At what racing category level does the drug abuse begin?
warrior4life
Posts: 925
And does everyone believe all our athletes, track and road are clean? :?
0
Comments
-
Depends on the person and their environment - I know of someone who in their teenage years was anti-doping but started when they hit the protour and resultant pressures.
Belgian amateur racing has long been thought to be rife, even at the junior level, and I have heard from eyewitnesses that this is true.
In the UK there doesn't seem to be same environment - Tom Simpson was reputed to have been surprised by drug use abroad. I've never seen it here either. I'd be surprised if it was absent though - you hear of testosterone patches and so on - low level stuff mainly mind you. We don't have the money in cycling in this country to fund serious doping. To run a proper program of EPO, blood doping etc with someone like Fuentes and Ferrari, you'd need tens of thousands of pounds, though of course you can probably buy small amounts on the internet and (mis)use them on your own.
Amongst our top pros I personally have a lot of faith, but I'd be surprised if at least one hadn't succumbed at one time or another. I have my own suspicions of one, but am reluctant to discuss it hear as that's all they are, and it would probably do more harm than good.
You could even argue that drug abuse begins with legal supplements I suppose? Caffeine, creatine, etc. But that is a bit like saying use of cannabis leads to heroin addiction. In some indivudals, sure, but not in the case of the majority, so they may have ended up like that without cannabis.0 -
I have heard some cracking tales about stimulant abuse by riders when the old British Professional scene was in it's heyday!kourou wrote:In the UK there doesn't seem to be same environment
I also remember the days when 'DODO' tables were popular, even amongst 3rd cats!0 -
ok... i may sound stupid but whats a DODO tablet?0
-
Ephedrine / stimulant tablets.warrior4life wrote:ok... i may sound stupid but whats a DODO tablet?
http://www.chemistdirect.co.uk/do-do-ta ... _2413.html
They have an amphetamine-like action and were used as easily obtained amphetamine substitutes
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/157/2/2780 -
A late amateur club mate of mine was on a cocktail of substances. He had raced at a higher level (national class) previously though.0
-
You don't even want to know what age group I was riding when guys first started talking and thinking about it. We were hardly into girls, yet.
Kids of the 80's.... 0 -
pardon me for asking, but how would it have been better if you had been into girls?0 -
Girls seem like a more inviting first step into the adult world than PED's to me...0
-
kourou wrote:
In the UK there doesn't seem to be same environment - Tom Simpson was reputed to have been surprised by drug use abroad..
the same Tom Simpson who died tweaking up a mountain?0 -
The very same. From what i understand (who knows whether it should be believed - however, i don't see why it shouldn't be true), he was surprised when he started racing on the continent. Obviously it is well known what happened after...0
-
Given that stimulant use was regarded by almost everyone as being a perfectly normal and understandable 'part of the job' in Simpson's time, and many top riders spoke openly about the use of stimulants, I doubt that he was surprised by anything he saw on the Continent.kourou wrote:The very same. From what i understand (who knows whether it should be believed - however, i don't see why it shouldn't be true), he was surprised when he started racing on the continent. Obviously it is well known what happened after...
Simpson provides an excellent illustration of the way the doping of others makes riders feel that they must also dope, and by doing so propagate exactly the same culture that they are a 'victim' of.
Simpson had only recently turned professional when he told Chris Brasher: 'I am up there with the stars, but then suddenly they'll go away from me. I know from the way they ride the next day that they're taking dope. I don't want to have to take it … but if I don't win a big event soon, I shall have to start taking it.'
However, it can hardly be argued that Simpson was an 'innocent victim'. He decision to dope was his own, the result of ambition and even greed. It also has to be said that Simpson appeared to have the outlook of a 'Chaudiere' from the off, as when he was shown his team mates stash of stimulant tables and he asked 'How many of those does it take to kill you?' On being told 'Ten', Simpson replied 'Ok then 'give me nine!'
Simpson also reportedly joked / boasted to Colin Lewis that he spent 4 times more on drugs than Lewis earned in a season!0 -
From discussions with ex-pros and elite riders, it pretty well starts between the junior to espoir ranks of the key feeder clubs to the pro ranks - it's at this point a lot of people get disenfranchised as guys they've beaten as juniors are suddenly tearing their legs off and probably the difference between a pro career and nothing. There are well documented cases of even sportive riders in Italy being 'prepared' - how else does Rumsas make a living? In Italy it's pretty well institutionalised.Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..0
-
yep, starts in the juniors. In Anglophone domiciles too.0
-
Monty Dog wrote:There are well documented cases of even sportive riders in Italy being 'prepared' - how else does Rumsas make a living?
He ripped my legs off in a gran fondo a couple of years ago, I reckon the only reason he beat me (by a huge amount of time) is because he was up to the eyeballs 0 -
aurelio wrote:
Given that stimulant use was regarded by almost everyone as being a perfectly normal and understandable 'part of the job' in Simpson's time, and many top riders spoke openly about the use of stimulants, I doubt that he was surprised by anything he saw on the Continent.kourou wrote:The very same. From what i understand (who knows whether it should be believed - however, i don't see why it shouldn't be true), he was surprised when he started racing on the continent. Obviously it is well known what happened after...
Simpson provides an excellent illustration of the way the doping of others makes riders feel that they must also dope, and by doing so propagate exactly the same culture that they are a 'victim' of.
Simpson had only recently turned professional when he told Chris Brasher: 'I am up there with the stars, but then suddenly they'll go away from me. I know from the way they ride the next day that they're taking dope. I don't want to have to take it … but if I don't win a big event soon, I shall have to start taking it.'
However, it can hardly be argued that Simpson was an 'innocent victim'. He decision to dope was his own, the result of ambition and even greed. It also has to be said that Simpson appeared to have the outlook of a 'Chaudiere' from the off, as when he was shown his team mates stash of stimulant tables and he asked 'How many of those does it take to kill you?' On being told 'Ten', Simpson replied 'Ok then 'give me nine!'
Simpson also reportedly joked / boasted to Colin Lewis that he spent 4 times more on drugs than Lewis earned in a season!
Whilst all you say is true and the quotes correct, you do veer well away from the point I made. I only suggest that it is possible, as has been suggested by Fotheringham in his book, that Simpson (and presumably therefore the same goes, generally speaking for other cyclists in the UK at the time) was unaware of at least the extent of doping, even if he knew it happened. Don't forget they did not have Twitter, forums, the internet or the same level of cynicism we have now :-)
The OP's question was about when doping starts, and everyone is more than aware Simpson became a doper - my point was there to suggest 'when', and of course I'm only guessing - I wasn't even born ...
I'm as cynical as anyone else when I need to be, and totally accept that he got more than fully on board with the culture he discovered in Europe, but I'm prepared, unless its been claimed otherwise (and I'm willing to be educated here if there are claims I am unaware of, or passages I have missed, speaking of a major doping culture here at the time, but I've read everything you have quoted from), to believe that in the junior / club ranks in Britain that Simpson left behind, the perception of continental cycling was mainly one they gleaned from magazines and other coverage, and that Tom would have been genuinely surprised at how ingrained and routine substance abuse was, when he arrived on the European scene.
I'm not saying nothing went on here, just that it doesn't appear tohave been at the level to suggest that Simpson 'must' have had experience of it. I doubt we'll ever know one way or another, so we have to go on probability, and based on what I know it seems unlikely even if it is not impossible... Therefore we should give him the benefit of the doubt.
Regarding comments made that the problem begins in junior ranks at the moment, I'd be curious to know if those making those claims belive it 'goes on' or is 'prevalent' at that level? Not sceptical, just interested... For example, I've seen Sella/Ricco-like performances at 3rd cat level, but wonder if they are natural talents for whom the category-climbing points system is designed, or people who are a little too 'ambitious'?
If you're going to answer that by the way, you should probably make a case, rather than just claim an opinion, or to have witnessed a single incident...0 -
I think in the 90's in the UK small scale drug usage was common with some riders and at least one future GB Olympian's name has been mentioned to me. However, I'm also pretty confident that the majority who represented GB in the 90's weren't on PED. They knew that when they travelled abroad they had no chance against the EPO taking Pros, but gave it their best all the same.
I still think Cycling Weekly etc. should apologise for their slagging off the GB riders performances, despite everyone knowing what the real reason for there reduced performance was.0 -
warrior4life wrote:And does everyone believe all our athletes, track and road are clean? :?
Doping starts VERY young IF the athlete shows some talent. They get doped ASAP. Some Juniors have tested positive for EPO.
It is absolutely instilled in them, DENY, deny deny deny to no end. Young minds learn easy.
The Australian Institute of sport had a big doping scandal among the 14-19 year old gov. funded athletes and they used their public housing units to have group injections. Olympic funding still very much goes toward doping young minors no doubt.
http://sixtyminutesv2.ninemsn.com.au/ar ... ?id=259182
They were using EquiGen and possibly Testicom. These are mainly horse-growth hormones but can be used in humans.0 -
Also, I read a story about a cat 5 rider in the Miami area using EPO.
Doping at the low levels has little effect however. The gains you see from doping are percentages of whay you already have.
20% more than 300 watts is 360.
But 20% more than 230 watts is only 276.0 -
All this, and the rest of your post, and of many others here, also regarding contemporary cycling and sports in general, departs from the assumption that doping and a doping culture originates always elsewhere, not in Britain. The idea that British riders may perhaps be convinced and stimulated by foreign dopers when they go abroad to become caught in their doping cultures, but that a doping culture is somehow inherently un-British, never originates in Britain. There was some comment by someone with respect to the launch of the new Sky Team, of a fear that 'our sense of fair play' would get in the way of competing with foreign (read doping) teams. I find this kind of thinking troubling, especially on a forum that is normally uber-critical of doping.kourou wrote:I'm as cynical as anyone else when I need to be, and totally accept that he got more than fully on board with the culture he discovered in Europe, but I'm prepared, unless its been claimed otherwise (and I'm willing to be educated here if there are claims I am unaware of, or passages I have missed, speaking of a major doping culture here at the time, but I've read everything you have quoted from), to believe that in the junior / club ranks in Britain that Simpson left behind, the perception of continental cycling was mainly one they gleaned from magazines and other coverage, and that Tom would have been genuinely surprised at how ingrained and routine substance abuse was, when he arrived on the European scene.0 -
It all begins right around the age of 50 or 55 and continues for the rest of your life.
Of course all this is doctor prescribed and does help to keep you alive but none the less
probably could be categorized as drug abuse of sorts. Sorry for the stupid post but once again I couldn't resist. I'm sure I could never pass a "PRO" drug test. Those guys can't take anything, it seems.
Dennis Noward0 -
FJS wrote:All this, and the rest of your post, and of many others here, also regarding contemporary cycling and sports in general, departs from the assumption that doping and a doping culture originates always elsewhere, not in Britain. The idea that British riders may perhaps be convinced and stimulated by foreign dopers when they go abroad to become caught in their doping cultures, but that a doping culture is somehow inherently un-British, never originates in Britain. There was some comment by someone with respect to the launch of the new Sky Team, of a fear that 'our sense of fair play' would get in the way of wompeting with foreign (read doping) teams. I find this kind of thinking troubling, especially on a forum that is normally uber-critical of doping.
Steady on :-) You're reading a lot of thinking into one point I've made. If you disagree with my point that in Simpson's era, British racing was significantly cleaner than the culture he discovered in mainland Europe, go ahead (in fact I've invited to you to - I'm only going on what I have heard and am prepared to be proved wrong - I might be).
I suffer from no delusion that Britain is clean, or that our relative cleanliness is due to our national character - certainly in some sports quite the opposite, and cycling has had its share.
Regarding that particular debate however, my position is that we're not special, and doping in Britain is likely to be in proportion to popularity/participation/finances of the sport. All have been relatively low historically, which I think explains why Britain has not yet been as tainted by scandal as, say, France, Italy, Spain.
I wouldn't necessarily rule out a national revulsion of cheating that is slightly stronger than elsewhere, but then that would be pretty hard to prove :-) Nothing wrong with encouraging one though, and nothing wrong with being proud that we have not produced many cheats, if it helps stigmatise being one.0 -
Indeed, it is not national character, it's just it's probably not worth the cost-benefit of doping to win in Britain. Win a minor classic in Belgium and you'll be on a six figure salary within no time. Become national champion in the UK and you'll be as rich as Hamish Haynes. (Who? Exactly)kourou wrote:I suffer from no delusion that Britain is clean, or that our relative cleanliness is due to our national character - certainly in some sports quite the opposite, and cycling has had its share.
Regarding that particular debate however, my position is that we're not special, and doping in Britain is likely to be in proportion to popularity/participation/finances of the sport. All have been relatively low historically, which I think explains why Britain has not yet been as tainted by scandal as, say, France, Italy, Spain.0 -
I'm a cat 3 rider and often wonder if some riders are on something, especially when it's an E/1/2/3 race and you look at the build and performance of some of these guys. Maybe it's just down to hard work and good diet. Maybe i should lay off the pies!!0
-
Homer J wrote:I'm a cat 3 rider and often wonder if some riders are on something, especially when it's an E/1/2/3 race and you look at the build and performance of some of these guys. Maybe it's just down to hard work and good diet. Maybe i should lay off the pies!!
No, your original observation is correct. MAny of them dope.0 -
FJS wrote:
All this, and the rest of your post, and of many others here, also regarding contemporary cycling and sports in general, departs from the assumption that doping and a doping culture originates always elsewhere, not in Britain. The idea that British riders may perhaps be convinced and stimulated by foreign dopers when they go abroad to become caught in their doping cultures, but that a doping culture is somehow inherently un-British, never originates in Britain. There was some comment by someone with respect to the launch of the new Sky Team, of a fear that 'our sense of fair play' would get in the way of competing with foreign (read doping) teams. I find this kind of thinking troubling, especially on a forum that is normally uber-critical of doping.kourou wrote:I'm as cynical as anyone else when I need to be, and totally accept that he got more than fully on board with the culture he discovered in Europe, but I'm prepared, unless its been claimed otherwise (and I'm willing to be educated here if there are claims I am unaware of, or passages I have missed, speaking of a major doping culture here at the time, but I've read everything you have quoted from), to believe that in the junior / club ranks in Britain that Simpson left behind, the perception of continental cycling was mainly one they gleaned from magazines and other coverage, and that Tom would have been genuinely surprised at how ingrained and routine substance abuse was, when he arrived on the European scene.
and that perception is bullshit. Hayles and the collective apologia in Man '08 should have blown the misperception out of the water.
Everyone here swalled the "dehydration, and sickness". (well not everyone, but the perception exists).
How about Sciandri and Cecchini and Millar. Does anyone think those espoirs in Tuscany are holier than thou, under Sciandri's guidance, and guy ushering Millar to Ceccho.
Got more info on Millar and the track team, but it is heresay, but pretty damn good source, and only a two degrees of separation. Coupled with Hayles, I am confident of my opinions.
Anyone recognised changing morphology of any riders, no thickening brows and exaggerated bone structure? No?
Were there many talented junior sprinters, where did the senior team come from? Just hard training and science. I thought that was Armstrong's patented justification. Certainly two groups can't use the same explanation.0 -
not sure if the UK can get this film:
http://www.biggerstrongerfastermovie.com/
But it is really good at examining the ethics of doping in sports at all levels.
One section looks into the culture of doping in high school sports in Texas, and how pervasive it is. The town in Texas is Plano.
I think some famous rider came from Plano.0 -
forearms Van Petegem wrote:
and that perception is bullshit. Hayles and the collective apologia in Man '08 should have blown the misperception out of the water.
Everyone here swalled the "dehydration, and sickness". (well not everyone, but the perception exists).
How about Sciandri and Cecchini and Millar. Does anyone think those espoirs in Tuscany are holier than thou, under Sciandri's guidance, and guy ushering Millar to Ceccho.
Got more info on Millar and the track team, but it is heresay, but pretty damn good source, and only a two degrees of separation. Coupled with Hayles, I am confident of my opinions.
Anyone recognised changing morphology of any riders, no thickening brows and exaggerated bone structure? No?
Were there many talented junior sprinters, where did the senior team come from? Just hard training and science. I thought that was Armstrong's patented justification. Certainly two groups can't use the same explanation.
I guess - for some - that's the more palatable explanation for the Aussies getting their collective arse felt on the track... Le Blaireau (1)0 -
DaveyL wrote:forearms Van Petegem wrote:
and that perception is bullshit. Hayles and the collective apologia in Man '08 should have blown the misperception out of the water.
Everyone here swalled the "dehydration, and sickness". (well not everyone, but the perception exists).
How about Sciandri and Cecchini and Millar. Does anyone think those espoirs in Tuscany are holier than thou, under Sciandri's guidance, and guy ushering Millar to Ceccho.
Got more info on Millar and the track team, but it is heresay, but pretty damn good source, and only a two degrees of separation. Coupled with Hayles, I am confident of my opinions.
Anyone recognised changing morphology of any riders, no thickening brows and exaggerated bone structure? No?
Were there many talented junior sprinters, where did the senior team come from? Just hard training and science. I thought that was Armstrong's patented justification. Certainly two groups can't use the same explanation.
I guess - for some - that's the more palatable explanation for the Aussies getting their collective ars* felt on the track...
dont reckon the aussies that handed the brits their arse in '04 were necessarily cleaner. The del Monte shooting gallery proved that.0 -
That's the thing, I don't. I see Hoy, Staff, Edgar and the others and don't see the tell-tale signs of HGH abuse.forearms Van Petegem wrote:Anyone recognised changing morphology of any riders, no thickening brows and exaggerated bone structure? No?0 -
Kléber wrote:
That's the thing, I don't. I see Hoy, Staff, Edgar and the others and don't see the tell-tale signs of HGH abuse.forearms Van Petegem wrote:Anyone recognised changing morphology of any riders, no thickening brows and exaggerated bone structure? No?
I have seen some pics of riders from about 8 years back. The younger riders, they will not manifest the changes for a few years.
Also a guy on the road starting to look different through the mouth and mandible. Ofcourse, this is pretty tenuous, I don't hold this as evidence.0
