StevieL Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 OK, so I did a search for doping, and too many threads came up to see if this is a repeat of what has been said previously...Seems it is a pretty contentious issue... But... I don't think someone totally clean can win the TDF, because he would have to beat a bunch of guys who are inhumanely fast due to drugs. I have come to realize that doping has been part of the bicycle racing culture since the earliest days. Again, how can you beat a bunch of guys who have the advantage of doping if you are clean...? The thing I keep coming back to is how close these guys are to each other. I don't know if you monitor your performance, but my performance fluctuates within a few weeks relative to myself, much less relative to other guys that I ride with, a hell of a lot more than the difference between the fastest and slowest guys in the peloton. What that means is that having a rabbit's foot in one's possession, and really believing that it gives you more power, could make a significant difference for these guys. The guy who wins has to be doing everything right. He has to have the best equipment, the best coaching, the best training and the best meds. That applied to Merckx, Hinault, LeMond, Indurain, Ullrich, Armstrong, Landis and anyone else who won the Tour, and to probably almost everyone, if not everyone, who merely rode in the Tour. I just don't believe that one guy could be so much better than the rest to not only beat them every time, but beat them clean while they are all doping. Now, I'm not 100% convinced about any of this, because I don't have any firsthand evidence of it. I'm just telling you what I would say if someone who knew the truth put a gun to my head and told me to guess, knowing they would pull the trigger if I guessed wrong. I don't know if you've looked at this list... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Doping_cases_in_cycling , but please do. It's very sobering. And remember, every single one of those guys passed countless numbers of tests, and claimed innocence, some to and past the bitter end (Floyd, Tyler, Jan, etc.). The only reasonable conclusion is that a careful doper can get away with it for a very long time, an entire career, without getting caught. I will also add that a part of me desperately wants to believe that Lance Armstrong is some kind of exception to all this. That he really is clean, and has always been clean. But his words and actions simply are not consistent with that theory. From the '99 allegations, to the guilt of so many of his past teammates (Andreu, Heras, Beltran, Hamliton, Landis); from his association with Ferrari to his strict adherence to the code of silence, and outrage with those who violate it, it all adds up to d.o.p.e.r. Sadly.
fandacious Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 pffft... I've maintained this for years. But certain hubbers like to remain ignorant and pretend the guys are finishing mega races on water and super c's Although, I must admit, over the last year or so, the general public has certainly become more open to the idea that perhaps there is more doping than they were previously aware http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/articles/nondoping-cyclists-finish-tour-de-france,2268/
rock Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) kind of related i read that Moses who got bust at the tdF while riding for Barloword got a suspended prison sentence...... Sounds like he had a LOT of stiff in his room... (EDIT: haha honestly meanst to say 'stuff' but he did have Viagra afterall )"..Along with blood bags, syringes and saline used to adjust the rider's blood values, policed seized Viagra and a masking agent from Dueñas's hotel room. Dueñas denied doping knowingly, and according to prosecutors he took the substances under instruction from his Barloworld team doctors...." Edited January 27, 2011 by rock
mosey Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 If those guys on the TDF aren't doping, imagine what they could do if they were allowed to take ****??They should have an unofficial TDF where doping is allowed and see what times they get and then compare with the past times... Either way, those guys are machines!
manbearpig Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 I don't know if you've looked at this list... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Doping_cases_in_cycling , but please do. It's very sobering. And remember, every single one of those guys passed countless numbers of tests, and claimed innocence, some to and past the bitter end (Floyd, Tyler, Jan, etc.). The only reasonable conclusion is that a careful doper can get away with it for a very long time, an entire career, without getting caught. Ummm, there's a name missing on that list..... needs updating today.
SwissVan Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 IMHO I can understand why SOME (not ALL FFS !!!! ) in the pro peleton cheat (Dope), quite simply it is their livelihood and if they don’t perform they risk loosing their income or job. Pro cycling is extremely demanding and hard, Pro cyclists are also human and unfortunately it’s human nature to find an easier or better way, which in some instances leads to cheating. What really winds me up are the part time “athletes” who don’t depend on their sport to make a living that cheat, be it doping or whatever. These forkers are amongst us and get away with it all the time. Anyway Rant off....Below are some interesting comments from a well known cycling coach, Ref 35x12dotcom Q - How much can Doping or the use of drugs improve aerobic performance? A - The majority of "doping" drugs does not actually improve performance; often many products impair it, especially in the mid-long term. For example, with regard to Gh, anabolic steroids and corticosteroids use, there is no serious scientific study proving an enhancement in aerobic sports. The fact that athletes using such substances report "sensations" does not mean that their performances have actually improved. Oxygen delivery enhancing drugs (EPO and similar) or methods (transfusions) improve performances by 2-5%, equal to about half of the increase in oxygen availability: in other words, if the Hemoglobin Mass (not to confuse with hemoglobin concentration!) increases by 10%, performance improves by about 5%. The fact is that equal or even superior enhancements have been constantly reported by the scientific literature, through the correct use of perfectly legal methods such as dietetic manipulations (CHO-loading, Fat-loading), pre effort Hyperhydration, altitude, Precooling, aerodynamic arrangements, superfluous weight reductions, pedaling gesture's efficiency improvements, or simply a better distribution of the effort. Athletes of all kinds, even top-level ones, not always pay attention to all these details, sometimes preferring the help of drugs. In all probability, athletes resorting to doping are less talented, less determined to face the necessary sacrifices, but also have a more limited access to information on how to improve legally. Q - Assuming that all top-level cyclists have knowledge of the best methods of training, nutrition, hydration, etc. and that all of them use world renowned coaches, why should they give up doping? A - The assumption that professional cyclists utilize the "best" schedules for training, nutrition etc. is definitely utopian and quite far from reality. There is ALWAYS room for improvement for the SINGLE ATHLETE, even if trained by the best coach (if such really exists...) or followed by the most expert nutritionist. The athlete must comprehend this truth and realize that resorting to doping is risky and illegal, and that he/she can achieve the same improvements through perfectly legal ways. Doping must also be fought from within the world of sports by proposing valid and credible alternatives to athletes. And…. True or False? Italian Public Prosecutor Benedetto Roberti stated in a recent interview that "cyclists who don't dope lose about 40% in terms of performance compared to those helping themselves with drugs or prohibited methods." Analyzing the performances of the top 15 riders in the Plan de Corones uphill TT stage of this year Giro (basically all the best cyclists competing for the General Classification), the difference between the winner Garzelli (18.8 Km/h) and the 15th placed Szmyd (17.8 km/h) is about 5%. Now, there are three possible explanations: - all of the top 15 were doped - none of them were doped - doping does not improve performances by 40%. Liberalized Doping? Great clamor was caused by the recent statement of Anti-Doping Prosecutor Ettore Torri, claiming that "All cyclists are doped... If doping was not harmful to the athletes' health, it should be liberalized, at least among professionals." Already in 2004, Giovanni Spinosa (who was the Public Prosecutor in my famous trial) affirmed in a nice interview that for him "cyclists, soccer players, tennis players, are not sportsmen but entertainers and as such they should be regarded: enough with the hypocrisy, the true scandal is people pretending to get shocked, time has come to distinguish professionals from the rest of the sporting world." In a Financial Times article, the prestigious researcher David Owen went even further: sport without medicines is even more damaging than doping. Sport pratice is harmful. Personally I believe that the use of medicines, even when it comes to professional sports, should be opposed, but the approach to the problem should be different. It should not be an integralist and jacobinic prohibitionism, served with spectacular protagonism by the anti-doping movement, but an intervention with the realistic objective of putting everyone on the same level of competition, all the while preserving the health of the athletes.
Just Keep Pedaling Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) From your post it would appear you are assuming there is a large % to be gained from doping. Until I know the % I can't form an opinion about whether it is impossible to win when others are doping. Edit: SwissVan's posted while I was typing. Still can't form an opinion. Edited January 27, 2011 by Just Keep Pedaling
Nimby Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 I don't think it's just the Pro Peleton - ALL professional sports have the same skeleton in the cupboard.
Christie Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Agreed. Its naïve to the point of stupidity to believe that pros in cycling don't dope. The big switch to PEDs came in the 90s with epo. It showed what could be achieved by boosting red blood cell count, from there on the only clkean guys finished with the losers. The science of cheating grew from there, to today's undetectable blood doping methods. It got so bad that the UCI stopped trying to clean up the sport, but rather took money to prevent scandals. Re Voight, he rode for CSC/Saxo - who probably ran one of the best team wide doping schemes in the business. He was named as a doper by Jorg Jaksche (formerly CSC).
fandacious Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 quite simply it is their livelihood and if they don’t perform they risk loosing their income or job. exactly - If rider A doesnt dope, rider b will beat him, and he wont have a paying job next time round
Lucky Luke. Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) I've heard the figure of 2-5% performance gain mentioned quite a few times - probably about right. But you must consider the nature of the event - namely the tour - which is what really amplifies the gains from practices like blood doping and the use of red blood cell boosters like EPO. The name of the game is recovery. After a few days of full gas riding you cannot maintain sufficient red blood cells to remain competitive during the latter stages, as compared to riders who are topping up artificially. Personally I believe all of the top guys are doing this. Over a three week period of massive exertion for hour upon hour nearly every day, the gains from blood doping / EPO are simply too big to remain competitive as a clean rider. Edited January 27, 2011 by Luke.
TNT1 Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 'Dueñas denied doping knowingly, and according to prosecutors he took the substances under instruction from his Barloworld team doctors.' Moses gets crimina lsentence Oh,and apparently he was on viagra as well
chris_w_65 Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 I am busy finding out about importing a container full of Spanish steak. Anyone hungry?
TNT1 Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 I am busy finding out about importing a container full of Spanish steak. Anyone hungry? It's cheaper and easier to buy whatever drug you want here...
SwissVan Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 exactly - If rider A doesnt dope, rider b will beat him, and he wont have a paying job next time round Partialy exactly... Pro riders become a victim of their own success and of the Team slave drivers managers. But also my "between the lines interpretation" of the quotes I provided from Ferrari is that he is saying doping is the easier route to ensure top performance, whereas it is possible to achieve top performance legally but much more difficult to get right. “The fact is that equal or even superior enhancements have been constantly reported by the scientific literature, through the correct use of perfectly legal methods such as dietetic manipulations (CHO-loading, Fat-loading), pre effort Hyperhydration, altitude, Precooling, aerodynamic arrangements, superfluous weight reductions, pedaling gesture's efficiency improvements, or simply a better distribution of the effort. Athletes of all kinds, even top-level ones, not always pay attention to all these details, sometimes preferring the help of drugs. In all probability, athletes resorting to doping are less talented, less determined to face the necessary sacrifices, but also have a more limited access to information on how to improve legally“.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now