SB Nation:
The Tour de France is probably the most physically demanding major sporting event in the world. Over 23 days and 21 stages, riders burn an average of roughly 5,000 calories per day, which is almost twice as much as a pro marathon runner might burn in a single race, and all the while they must maintain a sharp mind, marking their opponents and working with teammates to go fast as efficiently possible before their bodies cave in.
Cycling a grand tour is as much a fight against one’s own body as it is against opponents. Quite literally, cyclist’s bodies begin fighting back after the first week. Riders begin to lose muscle, their immunes systems tank, and they practically have to force feed themselves in order to maintain the baseline system functionality to climb, let’s say, Alpe d’Huez.
Yes, cycling has a doping problem, but it’s hard to blame athletes who are putting their bodies through very real trauma for looking for some kind of shortcut. Humans shouldn’t do their bodies what Tour riders do to theirs. And indeed, it’s hard to believe some riders aren’t aliens, with their bird-like frames and gaunt features.
As corrupt as pro cycling may or may not be (hint: it is), I still love watching the Tour de France, not just for the beautiful scenery but in sheer awe and admiration for what these athletes put themselves through.
I’ve heard the argument that they should just making doping legal; it’d be better if they did it above the board and licensed than not. Obviously there are problems with this, but I don’t think the current status quo (forbidden but widely flouted) is better for either the sport or the athletes who are using a cocktail to mask things.
…and consider that the best and hardest ascensions aren’t the French ones. Giro d’Italia and Vuelta de Espana are harder and more spectacular
It’s a really poor argument. Making it legal would cause deaths on a yearly basis. There’s a reason these drugs are banned, they are very dangerous to use. How can you survive as a sport if you allow your athletes to get themselves killed on the bike?
Well… many of the pro riders are using newer undetectable, less tested, drugs for competitive advantage. That’s arguably /worse/.
I get your point; making it above the table means everyone would essentially be required to do it. I guess the thing we don’t have data on is what % of players are doping. If the % is high enough, though, then this needs to be re-thought.
There’s also the general pall it casts over the sport. Many spectators (including myself) have tuned it out.
Legalizing doping would suggest that the race then becomes a competition by the best drugs, instead of the best athletes.
Isn’t that already the case? Let alone the fact that the “best athletes” for cycling typically are genetically gifted given the freakish nature of a 3-week competition.
I’d rather the race was more about genetics. “Well, we might as well legalize doping” sounds to me like a sad abdication of standards.