Do you have to use perfromance enhancers to be a pro?

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Just curious about what everyone thought?:confused:

No. It's perfectly possible to finish in the peleton by sucking wheel. You're not going to be liked though. As for finishing among the leaders, I think that's a different story. I think it might be possible though for some genetic freak, and they would need caffeine and sodium bicarbonate/phosphate (all legal). Why do I think so? Because I've seen outstanding genetic potential (not really talking endurance here) in teenagers that I know weren't using drugs and didn't even have much muscle mass. One guy I knew in grade 11 had a vertical jump of like 32 inches and he didn't even train with weights. I trained with weights for years and have a VJ of maybe 34 inches if I train jumps, squats etc, I haven't done that very much lately. (mind you I weigh more then that guy), but this guy had "explosive" genetic potential written all over him. I think it can be the same for endurance athletes. I also think that some people are more "trainable" then others. I seem to be one of those.

-Bikeguy

It depends how much natural talent you've got. And how desperate you are to win.

Take two people of equal fitness levels (defined by V02 max) and one can be much faster than the other over a given distance. The more you cycle the more adapted your muscles become to the cycling motion. You become more efficient and faster. This is not just about your muscles but also about your nervouse system and a lot of research has been done (look at www.pponline.co.uk (http://www.pponline.co.uk) for some details on the effects of tapering). Having taken up cycling recently i've noticed this. Without getting very much fitter (already had a good base from rowing) my performance has increased due to my muscles adapting to cycling.

A good example of adaptation is Lance Armstrong. After his cancer his muscles were very weak due to inactivity. As he recovered most of the work the muscles were doing was based around his bike. He therefore has what is one of the best neuromuscular adaptation to cycling there is. Does he dope, who knows, we'll leave the courts and doping authorities to deside on that.

Theres also genetic advantages. Kenyans and other east Africans take 60% of distance events yet get very few sprinting titles. The bio-cultural epicentre for world-class distance running - where evolutionary factors and social conditions come together in a feedback loop - is the Great Rift Valley adjacent to Lake Victoria. This is home to the Kalenjin, a loosely named population of 1.5 million people, who win almost 40% of major international distance events. One tiny district, the Nandi, with only 500,000 people - one-twelve-thousandth of the planet's population - sweeps an unfeasible 20% of such races.

If you've got the neuromuscular adaptation and the genetics you probably don't need to dope to win. Many people faced with the challenge of trying to beat people who have trained harder and have more natural talent will often turn to drugs especially if the prize money and sponsorship if you win is big. I would say thats wrong but money often gets in the way of morals for many people.

If a few people dope and win then more people will start to dope to try and outperform the original dopers, is not a good situation. Doping detection has to improved otherwise the problem will go out of control.

Some people dope, its a fact. And they will win races. Some are caught others aren't, unfortunate but true. Hopefully however it will be the true athletes who win the day. Over time those who dope will burn out quicker than those who don't.

I know one thing is for sure, no matter what sport I do I will never go any were near dope. That is my personal view. If doping is the only way to win then i'll settle for 2nd or 3rd, then train harder to get to that first place.

I would disagree with you on this point. I think that based on the same level of training the advantages gained from being both genetically and neuromusculary superior are similar to the advantages gained from taking dope. Therefore the dopers and the naturally gifted athletes are cycling at the same level.

There is always a temptation to dope, no matter how naturally talented you are, after all it requires so much less work to ram a syringe up you arm and doing 2 hours training than spend 5 hours a day increasing your vVO2 max by riding up mountains. However not everyone is has morals the are weak enough to let them dope. No matter how tough it gets a lot of people still fundamentally disagree with doping and are prepared to train harder to get the same results as the dopers.

Obviously doping is an attractive avenue to someone who wants to get good fast and win but I think you underestimate the moral resolve of the racers.

The situation would have to be everyone in a team dopes together or individuals do it privately or in small groups within teams. If it is team policy to dope, or the members of the team organise to dope within the team you have a problem. As soon as one guy whose clean turns up your busted. Someone approaches him to give him dope and bang the team goes down. So maybe teams don't recruit people who don't dope. But this would be damn suspicious to the authorities if perfectly good riders got rejected, or the riders might get suspicious when they get asked about doping in the interviews. In the end we would see many more teams getting busted for doping rather than the very low rate of drug detection.

There are also random drug tests. If people are doping on a daily or even weakly basis then random drugs tests, no matter how bad they are, will have caught many more people than they.

Thirdly you have the side effects of doping. If all the major pro's doped then you would see a much higher drop out/death rate amongst the top proffessionals who, according the every dopes theory, would dope the most. If the best currrent riders (Armstrong, Ullrich etc) are best because they dope the most then their bodies would have been wrecked within a couple of years.

In the end I think this comes down to opinion. There is no evidence from drugs tests that would suggest that a very large proportion of the pro tour riders dope. However there is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that suggests they do. Perhaps the tests are crap but in the age of modern science the detection rate would be much higher if everyone did dope. If in the future (blood samples being stored and all) a test comes up that is reliable and conclusively proves the guilt of 90+% of the pro peloton then I will believe that. Doping is a problem within the cycling community due the demands of that sport. However there is no solid evidence that suggests the peloton is as badly drugged up as you (Flyer) suggest.

A good move by the cycling authorities would be to charge the big teams extra to race in protour, then spend the extra money on better drug tests.

I've had this discussion with other track and field athletes when I was on a University track team. Their opinion was the same as Flyer's "tous dope". Specifically, we discussed top track sprinters and weightlifters/powerlifters. I maintained that not all of them do. All I can say is that nobody has ever approached me offering to sell steroids to me or anything else, the coaches never offered/approached me as regards a drug program and were all clearly against doping in sport. At least in Canada, the Ben Johnson affair has had a long lasting effect and the drug testing program was stepped up and I do believe that there was almost no tolerance for doping. I couldn't conceive of sports officials being paid off or being part of a conspiracy to cover up doping in sport. I certainly never saw any evidence of it. However, after having some experience with the use of recreational drugs and the motives and methods (operation) of some companies, the idea of "win at all costs" is something I noticed as deeply embedded in Canadian society and most assuredly in the US. It would not surprise me if most pro athletes dope, and indeed I suspect it is the case. At a lower level, the use of doping is undoubtedly far less common.

My response to Flyer, I think most people agree with you but would rather talk about cycling then doping. In other words, this has been rehashed many times before. If anybody's interested, they may take individual steps to better inform themselves on the matter if they haven't already done so. I wouldn't bother trying to educate them or change their opinion.

-Bikeguy

Is not a pro cycling death every 60 days qualify as a disturbingly high mortality rate?


No.
Considering the number of pro riders worldwide , one every 2 months is by no means 'solid evidence' that the entire pelton dopes.
No one is disputing there is dope in cycling Flyer , and you make many good points in your posts , but you cant see the wood for the trees.

If it was that prolific , there would be many more Festina scandals and many more positive tests (Festina scandals and positive tests will continue and continue , but unless there is a serious upsurge in them - or cyclist deaths - then there is no solid evidence that 'everyone dopes')

undefinedNo solid evidence---but plenty of dead cyclists.

Alexandre Zinoviev, age 43, died February 21, 2005-Gastric CancerHEart attack
Gerrie Kneteman, age 53, died November 2, 2004Heart Rythm Disorders-Crack in cornary artary
Tim Pauwels, age 22, died September 26, 2004
Stive Vermaut, age 28, died June 13, 2004[COLOR=DarkOrange]congenital heart failure
Marco Pantani, age 34, died February 14, 2004Overdose-cocaine
Michel Zanoli, age 35, died December 29, 2003Suspected heart failure
Jose Maria Jimenez, age 32, died December 8, 2003Heart failure
Marco Ceriani, age 16, died 2003Heart attack
Marco Rusconi, age 24, died June 3, 2003Heart Failure
Denis Zanetti, age 32, died January 10, 2003Heart attack due to alergic reaction to dental meds.

I am missing at least three other deaths since 2003 so that works to 13 deaths in 27 months, or one death every 2.07 months.

Solid evidence? Plenty!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/04/10/60II/main284958.shtml

http://outside.away.com/magazine/0799/9907tour.html

http://www.ergogenics.org/donati.html


UNFORTUNATELY, AUTOPSIES can only show that a heart attack occurred, not that EPO caused it or was even present in the bloodstream at the time of death. :eek:

He was busted and I, personally, think he did EPO, but his autopsy proves that he did not use it long-term and it was not the cause of his death, but some people won't let that stop them in their obsession.

Which dictionary are you reading?

We cannot detect 90% of these drugs in athletes who presently have a pulse rate. (the undead)

It hardly seems to matter that we have doping compliance rules which cannot be enforced.

Heart failure, irregular heart beat, high blood pressure are all consequences of using these juices.
Premature death is yet another consequence, no?

The sheer volume and young ages of the dead is more than sufficient to draw some obvious conclusions, Pro-cycling & good health are NOT congruent!

I am sure 23 year old Fabrice Salanson's family does not share your 'undefined' attitude re: doping consequences in cycling. I believe they are suing his former team for doping him. (Sebastien Chavanel's 2003 squad)

he's right y'know.

he's right y'know.
Yeah, I suspect he is personally.

I also think that someone is innocent till proven guilty. Hamilton got caught, and he's undeniably guilty as far as I'm concerned. Lance hasn't been caught (if indeed he dopes) and until he is, I'm not going to condemn him for it. I've been the victim of circumstance too many times throughout my life to make someone else the victum of it.

I also think that just about anything can be accomplished with hard work and desire, and I think it's short-sighted for any of us to make the statement "to be pro you have to dope". The fact is, we don't KNOW that's true. Theories and circumstantial evidence are just what they are..not necessarily fact.

Is it possible? CERTAINLY Is it likely? PERHAPS Is it known for an absolute fact? NO WAY

he's right y'know.


He's not even close to right! He's scewing the results in favor of his views. He claims that a pro biker dies every 2.07 months but yet NO, NONE, ZERO, NADA, causes of death listed on the death certificates of these pro's lists Steroids/EPO as a cause of direct death.

HE also claims, in his own words, " We cannot detect 90% of these drugs in athletes who presently have a pulse rate. (the undead)," yet the UCI conducts tests for the same drugs he claims caused the deaths of these riders. So, to me, that sound like a contradiction. Can we or can't we detect the use of drugs in professional athletes?

Right, I doubt it. Motivated, totally!

Random testing is flawed for many reasons:
1) very little money budgeted to fund personnel, lab work and the inevitable lawsuit if a positive is found.
2) Many of todays drugs are undectable
3) Pharmaceutical firms do not want markers in their products---because it works against their motives, trade secrets, continuing research and increased sales from all sectors---including athletes.
4) Some athletes go AWOL, then call for political help from the IOC, USA Cycling or other.

Random tests already take place in Australia (and many other countries via WADA).
Both WADA and ASDA require that top cyclists inform them of their location 24/7 so that random tests can be carried out. If an athlete is not where he is supposed to be he receives a failure to comply notification. \\ASDA (http://www.asda.org.au/athletes/testing.htm#2)

He's not even close to right! He's scewing the results in favor of his views. He claims that a pro biker dies every 2.07 months but yet NO, NONE, ZERO, NADA, causes of death listed on the death certificates of these pro's lists Steroids/EPO as a cause of direct death.

HE also claims, in his own words, " We cannot detect 90% of these drugs in athletes who presently have a pulse rate. (the undead)," yet the UCI conducts tests for the same drugs he claims caused the deaths of these riders. So, to me, that sound like a contradiction. Can we or can't we detect the use of drugs in professional athletes?

Right, I doubt it. Motivated, totally!

Read Willy Voet's Breaking the chain

Read Willy Voet's Breaking the chain


"The sheer volume and young ages of the dead is more than sufficient to draw some obvious conclusions, Pro-cycling & good health are NOT congruent!"

Read Flyers quote. What two words stand out the most? How about OBVIOUS CONCLUSIONS. What are they based off of? Where are the facts? I can provide you with enough information to have you conclude that second hand smoke had just as much to do with the deaths of these pro riders as did EPO/steroids. But, without facts, documented facts, it is just speculation.

"The sheer volume and young ages of the dead is more than sufficient to draw some obvious conclusions, Pro-cycling & good health are NOT congruent!"

Read Flyers quote. What two words stand out the most? How about OBVIOUS CONCLUSIONS. What are they based off of? Where are the facts? I can provide you with enough information to have you conclude that second hand smoke had just as much to do with the deaths of these pro riders as did EPO/steroids. But, without facts, documented facts, it is just speculation.

Read Willy Voet's Breaking the chain :D

Read Willy Voet's Breaking the chain :D
In that case read Jim Bouton's "Ball Four" and you will know that every baseball player who dies does so due to alcohol. :rolleyes:

In cycling the mortality seems driven by:

1) heart failure
2) Cancer
3) depression, bi-polar--suicide

Alcohol has not been a PED of choice amongst the elite cyclists.

Health problems with Jose Maria Jeminez, Marco Pantani, Thierry Claverolet and Lance Armstrong are all excellent examples of drug abuse in cycling.
Thanks, once again, for proving how stupid you are.

You must date the same porn stars that OJ Simpson & Al Cowlings do.

That explains your understanding and compassion for athletes and their cheating habits.

Your boy, cyclist Luca De Angeli was just suspended and fired for EPO use in March 2005. He was a rider for Selle Italia.

I guess its not just Tyler Hamilton and David Millar who cheat. Little riders cheat too!

Tous Dope!

You have no position, just noise.Was that just the same old noise of a lonely man looking for attention?

Keep the personal comments to a minimum please.

Some of us read your comments looking for facts and debate, we don't need to put up with abuse from either side.

I think my mum told me

"if you havn't got anything nice to say;
then don't post"