How has it got to this?

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.

I would like to know other opinions about a couple of things:

1. Lets assume there is a a small % of clean pros, why do they tolerate doping by their fellow competitors?
Why lose out on wine, placings, earnings, etct etc because one others are using PEDs and you aren't?
Why aren't there more whistleblowers, or at least anonymous tip offs. Or what about strong anti-doping statements in the press etc

2. Are modern riders more amoral than riders of the past?

We all know drugs were was used in the past, we know what Jacques Anquetil said about mineral water, have read the books about Tom Simpson's last hours etc. We know that cheating has played a big part in the history of the Tour. But others have pointed out that drug use was "not really" cheating before, but mainly aimed at easing the pain and getting through a race. NOT like today, in order to win, improve performance.

So if Mercx had lived in the EPO era , would he be as reviled by as many people today as Armstrong is?
(yes I know many millions admire LA, but no getting away from the fact that he is disliked by many many cycling fans by his perceived EPO use)

I would like to know other opinions about a couple of things:

1. Lets assume there is a a small % of clean pros, why do they tolerate doping by their fellow competitors?
Why lose out on wine, placings, earnings, etct etc because one others are using PEDs and you aren't?
Why aren't there more whistleblowers, or at least anonymous tip offs. Or what about strong anti-doping statements in the press etc

Possibly for the same reason batters don't talk crap about about pitchers in baseball. Because they don't want to get drilled in the head with a 100mph fastball.

2. Are modern riders more amoral than riders of the past?

No. The legends of yester year would have used EPO too. We already know Moser blood doped. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Moser). It shouldn't be that surprising. I mean, these are people who spend hours training and racing to reach their goals. Now tell them that after a couple pin pricks they'll be 10-20 percent faster. Lots of guys are going to go for that. [/QUOTE]

I would like to know other opinions about a couple of things:

1. Lets assume there is a a small % of clean pros, why do they tolerate doping by their fellow competitors?
Why lose out on wine, placings, earnings, etct etc because one others are using PEDs and you aren't?
Why aren't there more whistleblowers, or at least anonymous tip offs. Or what about strong anti-doping statements in the press etc

2. Are modern riders more amoral than riders of the past?

We all know drugs were was used in the past, we know what Jacques Anquetil said about mineral water, have read the books about Tom Simpson's last hours etc. We know that cheating has played a big part in the history of the Tour. But others have pointed out that drug use was "not really" cheating before, but mainly aimed at easing the pain and getting through a race. NOT like today, in order to win, improve performance.

So if Mercx had lived in the EPO era , would he be as reviled by as many people today as Armstrong is?
(yes I know many millions admire LA, but no getting away from the fact that he is disliked by many many cycling fans by his perceived EPO use)Look what happened to all those riders that broke the rule of "omerta" in the past. Kimmage, Basoon, etc. Personae non grata.

It's so prevelant in the sport (in my opinion) that it would be rare to find a rider not doing it. It goes back decades. I know it might not be a popular position, but i still think these guys are immense athletes, even if they do use enhancers. Not that i'm condoning drug use!

It's so prevelant in the sport (in my opinion) that it would be rare to find a rider not doing it. It goes back decades. I know it might not be a popular position, but i still think these guys are immense athletes, even if they do use enhancers. Not that i'm condoning drug use!
Yep but why don't we all just switch over to watching wrestling then instead.

Because as far as Im concerned then, the best performers in a Grand Tour will be a mixture of
- a) the most audacious dopers in the sport
- b) dopers with the best quality doping advice
- c) a smattering of the best natural cyclists who dope but don't do it with the cheek of cat a) or don't have the great medical help of cat b.

Like in athletics, many commentators have been saying for a few years now that in many cases, chemists are deciding the outcomes of races, not the athlethes

I would like to know other opinions about a couple of things:

1. Lets assume there is a a small % of clean pros, why do they tolerate doping by their fellow competitors?
Why lose out on wine, placings, earnings, etct etc because one others are using PEDs and you aren't?
Why aren't there more whistleblowers, or at least anonymous tip offs. Or what about strong anti-doping statements in the press etc


It might be the case that the small percentage of clean riders is so small that
there is insufficient "will" among them to inform - and thus the status quo is maintained.

Apart from Kimmage and Basson - no other rider has blown the whistle.
Don't be fooled by Manzano - he only informed after he nearly died at the TDF and was subsequently busted as part of the Kelme investigation.
Zulle, Millar, Virenque only confessed after they were facing possible jail.

Kimmage and Basson spoke out while riding.




2. Are modern riders more amoral than riders of the past?



In my mind - there is a difference between what the boys took in the 1920's to survive races like the TDF and what riders are doing now.
Back then because of the massive distances involved in racing and the conditions etc, riders took stuff to numb the pain.

Even in to the 1970's the top riders had to ride and win - to earn money.
It is understandable (if not excusable) for riders who were travelling day to day and racing, to take stuff in order to survive.

Today, it's different. The top riders have massive salaries and don't race as much - and don't need to race to earn money as such.
They race and operate in luxury compared to guys like Kelly, LeMond.
Therefore as to why they're doping, is open to speculation.
They're not doping to dull the pain, that's for sure.

Are riders more amoral today? I think they are, by and large.

i don't watch wrestling (not a knock) but i'm assuming you made the analogy based on the notion the tour was fixed.

how'd you know floyd was going to win?

Like in athletics, many commentators have been saying for a few years now that in many cases, chemists are deciding the outcomes of races, not the athlethes
From the seat of most spectators that would seem like a reasonable statement, but from a former user over a 10 year period in another sport, I do not think that is completely true. It would be true if 90% of the field were clean and 10% were using. That 10% would then fight for the gold or first place, but even then it would unpredictable among those riders.

There is a lot of discussion below the surface as an explanation to my statement, but that is too much typing for the moment.

i don't watch wrestling (not a knock) but i'm assuming you made the analogy based on the notion the tour was fixed.

how'd you know floyd was going to win?
No I didn't mean the tour is fixed. Rather that what you see is not reality. The strongest is not always winning.

From the seat of most spectators that would seem like a reasonable statement, but from a former user over a 10 year period in another sport, I do not think that is completely true. It would be true if 90% of the field were clean and 10% were using. That 10% would then fight for the gold or first place, but even then it would unpredictable among those riders.

There is a lot of discussion below the surface as an explanation to my statement, but that is too much typing for the moment.
I for one would be interested to hear more about your experiences.

I for one would be interested to hear more about your experiences.I made several attempts to add more discussion, but each time I would get started someone would walk in my office and I would cancel the post.

Here are a few points of discussion from my perspective from my own personal use to others that I was associated either in their training or as friends and fellow competitors sharing knowledge or from observing competitors in my local area.

Categories of users: (again this is only my perspective in association)

1. Those who use for faster recovery periods so they could endure training harder (I felt like I was in this category)
2. Those who use because they are obsessed with winning to the point of death if necessary (I felt like I was in this category)
3. Those who are sloppy with training and nutrition and use to make up for their undisciplined lifestyle.
4. Those who love being in the limelight and like the fan fare. (I never cared about audiences - I only wanted to win)

Why do other competitors put up with those using?

Without definite proof the accusers will end up looking like sore losers and whiners.

However, if a drug free athlete can beat a user (which is totally possible in certain cases) the victory is all the more sweet. When it comes to GH and anabolics I can usually tell by visual appearance who is using, but I would never make an accusation unless I actually saw the needle in their hip. For instance Sammy Sosa has the appearance of a user, but I would not make an accusation against him as I have met some very genetically gifted people in my life that can get that muscular and strong without using.

Feel free to ask other questions and I will try to answer when I get the time.

Disclaimer: I have been apart from this scene for many years now and when possible I use my experiences to advise athletes against using.

Feel free to ask other questions and I will try to answer when I get the time.

How old are you? How old were you when you started using? What sport did you participate in? What type of anabolics where you using and how much?

How old are you? How old were you when you started using? What sport did you participate in? What type of anabolics where you using and how much?
I am a few weeks from turning 43.

I started using anabolics just before graduating college (approx 1984)
I stopped using in 1996

Back then people just carried them in their gym bags and traded them out in the open like it was no big deal, but there were not too many of us that actually used them.

I spent 4 years studying medical journals at the university and talking to doctors while building a base foundation while lifting drug free before I started using.

Bodybuilding was my competitive field and I entered NPC competitions so most everyone that placed in the top 10 were using.

I used whatever I could pick up on the black market and eventually became a dealer so that my connections were more solid and I could weed out the fake items that floated around. Some of the fake items were very hard to distinquish (especially vials of Deca Durabolin during this time period) so it was beneficial to get near the top of the source to make sure the items were good.

It would be easier to list what I didn't take :) which was GH and insulin.
I contemplated those as well, but couldn't afford the expense at the time.

What I used through the years:
Anadrol 50
Primabolan
Dianabol
Parabolan
Winstrol-V
Winstrol Depot
Sustenon 250
Testosterone Cypionate
Testosterone Enthanate
Equipoise
Deca-Durabolin
Halotestin
HCG
Anavar

.....there are some others, but I can't think of them at the moment.

I am a few weeks from turning 43...

So dosages... pretty high? I mean, like 1,000mgs of test or test-like substance/week?

Do you have any health issues associated with using?

I feel like I need to put a little more of the dark side to this discussion to make sure this stays at least balanced or state the risks (at least of how it applied to me)

I was obessed with winning and using was part of the game. If you didn't use in the NPC you didn't win.

Here is what it cost me personally to "win".

1. My first wife left me after six months because of my "it's all about me" attitude and she gave me a choice between her and competing so I picked competition. (man was I stupid - she was a good person)

2. I became a dealer as noted in the previous post and fortunately I never got as close to the upper echelon of the connection because all my associates started getting arrested because they busted the main guy and started naming names. When the arrests got closer to me I dumped everthing I had in stock and bailed out of the circle.

3. One of the side effects for me was cystic acne when I used androgens and that was painful at times. Not only that I was so bulky in the off season the extra weight and water retention was uncomfortable.

4. The worst of all the effects was my temper. I had a short fuse to start with, but when I got on steroids it was amplified 10 times. Even though I was pretty comfortable with my ability to fight I still carried a gun because of some bad dealings and some people that didn't much care for me, but I was never frightened by anyone and the drugs made me feel almost invincible. (again very stupid mentality/behavior as I had one of my friends gunned down in front of the gym back in the early 90's)


Does everyone that gets involved get that deep?
Certainly not, but it was a gradual decline in life just to win a $12 dollar trophy. I won a lot of 1st place trophies, but I lost a lot more in the process.

I lost my wife
I lost friends
I could have had my house siezed
I could have lost my freedom
I could have easily killed someone or some people
I could have lost my career and any future career by having a criminal record.

So dosages... pretty high? I mean, like 1,000mgs of test or test-like substance/week?

Do you have any health issues associated with using?Actually my dosages were not as high as some of my friends, but yet way higher than the prescribed dosage.

I found that my receptors were not that good for the drugs so taking more really didn't give me any better results. For economic reasons I had a select dosage based on drug availability and would stretch out the cycle the best I could.

I often switched drugs every few weeks during a cycle to keep the receptors clean. My cycles would range from 10 to 15 weeks and I could never pass a drug test as many of the drugs were oil based and lingered in my system for long periods of time, but since I competed in a drug sport it didn't matter.

I can't really state dosages now because it is now 10 years since I was in the scene. I don't think I ever went over 400 mg of test per week, but typically I was stacking so there were other drugs involved.

Wow. It makes interesting reading. I for one would like to commend felt_rider for his honesty.

One of the most elegant "don't" arguments I have read, as the pay-back period persists long after the glory has gone.

One thing puzzles me though. When I was a teenager (1940s-early 1950s)possessed of a normal load of testosterone, I found riding with a stiffy a painful process dictating prior attention.

To-day that is but a wistful memory, but how do they claim Landis rode an entire Tour de France in that state?
:eek: :o :eek: :o :eek:
John Knees.

Why do other competitors put up with those using?

Without definite proof the accusers will end up looking like sore losers and whiners.
Felt Rider hit the nail on the head.

I raced for about 10 years and during my last year of competitive racing (mid '90's) there was a guy who went from back of the pack to winning most of the races. He wasn't some newcomer that just found his form, he had raced for a few years without success, and according to his teammates his training plan wasn't significantly different. We all highly suspected doping, but how can you publicly accuse someone without proof? It pissed me off to no end then and still bothers me, especially when you hear people say "let them all dope". Well that's fine if you want to dope, but I wasn't going to dope or risk my health and you cannot compete against those who are doping. I trained my ass off only to end up getting beat by a guy that couldn't suck my wheel a few months before.

The problem remains that you will sound like a whiner or sore loser, something no one wants. Look at some of the posts on these forums about LeMond. If people say a 3 time Tour winner is a whiner, then what are they going to say about a two-bit Cat 1/2 cyclist?

Also, remember cycling is a team oriented sport and you are constanly making alliances. If everyone hates you, you will never get in a winning break, get on the right wheel, or even worse. The only race you should even bother doing at that point is time trials.

Felt Rider hit the nail on the head.

I raced for about 10 years and during my last year of competitive racing (mid '90's) there was a guy who went from back of the pack to winning most of the races. He wasn't some newcomer that just found his form, he had raced for a few years without success, and according to his teammates his training plan wasn't significantly different. We all highly suspected doping, but how can you publicly accuse someone without proof? It pissed me off to no end then and still bothers me, especially when you hear people say "let them all dope". Well that's fine if you want to dope, but I wasn't going to dope or risk my health and you cannot compete against those who are doping. I trained my ass off only to end up getting beat by a guy that couldn't suck my wheel a few months before.

The problem remains that you will sound like a whiner or sore loser, something no one wants. Look at some of the posts on these forums about LeMond. If people say a 3 time Tour winner is a whiner, then what are they going to say about a two-bit Cat 1/2 cyclist?

Also, remember cycling is a team oriented sport and you are constanly making alliances. If everyone hates you, you will never get in a winning break, get on the right wheel, or even worse. The only race you should even bother doing at that point is time trials.Very good points fscyclist.