Amateur's doping.

ridley2010

Just heard the news a domestic rider has been banned for missing a test. I wonder how clean the uk crit scene is? I would hope pretty clean seeing as a few of the track lads are up there(clancy tennent burke)

Theomerchant

From what I've heard its very clean, there was one lad who rose the ranks to elite a bit 'too' quick and John Herety noticed and he was qucikly and swiftly banned from racing for doping. it's too close knit and everyone is at too simialr a level for any doping to go on, plus with good ol' uncle John on the look out no one would dare dope!

displacedaussie

The situation with Marcel Six is slightly more nuanced. From the Metaltek-Scott Facebook page:

Re – Marcel Six being banned by UK Anti Doping for failing to provide a urine sample after Canary Wharf, Tour Series.
We understand the decision of UKAD and that rules are rules and Marcel made a massive error of judgement in refusing a test on the night of Canary Wharf. When you are aware of the circumstances surrounding the matter, an urgent private family situation, coupled with the fact he was tested 12 hours later at home (by UKAD) which of course proved negative along with other negative tests at Lincoln and Stocton GP’s plus 2 further ‘out of competition’ tests, the headlines are somewhat harsh and mislead the reader to more serious wrong doing. In UKAD’s statement they quote Marcel was able to ‘demonstrate he was at no particular fault or negligent’. We have found Marcel to be nothing but professional this year and he wouldn’t wish to tarnish his name, cherished family and our Team. He of course accepts the outcome of UKAD and the consequences of his actions that evening.
As a Team we welcome everything UKAD is doing for the good of the sport and will continue to support them.

Andrew Swain - Manager

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=442260539144662&id=279884642048920

Herbsman

I admit I dope

ridley2010

Im not suggesting anyone was doping, more wondering. With the pro ranks being so full of it, it must filter down a little.

Trev The Rev

Doping will have filtered down into the amateur ranks to the same extent aero equipment, carbon frames,and any other new technology has.

They might not be as up to date or as organised, but how many amateurs are drug tested?

danowat

Trev The Rev wrote:

Doping will have filtered down into the amateur ranks to the same extent aero equipment, carbon frames,and any other new technology has.

They might not be as up to date or as organised, but how many amateurs are drug tested?

UKAD test amateurs at time trials, a rider got caught at an event a year or so ago.

As for your first statement, utterly ridiculous, but don't let that stop you, it never has....

Trev The Rev

danowat wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

Doping will have filtered down into the amateur ranks to the same extent aero equipment, carbon frames,and any other new technology has.

They might not be as up to date or as organised, but how many amateurs are drug tested?

UKAD test amateurs at time trials, a rider got caught at an event a year or so ago.

As for your first statement, utterly ridiculous, but don't let that stop you, it never has....

Sorry, do you really believe that the only thing that does not filter down from the pro scene to the amateur scene is doping? We know for a fact how ingrained doping was in pro cycling it is inconceivable the amateur ranks remained clean.

Amateur cyclists are very fast to take on new technology, training methods and 'supplements', sports drinks, gels, recovery shakes, etc etc, - no way some have not strayed to the dark side.

ridley2010

Well theres the obvious health risks, it'd take quite alot for most to start putting blood bags in their freezers. Dont want to end up like Ricco.

danowat

Doping isn't "new technology", cyclists were doing it way back.

I don't think amateur cycling is 100% clean, however, I don't think its anywhere near as widespread as aero kit and carbon frames are

fish156

ridley2010 wrote:

Well theres the obvious health risks, it'd take quite alot for most to start putting blood bags in their freezers. Dont want to end up like Ricco.

That's one extreme end of the scale. I expect many wouldn't see much risk in popping the odd testosterone pill or using a patch.

Trev The Rev

ridley2010 wrote:

Well theres the obvious health risks, it'd take quite alot for most to start putting blood bags in their freezers. Dont want to end up like Ricco.

Plenty of amateur cyclist caught doping. Doubt it is confined to America.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/sport ... .html?_r=0

http://303cycling.com/How-Wide-Spread-i ... ur-Cycling

ridley2010

Hmm i'd still be a little worried. There's always rumors but I've always assumed they were that, just rumors. More jealousy of someone going better than you!

danowat

Trev The Rev wrote:

ridley2010 wrote:

Well theres the obvious health risks, it'd take quite alot for most to start putting blood bags in their freezers. Dont want to end up like Ricco.

Plenty of amateur cyclist caught doping. Doubt it is confined to America.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/sport ... .html?_r=0

http://303cycling.com/How-Wide-Spread-i ... ur-Cycling

Trev's legendary googling skills on show again

DavidJB

Quite frankly you are one sad sob if you're doping in say a 2nd cat race. I can understand being a pro how you can get to a place where you dope (not that I condone it)...you're under pressure to perform and if you don't perform you get sacked and can't feed your family... amateurs race for fun and there is no financial pressures...you're just an utter scumbag if you cheat at this level.

ridley2010

David, i agree completely with you there!

Herbsman

Woah woah it was only an espresso and I didn't even finish in the top 10

chrisaonabike

In time, there will be a variety of drugs available for arresting and possibly even reversing the effects of ageing.

As a moderately fit almost 50 year old that would quite like to live forever, or at least not to age as fast as I seem to be, or to recover quicker after injury, I wish they were available now.

I have no aspirations to race, so the ethical issues are for me a bit moot, but 'you don't look too bad for your age mate' will take on a whole new meaning in years to come.

Of course, if there were drugs available that could restore old gits like myself to youthfulness, I might want to race.

In time, the waters will get a lot muddier than anyone could imagine now.

sub55

Never knowingly competed against or heard of anybody deliberately cheating in this manner in the domestic racing environment.
That said , i suspect theres an awful lot of riders , particularly in the lower categories who have unwittingly put themselves in a situation where they would fail a test.
Sure this isnt a means of cheating , more a reaction to the pressures of modern life and a lack of understanding as to what is or isnt permittable. If you look at the list of prohibited substances and methods and masking agents , the average person, me inclued quite simply hasn't got a clue.
So in my mind there is two problems here , first is deliberately cheating , which im sure is extremely rare and second is unintended consequence , which is probably more common than we would like to think.
But to me , they are not the same thing.

mattshrops

Herbsman wrote:

Woah woah it was only an espresso and I didn't even finish in the top 10

You disgust me. :evil:

TakeTurns

Saw a guy with huge thighs in a cat3 race. Must've been doping. :roll:

The benefits are marginal...Drugs like EPO won't have the same effect it would on an amateur as it would on a pro.

Why do people have this preconceived idea that doping makes you superhuman...it doesn't.

Herbsman

TakeTurns wrote:

Saw a guy with huge thighs in a cat3 race. Must've been doping. :roll:

The benefits are marginal...Drugs like EPO won't have the same effect it would on an amateur as it would on a pro.

Why do people have this preconceived idea that doping makes you superhuman...it doesn't.

Actually, there is reason to believe that the amateur would benefit more than the pro.

Nobody is saying that doping makes you superhuman, in fact nobody suggested anything like that, so I don't know where you got that idea from. However, training and racing is a pro's full time job; they will already be near their full potential, so they have less room for improvement. Whereas an amateur, due to time constraints, would be nowhere near their full potental - thus much more room for improvement. Theoretically, doping could potentially have a more significant effect on the amateur. I'm not saying drugs would allow a third category rider to compete in a professional race - just that they would piss all over other third cats.

BeaconRuth

Trev The Rev wrote:

They might not be as up to date or as organised, but how many amateurs are drug tested?

I don't know the answer to this question but I was tested myself 3 times over the course of 8 seasons of amateur time trialling. When you start getting in the top 10 of national championships or if you regularly ride, say, Premier Calendar races, or national series events in whichever discipline, then it would be realistic to expect to be tested at some point.

Ruth

SwainsL

Herbsman wrote:

Actually, there is reason to believe that the amateur would benefit more than the pro.

Nobody is saying that doping makes you superhuman, in fact nobody suggested anything like that, so I don't know where you got that idea from. However, training and racing is a pro's full time job; they will already be near their full potential, so they have less room for improvement. Whereas an amateur, due to time constraints, would be nowhere near their full potental - thus much more room for improvement. Theoretically, doping could potentially have a more significant effect on the amateur. I'm not saying drugs would allow a third category rider to compete in a professional race - just that they would wee-wee all over other third cats.

I disagree, drugs will mostly help an athlete who is at optimal fitness. The amateur rider will not be able to see the same applicable benefit simply because they aren't fit enough. It's like giving an overweight person Usain Bolt's shoes and expecting him to run much faster. I'm not saying they will not improve at all, in contrast they will not be able to reap the benefits as much as a pro would.

Herbsman

SwainsL wrote:

It's like giving an overweight person Usain Bolt's shoes and expecting him to run much faster.

That is the worst analogy I've ever seen.

It's nothing like that at all.

Herbsman

SwainsL wrote:

Herbsman wrote:

Actually, there is reason to believe that the amateur would benefit more than the pro.

Nobody is saying that doping makes you superhuman, in fact nobody suggested anything like that, so I don't know where you got that idea from. However, training and racing is a pro's full time job; they will already be near their full potential, so they have less room for improvement. Whereas an amateur, due to time constraints, would be nowhere near their full potental - thus much more room for improvement. Theoretically, doping could potentially have a more significant effect on the amateur. I'm not saying drugs would allow a third category rider to compete in a professional race - just that they would wee-wee all over other third cats.

I disagree, drugs will mostly help an athlete who is at optimal fitness. The amateur rider will not be able to see the same applicable benefit simply because they aren't fit enough. It's like giving an overweight person Usain Bolt's shoes and expecting him to run much faster. I'm not saying they will not improve at all, in contrast they will not be able to reap the benefits as much as a pro would.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence either way, so we'll have to agree that neither of us are correct - this is all just speculation.

But it seems to be the case with nutritional supplements:

4) The more elite I am, the more I need supplements

This is an extremely commonly held view amongst athletes in a variety of sports. The perception is that as you get to the pointy end of your chosen sport, sports supplements will start to become more important to get you over the line.

Interestingly however the research tends to suggest that the biggest benefits from nutritional supplements occur in the least fit individuals, which is often where the initial studies are undertaken. Supplements such as quercetin, nitrates and beta-alanine all seem to have much larger performance effects when studied in relatively inactive subjects compared to high level club or professional athletes. In fact quercetin appears to have no beneficial effect at all in well trained cyclists (it does in mice and unfit people though).

The dose of nitrates in a one-off serve of beetroot juice also looks like being inadequate to make any difference. Consensus is moving towards consuming beetroot juice for around a week leading up to a competition, or taking nitrates in another more concentrated form.

Why is this? The theory that some of my colleagues have thrown around is that many of these supplements enhance systems in the body that are already upregulated as a result of training anyway. So a well-trained cyclist has already come close or achieved a “ceiling” in their potential for adaptations, whereas an unfit person has much greater room for improvement, which can be fast-tracked through some types of supplements. We know that carbohydrate loading and consuming large quantities of carbs in events of 1.5-3 hours is less critical in well trained athletes, because their ability to use fat as a significant energy source over these time periods is sufficient. But for a not-so-fit cyclist who’s competing over those distances there may still be a much greater benefit of aggressive carbohydrate intakes. And over longer distances (think the Melbourne-Warrnambool or endurance mountain biking) aggressive carbohydrate intakes are likely to benefit all levels of riders.

From http://www.cyclingtips.com.au/2012/08/f ... ion-myths/

Neil Buckley

I wouldnt know were to get it or do it it....

SBezza

Trev The Rev wrote:

They might not be as up to date or as organised, but how many amateurs are drug tested?

Not enough that is for sure, I would like to see more testing at CTT events, but then again it costs the CTT a fair chunk of money to get testing done so I don't expect to see them that often. I think they should test at all Nationals in TT's and also some of the bigger BBAR races where there is likely to be alot of the top national riders at the same location.

Last time I have seen testers at a CTT event was one of the 25m TT's on the ski slope in Wales back in 2010, I was also tested at the National 100 in 2010, since then even at National events I haven't seen the testers (though I don't do the shorter events and they could well have been there).

I also don't think you would see testers at regional BC events either, like the SERRL, or the Surrey League for example, but again perhaps they should turn up and test a fair few riders as a deterrent if nothing else.

ridley2010

Here's the question on my mind, what would you do if someone told you they were charging up for races?

Herbsman

Grass them up

hammerite

sub55 has a point. How many of us may have taken something where we don''t really know the ingredients? Alain Baxter inhaled a Vicks sinex bought in the US (with different ingredients to what we have in the UK) and lost out on his Olympic medal.

I'm a lowly 3rd Cat but was worried about my asthma medication. I asked my doctor whether I needed a certificate for any of my medication and they chuckled a bit and said "never been asked that question before, I don't know". I've since checked it out and I don't. However, I was given some corticosteroid tablets for an allergic reaction I had a couple of months back, and it seems I should probably have got a TUE for them. Although I've only attempted to race once in recent months and that was an embarrassing attempt at a cross race that I ended up DNFing - no idea how long that drug stays in my system for though and whether I should ask the doctor (again) for when I start racing again next season.