make huge salaries it may even be a fact of life.
…
Like you, I have no doubts that sponsors, team management, and a number of others do know at least part or even all of the picture as to what’s going on with doping. If it’s continuing at the rate we’re led to believe, the labs and the anti-doping agencies, as a collective whole, aren’t doing a very good job catching the cheats.
…
As I said, welcome back. I hope we get to hear more of your perspective on things.
Rant,
Thank for your welcome. As pro anti-doping I will try to give my opinion.
—
As I understand Lausanne’s lab is monitoring blood parameters. I think they were working on the blood taken at the medical visit before the first stage, so normaly there is no effect at that time of the race! Even if it was not the case, they must be aware o the effect on a race on blood parameters. I doubt that Saugy is saying that 80% were doped on TDF, I believe he is saying that 80% of the rides have blood which had been manipulated,recently or not!
—
The tests done on TDF are certainly enough accurate to draw conclusion, especially the hematocrit test, if it was not the case many riders would have been “falsely” caught.
—
You can’t use Dick Pound’s case to say that Saugy is similar. If you do that, we can easily make the same with Floyd, Hamilton, Vino, Kaschekhin, Rasmussen , Basso… who are like Hamburger, Sinkewitz, Marion Jones, Riis, Millar, Virenque, were…. cheaters, sometimes liars and then confesser…
For hockey and NHL, I think that Dick was false, there is certainly few players not doped like in our football ;D!
—
It’s a myth that domestiques are most prone to dope than top riders! When you are at top with glorious, it’s very difficult to step down, so the temptation is greater for them. You have to read some books of repentant.
“Top athletes”* are less caught because they can only hire better doctors, better products to beat drug testing, and sometimes they are protected by “the economic interest”.
—
*Top athletes are often the athletes the most able to support and to react the best at drugs!
—
Jean –
…
Maybe “incompetent” is the wrong word but I don’t think so. Let’s walk through what Saugy did, and what it means. Then maybe we can come up with a better word for what he did.
…
Saugy said that during the 2007 TdF, 47 riders raced on blood transfusions or EPO, and 80% or more of the riders raced on HGH or testosterone. I don’t know whether Saugy had any basis for his assertion. Let’s consider both possibilities.
…
1. Possibility 1 is that Saugy pulled his numbers out of thin air. If so, then I think it’s fair to say that he lied. He said that 47 riders raced on blood transfusions or EPO. That’s a very precise number, plus Saugy is the head of a WADA lab. It’s not reasonably possible to interpret this statement as a guess or a casual opinion. If he had no basis for making this statement, then he lied. Now, even I will not call Saugy a “liar” on the basis of a single lie, no matter how massive the lie. But consider the lie! If Saugy pulled his numbers out of thin air, then he’s accused 47 unnamed riders of doping without any proof. That’s completely at odds with this man’s job, which is to spot the dopers based on proof, and rules, and truth.
…
But I’ll go one step further, and consider that most every aspiring Tour rider has heard what Saugy had to say. He’s saying that 30% of the peloton doped on EPO and got away with it. He said that 80%+ of the peloton doped on HGH or testosterone and got away with it. What conclusion would you draw from this statement if you were a young rider trying to break into tour cycling? We don’t want to lie to these riders — if the data proves that nearly everyone in the peloton is doping, then arguably young riders are entitled to this information. But what if there IS no such data? Every young rider has to face the decision, am I going to ride clean, or not? If Saugy had no basis for his statement, then he gave young riders the false impression that most pros have decided against riding clean. This will influence at least some of these young riders to dope, which is completely contrary to Saugy’s mission to fight doping … and (one of my hot buttons) is potentially injurious to the health of these young riders and countless other amateur athletes.
…
Would you consider this to be evidence of “incompetence”? I do.
…
2. Let’s consider the second possibility, that Saugy has good data to back up his statements. I don’t know how he could have come up with this data — did his lab do any testing at the 2007 TdF? But I’ll ignore this question for the moment, and proceed on the assumption that Saugy had a reasonable basis for making his statement.
…
If Saugy is right, then 80% or more of the TdF riders doped and got away with it. That is an amazing statistic, an astonishing statistic. You have 150 or more riders who doped, and the LNDD caught 4 of them? THINK about that statement! He’s not saying that we have a few bad teams, like Astana. He’s not saying that riders from certain countries, like Spain, are heavily into doping. He’s saying that there’s a massive amount of doping on every team, in every country — France, Belgium, Holland, even Switzerland.
…
If Saugy is right, then his statement is just about as “incompetent” as if his statement is wrong.
…
First, the statement is “incompetent” because it misses the point. The point is not how many TdF riders doped in 2007, or even how many riders must have doped in every other major race in 2007 (or 2006, or 2005 …). That’s real interesting information, to be sure, but it misses the point. You get closer to the point when you realize that the ADAs were powerless to catch these riders, EVEN THOUGH the ADAs knew that the riders were doping. What IS the point? The point is (if Saugy is right) that the entire WADA sponsored system of anti-doping has failed, completely, miserably and utterly. After 10 years of increasing effort, the ADA system is now capable of catching 4 dopers out of 150. In other words, it’s capable of punishing a few guys for doing what nearly everyone does. In other words, if the ADAs DOUBLE their effectiveness, then they’ll be able to catch 8 out of 150. That isn’t going to help!
…
If Saugy is a competent lab director, then he should be able to analyze the data and reach the important conclusions. Saugy’s conclusion was that there was doping at the 2007 TdF, and if he was “competent”, then he should have realized that the data speaks to a much more important conclusion. The important conclusion here is, if Saugy is right, then his efforts to detect dopers have failed, and the efforts of the ADAs world-wide have also failed. If he doesn’t understand the meaning of his own data, then he’s not competent to do his job.
…
Also, if you’re a competent lab director and you’ve come to the conclusion that the world anti-doping efforts are a complete failure, then you don’t drop this information casually in a press conference! You gather together the esteemed heads of the various ADA organizations, and you announce the data with the full weight of the ADA apparatus behind you.
…
OK. These are the facts as we know them. I think it’s fair to conclude from the facts that M. Saugy acted “incompetently.” Others might prefer kinder characterizations of his actions, such as “irresponsible” or “reckless”. You could throw “arrogant” into the mix if you wanted to, I wouldn’t object. But when I think of the kids listening to his statement, and the conclusion they might reach that doping is necessary to compete on a world level … I’m personally tempted to characterize Saugy’s statements as “reprehensible” and “criminal”.
I just heard – Hingis is going to fight! On CNN of all places, CNN Europe.
–
Hi Jean C – welcome back.
After placing my most recent rant, I ran across this article. I think it’s mandatory reading here:
…
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/children-of-doping-athletes-deformed/2007/10/31/1193618974100.html
…
It is essential that we put an end to doping in sports, not simply because we care about sport. We care about the health of the thousand of professional athletes who are drug tested, and the millions of amateur athletes who are not. If I “lose it” every now and again over the actions of someone like Saugy, it’s because I measure his actions against the nature and the severity of the responsibility we’ve given him.
Larry,
Sorry for you but we are in the case 2, the majority of athletes dopes!
Saugy as lab director has just to report the truth, the communication for kids is not his job! And don’t worry about the young, they are the first to read all the stuff that you can find on internet, they just need to hear Saugy to avoid to dope because (see**).
To catch only 4 doped riders out of 150 could be a failure of the system, but that could be that the system is too favorable for cheating, maybe it’s the price to pay to avoid false positive and to respect athletes’ privacy. Or Saugy is trying to complain that the system is not enough efficiency or is saying to riders, we know that you dope and we can detect it (**).
And the most probable it’s a mix of all of that.
Jean –
…
I don’t think I’m pre-judging whether Saugy was making up his data (like his boss Dick Pound) or whether he’s right and the entire peloton is doping. I have my suspicions, but I’m not pre-judging.
…
If Saugy is right, the consequences are mind-blowing, as I started to detail. If he’s right, then the t-mobile and CSC clean cycling programs are failures. It means that the UCI’s clean cycling pledge is a cynical joke.
…
And if that’s what Saugy REALLY thinks, then it’s irresponsible to just drop a couple of statistics in a press conference and let it go at that.
Great conversation here – I can’t help but become fascinated by the shrimp story (how true it is about humans!) – Although I can agree with Morgan’s assessment of sponsors, and their objectification of cyclers as horses, I really don’t believe that this is any different from anyone who works in a corporate job. There is a distinct blurring between the human and corporate when the two meet. This comes up continually in my job, where we discuss corporate branding as if she were a child sitting in the corner, when in fact it’s nothing more than an abstract idea. Looking at it, it is quite grotesque. But I think that argument is far more about the evils of capitalism, and then I’m getting WAAY off point if I move there.
What stikes me is that there is an unusual relationship between cyclists and teams (and teams automatically means sponsors, from what I can read here…) Cycling is essentially a private sport that has become a team sport that has further become a sponsored and (somewhat) spectator sport. I don’t think you could possibly remove sponsors, any more than you can remove bosses, corporations, managers, CEOs, CFOs, etc.
Back to the discussion of whether T Mobile is making the right or wrong choice, there are two business ethics at work here – 1) take the responsibility, or 2) distance yourself from the perpetrator. This is always a fine line, and both are pretty reprehensible, but ultimately businesses must choose one. I was personally glad to see that T Mobile decided to stay in the race and put in strict measures. If they back out, it seems really odd – for what reason? It’s my thinking that many people applauded T Mobile for not running away, and that was VERY GOOD publicity for them (besides, they were a good cell company and I liked their service when I was living in London…) I hope that they stay true to their contract and keep going…
One side note – I’m not sure I agree that all of T Mobile would be aware that doping was going on – and I’m not sure they should take the heat for that. You take on a team and its riders with a presumption that they are not doping… otherwise, you end up with some of the WORST publicity ever if one of your team 1) wins a big race and 2) gets caught. There is NO incentive for them to keep doped up riders, at least, certainly not NOW.
cycleT, great points. I agree of your characterization of the corporation. But I don’t think that team = sponsor. There’s a big difference, say, between Lance Armstrong and the guys who ran the Discovery team, and the guys at the Discovery Channel who broadcast all those shows about animals. This is part of our confusion about what’s taking place at t-mobile. We read a story that says t-mobile is committed to cycling, and we think that the sponsor plans to stick around — only it was Bob Stapleton at Team t-mobile who made the statement, and not one of the “suits” who handle publicity for the company.
…
I hope you’re right about the sponsorship being a good deal for t-mobile. I have a cycling friend who got back from Europe a few weeks ago, and he told me that I can’t imagine the kind of attention this story gets in Germany. This is a scandal in Germany, generating Anna Nicole levels of media attention (well, maybe my friend exaggerated a little bit).
No doubt that pro cycling is in a state of flux right now. Things are changing, some for the good and some for the worse. I don’t think it will disappear, there is too much history and tradition, not to speak of money, involved here. But it will change. How much and in what way, hard to say. But I see some possibilities.
_
Lot of talk about money. If sponsors go away, the money available will be less. Will all sponsors fold? Disco is gone, now maybe T-mobile. There still are other sponsors. Disco riders are looking for new teams, some, maybe many have landed new positions. The same will happen if T-mobile is no more. Now, if a lot of sponsors go away, there may be many more riders teamless than positions they could fill. So what could happen. Some ideas: reduce the financial burden of team sponsorship, lower rider salaries, maybe no more super bikes, race on the same bikes as us mortals (perhaps even mandated by some sort of rules). Maybe structure the sport to make the privateer, the racer who lacks sponsorship and supports himself on winnings and perhaps appearance fees, a viable entity. Smaller teams, maybe only 4-5 riders. Big tours go back to national/regional teams drawn from several commercial teams. Some of these things could simply “evolve” as potential sponsors look for new ways to become involved at a reduced price, other will require rule/regulation changes by UCI and national feds, the promoters, etc.
–
The specter of doping certainly plays a part here. But let us remember that other sports have had scandals and survived. Baseball had the Black Sox, college basketball had point shaving. As to Saugy, I remain skeptical until he can back up his allegations with some hard data. Like Larry, I feel that he is at least rather irresponsible to drop this info in the way he has. If he has good data to back his claims, something on the order of a scientific presentation, detailing his methods, the raw data obtained, and his methods and results of analysis would be a better way to go. I wonder if the numbers as reported suggest something: 47 riders who “manipulated blood” suggests, as mentioned by Larry, a rather precise figure. It could be that there were 47 riders whose hemocrit, or some other blood related figure, looked somewhat suspicious to Saugy without triggering an AAF by present standards. Then we have 80% alleged to have used HGH, a less precise figure. I can think of 2 possible reasons for this: 1. the figure is based on data from a small sample of riders, 80% of that sample showed signs of HGH use and he is extrapolating to the whole peleton; 2. This is based on anecdotal evidence from statements made by riders and other involved in the sport, rather than hard data. Not very scientific, perhaps not technically a lie, but rather misleading. Of course, he could also be pulling a Pound and simply making up figures. I think he needs to put up or shut up.
Your friend was not exaggerating Larry – but it is different from the Anna Nicole story to Europeans – Most Europeans who are fans are rabid about the sport – more people ride here. They take it more personally it would seem to me.
–
What I have not heard about is the discussions like TvB and Rant are making possible.
–
At a guess I would think that the “fandom” base here in Europe is little different from back there in America – the understanding is on the same level. The majority reacts with partisanship and bias – in otherwords – people either believe the fantasy that their cycling was legitimate and “played fairly” and now they are mad about the whole situation – But I have not run into any one discussing it – a lot of “reacting” but not discussing.
–
If you look at Jean C’s approach to the problem – it shows exactly what the problem is. Don’t take this as a criticism Jean C – I am using your posts as an example that is all – he argues passionately – but from a fixed point of view. He is a believer that the majority of sports is embroiled in doping. This is a legit stand.
–
The problem arises when one tries to discuss the “problem” from a deconstructionist point of view. One argues to keep up the perception of their view while the other is trying to find the root cause of the problem to find solutions.
–
The public view in Germany and Austria is conservative. The Fandom here believed that their athletes were clean. The reaction has been violent emotionally for them. In otherwords shocking.
–
This view is purported by the media because there is a tremendous amount of indirect stating that a “successful rider” who is not German, is probably “cheating” to be successful. It also happens to “answer” why no Germans have been unable to reach the levels of Armstrong or Merck, et al. If everyone else is cheating and the home boys were clean…so the “outing of Sinkewitz and others has been a great blow in the face of such spin.
Morgan,
My point of view is fixed by evenements and rationalisation of them and by my knowledge of sports. Just for remember… Festina’s affair, it was the unique team to dope apparently… now we know that the majority and probably all teams were running a doping program. And all is like that!
I can append that performance of a lot of riders were still incredible.
So the facts show that doping is widespread despite some real progress in his fight.
JeanC – I think I understand you to mean “events and “rational thinking?” plus your knowledge of sports. BUT – a forum – “discussion” when you say —“now we know that the majority and probably all teams were running a doping program.” — you have to have “hard facts” “concrete proof” – no one can stop you from saying what you think or what you feel – I certainly would notwant to – but unless you can supply Evidence of this stance of yours – it raimains merely your word.
–
Now I am not saying you are wrong – ALL I am pointing to is that “everybody and their uncle” have thoughts on these matters – but unless you can show proof – it is worthless.
–
I do not believe anyone on this blog thinks there is no doping going on – but if we are to “do something” to correct it – we have to follow rules. This includes “arguing” our positions. WE CAN EXPRESS our feelings and our beliefs – BUT with out proof it stays just that – your personal feelings and beliefs – INCLUDING your “experiences in sport.”
–
As William and Larry both pointed out – please name your facts. Not merely your interpretation of what you call “facts” – Understand – I am not saying you are right or wrong – rather that as we English readers read your peices – what comes across is your passion and belief – but you are not making points – “winning your stance” when you argue from passion rather then “provable facts.”
–
From the point of view of logic – you have not responded to Larry’s presentation of M Saugy’s antics. In otherwords you have not “argued” the point he presents you – you merely make a statement that you feel it is the 2nd scinario that you agree with to some extent – but I am not even certain how? I hope this gives you feed back so we can communicate more clearly. Again welcome back.
Morgan,
I don’t need to repeat the facts, maybe have you forgotten: Riis, Armstrong’s case, Festina, Puerto, Hamburger, Kibby, Mentheour, Bassons, Vayer, Virenque, Zulle, Pantani, Jascke, Sinkewitz, Vino, Astana, Voet … or Andreu or Papps and many others.
In my first posts, I gave some links which are proving that riders are making incredible performances since EPO era.
All of this people or teams were caught or not or give a testimony that doping is widespread. Have you recently heard many riders saying it’s false?
We are in a state that it’s like global warming, all informations we get are reinforcing the case!
Here I am not directly accusing a rider, but some facts (positive tests, testimonies,…), my knowledge and my feelings help me to point out some distorsions. It would not be reasonnable to ignore it until we have strong concrete proofs!
—
Ekblom and other’s studies give an advantage from 5 (very short period) to 15%(3 months) with EPO or blood doping on a sustained effort, and that advantages can raise 20-25 % with others PEDs!!!
Can we see it on http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=2500 ?
How many riders of the 2005 TDF were stronger than Hinault or Lemond on mountain stages?
Jean,
Sorry for the inconvenience. For some reason, your comment wound up in moderation. I approved it as soon as I noticed the problem.
Jean, my French is not so good, but isn’t your cite to a study showing increases in the power (measured in watts) of cyclists over the last 20 years? And doesn’t the article say that these increases are due to a number of factors? The article may mention doping, but my French is not good enough to spot the reference and for some reason I can’t get Google to translate this article for me.
…
Can you give me some help here?
Larry,
Some explanations,
In the study the power is just an evaluation because there is an incertainty about the weight of the rider for that day. So all calculations are done with the same weight (rider and equipement) which should be 70kg if I am right. What is important is the variation along the years, we don’t need focusing on absolute values.
In that study they are not speaking about doping, but in other pages doping is explored especially with Vayer who worked in Festina team as “soigneur”, in fact a real specialist of doping!
Of course, the power increasing could be due to other factors like tecnical improvements, better roads, or better training methods. But I can say that roads are not better because good roads for cycling is dangerous when it’s raining or freezing. Technical improvement could raise an improvement of 5% at best! The only new methods of training are resulting of the use of PEDs, more exercices allowed with a better recovering!
The last point I see could be a worldwide sport… but there is less riders in Europe too!
JC,
Again, my apologies. Apparently the phase of the sun, moon and stars has come into conjunction in just the right way to put your comments into moderation instead of posting them immediately. Sorry for the inconvenience.