To what extent does doping permeate the British scene?

BenderRodriguez

Pross wrote:

The thing with saying UK riders are taking caffeine and ephedrine is that, whilst unethical and cheating in many people's eyes, ephedrine only has a restriction on higher concentrations and caffeine isn't banned so providing they keep the ephedrine level within limits they aren't breaking any rules.

Nope. Substances that are subject to a threshold limitation, such as ephedrine, can only be used at all if the user has a supporting TUE. I bet no UK domestic riders who pop caffeine along with 'Do Do' tablets have a TUE, and the amount they would be taking would probably send them over the limit in any case.

Also, you seem to be skirting around the point I made that popping pills in order to gain a performance advantage is psychologically (and ethically) no different whether or not such use is done inside or outside of the rules. As I said, would it be OK to use Epo simply because it were taken off the prohibited substance list?

DeVlaeminck

Well it's pretty ropey ground to argue that there is no ethical difference between popping a pill which is against the rules and popping a pill that is within the rules. You may be able to construct an argument that even taking legal substances is a step along a continuum towards doping but clearly there is an ethical difference between doing that and breaking the rules.

epc06

Macaloon wrote:

Peak British scene was surely the Second Summer of Love, Manchester '89. It was absolutely f*cking brilliant. Then the brand ambassadors and anesthetists came to the party. You can guess the rest.

The Hacienda was that good there appears to be only ever 1 clip shown on TV...the one with a load of E'd up blokes swaying side-to-side wearing beanie hats

BenderRodriguez

DeVlaeminck wrote:

clearly there is an ethical difference between doing that and breaking the rules.

Is there?

In any case, using ephedrine without a having a supporting TUE is against the rules...

Pross

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Pross wrote:

The thing with saying UK riders are taking caffeine and ephedrine is that, whilst unethical and cheating in many people's eyes, ephedrine only has a restriction on higher concentrations and caffeine isn't banned so providing they keep the ephedrine level within limits they aren't breaking any rules.

Nope. Substances that are subject to a threshold limitation, such as ephedrine, can only be used at all if the user has a supporting TUE. I bet no UK domestic riders who pop caffeine along with 'Do Do' tablets have a TUE, and the amount they would be taking would probably send them over the limit in any case.

Also, you seem to be skirting around the point I made that popping pills in order to gain a performance advantage is psychologically (and ethically) no different whether or not such use is done inside or outside of the rules. As I said, would it be OK to use Epo simply because it were taken off the prohibited substance list?

Not at all, I've said it is unethical and cheating in many people's eyes and that includes mine. However, technically if a rider stays within the stated rules then they aren't cheating. If you stretch it you get into the question if someone is cheating by pushing technology to its limits within the rules e.g. Lemond winning the '89 Tour by virtue of better technology in the final TT. It's a philosophical debate that will always go on as people will always go that extra bit to gain an advantage whether within the rules or not.

EDIT there is plenty of history of athletes openly advertising legal products that supposedly give an advantage. The most obvious being creatine which was being advertised by big names in all sorts of sports a few years ago.

BenderRodriguez

Pross wrote:

I've said it is unethical and cheating in many people's eyes and that includes mine. However, technically if a rider stays within the stated rules then they aren't cheating.

To me, the ethical issue is of much greater significance then the question of whether or not someone's actions constitute 'cheating'. For one thing, whether one is 'cheating' or not depend on whose rules one is playing by. Many pros have said that they didn't consider themselves to be 'cheating' by doping as this was the 'professional' thing to do, or others were also doing it, etc. That is, the riders 'played by the rules', however these were their own rules rather than the official ones!

ManOfKent

I have no experience with racing. But one of my clubmates was seen to drink a vial of liquid before a sportive in France and subsequently went like a train, much faster than he would usually ride. He declined to say what it was - presumably some type of stimulant - and I've no idea whether it was a banned substance or not. But this was in an event where there was nothing at stake except personal pride in finishing/achieving a decent time, so it's reasonable to assume some people will push the boundaries when there are prizes on the line.

Coincidentally or not, that rider's son is relatively new to cycling, has started racing and is one of only a couple of people in the club I've ever seen using an inhaler.

jimmythecuckoo

Marcel Six is a brilliant example.

Dan Staite as well although that one seems more complex when you delve back through internet history of his rowing career.

It seems bonkers to assume that the variation in standard between some of the domestic pro teams isn't the result of more than just marginal gains. We should not be jingoistic enough to assume that its only foreigners with the desire and means to execute doping.

The cut price boosts like caffeine or asthma medications are probably more mind and attitude improving as opposed to solely performance enhancing.

RichN95.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

clearly there is an ethical difference between doing that and breaking the rules.

Is there?

In any case, using ephedrine without a having a supporting TUE is against the rules...

No it isn't.

From the Globaldro website report on Do Do pills: Ephedrine is prohibited when the urinary concentration exceeds 10 microgram/L. This threshold is not valid in the presence of diuretics. If you are using a diuretic you must have a Therapeutic Use Exemption to use both the diuretic and ephedrine.

(So you only need the TUE for the threshold if you are also taking a diuretic)

r0bh

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Pross wrote:

I've said it is unethical and cheating in many people's eyes and that includes mine. However, technically if a rider stays within the stated rules then they aren't cheating.

To me, the ethical issue is of much greater significance then the question of whether or not someone's actions constitute 'cheating'. For one thing, whether one is 'cheating' or not depend on whose rules one is playing by. Many pros have said that they didn't consider themselves to be 'cheating' by doping as this was the 'professional' thing to do, or others were also doing it, etc. That is, the riders 'played by the rules', however these were their own rules rather than the official ones!

Cheating can only ever be defined in terms of the official rules of the sport. By all means have your own ethics but don't expect anyone else to agree with or abide by them. And your example of the EPO era does not make sense in this context, the riders were breaking the rules, and they knew they were breaking the rules.

DeVlaeminck

BenderRodriguez wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

clearly there is an ethical difference between doing that and breaking the rules.

Is there?

In any case, using ephedrine without a having a supporting TUE is against the rules...

Well I didn't mention taking ephedrine without a TUE so that's irrelevant and perhaps you bring that in because you realise your argument as stated is unsustainable?

Yes of course there is an ethical difference between breaking the rules and not. Anyone is open to take a legal substance without sanction - there is no subterfuge, no deception involved. Anyone taking an illegal substance is gaining an unfair advantage - anyone popping say a caffeine tablet may gain an advantage but not unfairly so.

Pross

RichN95 wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

clearly there is an ethical difference between doing that and breaking the rules.

Is there?

In any case, using ephedrine without a having a supporting TUE is against the rules...

No it isn't.

From the Globaldro website report on Do Do pills: Ephedrine is prohibited when the urinary concentration exceeds 10 microgram/L. This threshold is not valid in the presence of diuretics. If you are using a diuretic you must have a Therapeutic Use Exemption to use both the diuretic and ephedrine.

(So you only need the TUE for the threshold if you are also taking a diuretic)

Thanks for that, I thought it was just a level of concentration issue but then I'm not a great follower of doping so assumed I was wrong!

philwint

Pross wrote:

I've said it is unethical and cheating in many people's eyes and that includes mine. However, technically if a rider stays within the stated rules then they aren't cheating. If you stretch it you get into the question if someone is cheating by pushing technology to its limits within the rules e.g. Lemond winning the '89 Tour by virtue of better technology in the final TT. It's a philosophical debate that will always go on as people will always go that extra bit to gain an advantage whether within the rules or not.

Looking at this from another perspective kind of supports your point.

I play a lot of on-line computer games. And within the player base there is a clear demarcation between "Cheating" and using an "Exploit"

Cheating it hacking the game to give you an advantage, and is very clearly defined and usually involves using some additional software like a 'bot'.

Using an Exploit is harder to pin down. If you run and jump at the same time you are harder to hit, and because the game lets you do it, it can't be cheating. Because if it was, the developers would remove the ability to do it. But it still 'feels' like cheating because it doesn't pass a common sense test of "is that how I 'should' play the game".

But other than shouting and moaning about it, there is nothing that you can do about it. It isn't officially cheating at all.

However depending on your own beliefs you could easily class it as un-sporting

And to me, that is what all this is in cycling. According to my ethics pushing the rules to their extreme, past the point where it seems 'reasonable' to make you go faster isn't cheating. But is is being un-sporting.

The hardware issue doesn't bother me - getting your bike to the weight limit to the gram isn't un-sporting because I feel that this is a reasonable thing to do in that everyone can do it, it is open and visible, and it's easily available to the amatuer.

BenderRodriguez

RichN95 wrote:

From the Globaldro website report on Do Do pills: Ephedrine is prohibited when the urinary concentration exceeds 10 microgram/L. This threshold is not valid in the presence of diuretics. If you are using a diuretic you must have a Therapeutic Use Exemption to use both the diuretic and ephedrine.

(So you only need the TUE for the threshold if you are also taking a diuretic)

Yes you are right. So the main question here is how many 'Do Do' tablets would lead to a positive test?

(The footballer Paddy Kenny was banned for 9 months when he tested positive after taking eight of them.)

BenderRodriguez

Pross wrote:

there is plenty of history of athletes openly advertising legal products that supposedly give an advantage. The most obvious being creatine which was being advertised by big names in all sorts of sports a few years ago.

Yes, as I said, cycling has long had a culture of believing that a legitimate way to boost performance is to take 'stuff' and pop pills. The use of illegal doping products is just the most extreme expression of this culture.

Of course, cycling is not the only sport to have such a culture. Just look at body building!

ocdupalais

Where was all this righteous indignation when those cheating b@stard Gauls were quaffing "Magic Potion" to beat the Romans? You all enjoyed the spectacle, don't lie...

BenderRodriguez

DeVlaeminck wrote:

of course there is an ethical difference between breaking the rules and not. Anyone is open to take a legal substance without sanction - there is no subterfuge, no deception involved. Anyone taking an illegal substance is gaining an unfair advantage - anyone popping say a caffeine tablet may gain an advantage but not unfairly so.

I think what is needed to to step back and ask just why performance enhancing drugs are banned or controlled. From a 'sporting' point of view the main reason is that sporting success is supposed to be all about natural talent and hard work, whilst using performance-enhancing drugs subverts this and potentially robs the results sheet of authenticity. Thing is, many products that are allowed, such as caffeine, also have a significant ergogenic effect and so can also subvert the results in the same way, albeit to a lesser degree. As such the use of any ergogenic substance is ethically questionable.

Of course, there are also other issues, such as health risks, but most of those ergogenic substances that are allowed potentially have serious negative side-effects as well.

I don't deny that there are additional ethical issues associated with using banned substances, as with the issue of deception that you mention. However, this does not mean that the use of 'allowed' performance enhancing substances is ethically pure.

Following your logic, if all doping products were allowed then their use would have no moral implications at all. I think that is not supportable position, largely because it is other issues relating to the use of doping products, such as the way they subvert the ethos of 'talent and hard work' that means doping is ethically questionable.

RichN95.

OCDuPalais wrote:

Where was all this righteous indignation when those cheating b@stard Gauls were quaffing "Magic Potion" to beat the Romans? You all enjoyed the spectacle, don't lie...

Here's French hypocrasy in action.

BenderRodriguez

RichN95 wrote:

Here's French hypocrasy in action.

This is a cartoon you know, not a historical document.

I think that you are letting your francophobia show (again).

Assuming that you actually mean 'hypocrisy', that has long been held to be a particularly English trait. As George Orwell put it:

as Europeans go, the English are not intellectual. They have a horror of abstract thought, they feel no need for any philosophy or systematic 'world-view'. Nor is this because they are 'practical', as they are so fond of claiming for themselves. One has only to look at their methods of town planning and water supply, their obstinate clinging to everything that is out of date and a nuisance, a spelling system that defies analysis, and a system of weights and measures that is intelligible only to the compilers of arithmetic books, to see how little they care about mere efficiency. But they have a certain power of acting without taking thought. Their world-famed hypocrisy - their double-faced attitude towards the Empire, for instance - is bound up with this.

RichN95.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

This is a cartoon you know, not a historical document.

I think that you are letting your francophobia show (again).

Assuming that you actually mean 'hypocrisy', that has long been held to be a particularly English trait.

Either you are incredibly thick or incredibly humourless.

I'd say thick as you've resorted to pedantry and broad quoting of someone else - respectively signs of a need to show intellectual superiority where none exists and a lack of original thought.

rick_chasey

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Yes, as I said, cycling has long had a culture of believing that a legitimate way to boost performance is to take 'stuff' and pop pills.

Pills you say?

BenderRodriguez

RichN95 wrote:

Either you are incredibly thick or incredibly humourless.

I'd say thick as you've resorted to pedantry and broad quoting of someone else - respectively signs of a need to show intellectual superiority where none exists and a lack of original thought.

That's the best come-back you can think of?

ocdupalais

You style yourself on Bender from Futurama; but I'm getting more of a flavour of Martin from The Simpsons…

Macaloon

EPC06 wrote:

The Hacienda was that good there appears to be only ever 1 clip shown on TV...the one with a load of E'd up blokes swaying side-to-side wearing beanie hats

By the time any activity has reached the Look East culture desk, it's been rinsed of any authenticity.

alihisgreat

I wonder how many riders would openly admit to using 'Do Do' pills or whatever?

Maybe that's the real test? I'd be embarrassed to admit to using something like that...

Moonbiker

I reckon with alot of theese people if they are taking drugs the aren't actually helping preformance as they haven't got the knowlegde to use them effectively without so clever doc running a scientific structured dopping program?

Placebo mostly maybe?

The way some talk about drugs its as if they can magically tranform a average rider into some race winer whereas I though they only have quite a marginal gain effect on preformance?

rick_chasey

Placebo you say?

danlikesbikes

Moonbiker wrote:

The way some talk about drugs its as if they can magically tranform a average rider into some race winer whereas I though they only have quite a marginal gain effect on preformance?

Would guess it's like alcohol, the more you put in the more the effects?

BenderRodriguez

Moonbiker wrote:

I reckon with alot of theese people if they are taking drugs the aren't actually helping preformance as they haven't got the knowlegde to use them effectively without so clever doc running a scientific structured dopping program?

Placebo mostly maybe?

Do a little research on the potential performance boosting effects of caffeine and you will see that it offers a pretty substantial boost under most conditions. Not the most credible source, but here a BikeRadar article promoting its use:

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/n ... ick-15997/

Add some ephedrine, which has a mutually potentiating effect when combined with caffeine, and the boost is bigger still.

Caffeine when combined with ephedrine has also been clinically shown to promote the reduction of body fat very effectively, making it the 'poor man's clenbuterol'. (In fact many body builders 'cycle' between 'clen' and an ephedrine / caffeine 'stack' when fat reducing prior to a competition. See this from The International Journal of Obesity:

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v26/n ... 02023a.pdf

BenderRodriguez

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

I wonder how many riders would openly admit to using 'Do Do' pills or whatever?

Maybe that's the real test? I'd be embarrassed to admit to using something like that...

Why 'embarrassed'? Because of the name? Would such doping have more 'street cred' if the rider were taking pure ephedrine, or come to that amphetamine, which caffeine and ephedrine pretty much act like when used in combination?