open topic, for anything cycling related.
25 posts • Page 1 of 1
Hi everyone, I was just out on a ride this morning and was thinking about what a solution to reducing the amount of doping in the sport. I reckon the answer is to remove all the restrictions that the UCI has on bike design and weights. Surely if teams were able get the edge over each other on the equipment side, then may be tempation for riders to dope would be removed? Does anyone know whether the UCI has looked at this as a possible solution?
Anyways, just thinking....
Huh? Cycling performance is 99% engine (the cyclist) and 1% bike. Why would removing restriction on the 1% suddenly reduce the incentives to improve the 99%.
(If design restrictions were completely relaxed then you would see cycling quickly look more and more like a car race. )
Instead we can "freeze" basic bike design for almost a century...and cheat with drugs !!!
Let bikes evolve.......aerodynamics are your friend !
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
They will cheat with drugs no matter what they ride... Bike design would matter zero when it comes to that.
If you want to race a recumbent there are plenty of places to do that. Personally I have no interest in watching a race where you are totally enclosed.
Imagine a tdf where anything went in design... You would need a aero recumbent for flat stages, an even more aero model for certain tt's, a slightly different one for rolling tt's, yet another for hilly tt's, a super light 3kilo bike for the big hills, of course you would have to swap bikes at the bottom of the hill before you start climbing and change again for a bike more suitable for super fast descents... Etc etc... Better IMO to have one bike design for normal stages and one bike design tightly governed for tts.
It was my understanding that the UCI banned recumbents (and possibly other designs as well, not sure about that) precisely so the competition was about the athlete not the equipment. I certainly doubt allowing different designs would have any impact on doping. Dopers already show they're willing to break the rules, so how you alter those rules would have little effect. They would continue to break the rule they're currently breaking. Allowing different designs to reduce doping would be akin to altering the speed limit to reduce drink-driving.
Would be interesting to see road racing on tt bikes. Just imagine a ttt formed into one massive peleton all wearing conehead helmets and what not hurtling at the speed of sound down the road chasing the breakaway
That would lead to a technology war that only a few teams could afford. What is the price of a Maclaren Venge now? What would it be if there were no regulations?
The teams that couldn't afford bikes developed by an F1 constructor would be forced to used performance enhancing drugs to have any chance of being competitive
Even F1 and MotoGP have had to pull back from open rules
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
Imagine the carnege.
I think there could be a happy medium reached with design. I don't think you would want to throw out all the design rules, but ridiculous things like excluding bikes for the length of a seat is just stupid. I would suggest bringing in a box design, this has just been bought into the sport of kite board racing as things were getting a bit out of control on the design side and has worked quite effectively without limiting progress too much.
I read/heard recently (sorry, can't give a direct quote on this or who it was) that a lot of the doping is response to the high speeds that the peleton maintains for the tv 'shows'. No one wants to see a peleton doing 24-26kmph for 3 weeks, they want to see the peleton doing 36+ kmph. I think this is where relaxing design rules could come into place, bring in more aero for the non-mountain stages so that riders have more fuel in the tank for the mountain stages.
And in regards to recumbents, the ironman series doesn't have any major design restrictions and we haven't seen the proliferation of recumbents. So I think it would be safe to say there would be a peleton full of recumbents in a world where design restrictions are relaxed! lol!
Anyways, speaking of cool things that can be achieved without design limits. I'm going to watch the flying scotsmans now
1. With only one gear.
2. Only one team mate. (less peer pressure)
3. Only one Team support member. (less outside influence)
4. And definitely only one Team Doctor for supervision.
5. Team Doctor- Only the choice of one doping method.
Another solution to reduce doping in cycling?
Lone Rider- I rode on the long, dark road... before I danced under the lights.
You sure on that?... Most triathlons and ironman events will not allow recumbents to enter.
Fixed for you
So without prizes or sponsership money there would be no racers or for that matter races. Who is going to travel to Europe to race in the French Alps for 3 weeks for no prizemoney and paying airfares and accomodation as well as living expenses out of their own pocket. And pay for their own bikes, spares and kit.
IMO it would be too dangerous to remove restrictions on bikes. Imagine some of those riders hurlting down mountains on something that weighed 4kg, it would be carnage.
Manufacturers would try to push the limits too much.
It would stop the doping tho wouldn't it.
No... plenty of doping in masters events where there is zero money.
They could have 2 tours in the way that there's an Olympics and a Paralympics only one tour would be drug tested and the other, well anything goes. It'd be interesting to see which one was watched by the couch spuds, then we'd see what people really thought about doping.
@toolonglegs. Proof reading - I should do it more haha. I meant say we would not see a peleton full of recumbents. lol.
I'm sure that those former bastions of capitalism East Germany and the USSR would agree with you; after all none of their Olympic athletes ever tested positive for performance enhancing substances.
Too old to live, too slow to die.
Make the penalty for doping uber severe. Not monetary, not time based punishment. Like the countries that chop off theives hands and what not. The penalty for doping is the removal of a foot or a leg. Lets see who would be willing to dope then.
Great Jens Voigt Quotes:
"I get paid to hurt other people, how good is that?"
"Shut up legs"
I was following this but on tapatalk decided that too many typos would be counter-productive.
UCI regulations are in some ways restricting but also are important for safety - 3Kg road bikes hurtling at 90kmh downhill the weight limit ascertains a level of safety. Another factor is that within the limits set, bike companies are challenged to build the best peforming bike and this still means a lot of development.
With sponsors and advertising, prize money plays less of a role in top level (though is still a factor). For lower levels, prize money is more important and removing this makes the sport less attractive for competitors. If we argue that reducing incentives reduces the level of doping, fine, but is also reduces the popularity of the sport and more people involve would prefer cycling to be more popular.
The doping problems can be better targeted with a unified and recognised responsible worldwide organisation that can't be overruled by national/local courts. The WADA and CAS are limited in definitive authority and power. Faster turn-arounds would also help - rather than taking 2 years, having cases processed in 3 months would give the organisation more authority and be a bigger deterrent.
25 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: madmacca, MSNbot Media