Yes a lot of social media relies on cycling news and has the potential to slide in rumours that come out the 'other side' as fact. It's a flawed system, but it's worth watching the washing machine spin because a lot of great clean clothes come out from between all the suds and dirt.
It's had its troubles, but there does also seem to be a tendency for the media to focus on it.
Look at FIFA in soccer - it's completely rotten - and yet we're back to 'those cyclists...'.
Also: if you consider the money in cycling, which is pretty modest, compared with soccer or US sports... you're delusional if you think that cycling is dirtier.
I see huge numbers of folks on Peloton groups who have gotten into outdoor cycling as a result. It's actually a near-constant stream of folks on the FB groups asking for advice.
Did anyone listen too the Telegraph Cycling Podcast - they were talking about respected journalists being convinced some of the big names have been using motors. They expect any revelations to come before the tour of italy or france - as is normal for big cycling stories
This is a story parallel to Lance Armstrong's own rise and fall. About how if you were to drill down, really drill down, to find the next ethical, justifiable company that used Facebook to great benefit for humanity you're going to be looking for the 27th, 28th, 29th place organizations.
-- Interesting.
If you look at the data, from 1996-2005 (10 Years)
TDF: Of those that placed top 3x: 15% clean, ~85% were not. You know you have a problem when you are on the wrong side of the 80 /20 rule, as an entire field.
Lets hope the ills that plague Zynga are not like the TDF:
Top 3 x 10 years = 30 places
Only 5 of these "places" were awarded to "clean riders", of which there were only 3.
First - None
Second - Joseba Beloki (1)
Thrid - Beloki(2), Bobby Ulrich, Fernano Escartin.
That article is interesting - it made me reconsider my opinion a bit. I certainly can be wrong about SKY team. I would have respect for them even if they were not clean because I have enough experience with cycling to be able to imagine how hard you have to work to get through any grand tour even if you are not clean. But if they are... good for them.
It's perhaps worth mentioning that there's a pro-cyclist campaign around this issue that's been going for a few years (full disclosure, I have one of their jerseys)
http://ipayroadtax.com/
Where did you get that 6% and was that reliable source? And even if that number is somehow "correct" (each Tour is different and it is not possible to just numerically compare them) it does not mean the cycling is now clean, it does not even mean it's cleaner... there are too many factors that can influence this.
My opinion is this: cycling may be a bit cleaner in a sense that maybe doping is not as widespread as it used to be and maybe the effect of doping is more limited because they need to be more careful. But I don't believe cycling is clean now. There are new drugs that are undetectable and mentality has not changed. I believe this is more realistic: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/italian-judge-says-doping-is...
And about SKY team - I have no proof and it's nothing more than just my guess but I don't believe they are clean either. Remember last TdF? They totally ruled, they controlled the whole race. My cycling intuition tells me this is not natural. They certainly compete against some (I would say many) riders who are not clean (some of them even got caught, like Frank Schleck) and they were not even competing on the same level - they were superior. I don't believe it is possible without doping. The fact that they claim otherwise on every occasion means nothing to me - I have seen this too many times.
My guess - and I realize it's nothing more than guess - is that if in 2030 they use their new methods to test today's samples they will find out that there is some substance that is undetectable today.
I would love to be proven wrong on this - I love cycling.
Yeah, I follow professional bike racing, and... if you think about it, the "product" is entertainment. Winning certainly counts for a lot, but there are other guys who manage to make something of a name for themselves for who they are, how they race, how they talk, and other things that aren't just winning.
One guy that comes to mind is Joao Correia, who came back to professional racing in his mid 30ies after losing a lot of weight, something virtually unheard of in the cycling world, where you're either headed for the pro ranks by your early 20ies or you're out. He was a very active writer about his experience, both via longer articles and on twitter. Now he's going to do a book, apparently. By not being quiet, he absolutely helped his own brand, and his team.
I don't doubt they're mostly telling the truth about themselves, but beyond that? It's more difficult to say.
> And I'm not really convinced that, in cycling, for example, it's realistic to have cyclists run through hundreds of kilometers of mountains day after day and still being as fresh as ever. But hey, believe what you want.
Ah, "it's tough, so it can't be true!". Those guys are the best at the world at what they do, and the ones they show on TV, are of course in the lead, so by default the ones in good shape. If you go see a bicycle race in person, you also get to see the ones lagging behind, some of whom are suffering a great deal. Truth be told, so are the ones in the lead, they're just going faster.
It's really hard to know exactly what's going on, but my whole point is that there are at least a few guys who compete clean. Saying they are all doping is extremely demeaning to those who do compete clean.
reply