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

hilljunkie

Just curious about what everyone thought?

bikeguy

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

Eldrack

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 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.

Eldrack

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.

Eldrack

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.

bikeguy

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

Roadrash Dunc

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')