To what extent does doping permeate the British scene?

DeVlaeminck

BenderRodriguez wrote:

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.

Not so you are misrepresenting my case. I only took issue with you saying that there was no moral difference between popping a legal ped and popping an illegal or banned one. In my first reply to you I conceded that you may be able to make a case for there being a moral continuum on which both are positioned - just that the banned substance will be further along that continuum.

BenderRodriguez

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Not so you are misrepresenting my case. I only took issue with you saying that there was no moral difference between popping a legal ped and popping an illegal or banned one. In my first reply to you I conceded that you may be able to make a case for there being a moral continuum on which both are positioned - just that the banned substance will be further along that continuum.

I wasn't trying to 'misrepresent' you, just trying to make sense of what you were actually arguing.

Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes simply because we are thinking of what constitutes a 'difference' in a different way.

I would say that in absolute terms, taking any performance enhancing drug involves crossing the same moral divide and subverts the ethos that success should be based purely on a combination of natural talent and hard work. In this sense being moral is an either / or thing: one is either ethically pure or one is not, just as one is either pregnant or not pregnant. Many riders have made a similar point, as with Kimmage when he noted that once you start injecting stuff, even it is 'legal' you have crossed an important moral threshold that makes it much easier to take the next step.

As to there being a moral continuum. I would agree that there are differences between popping 'legal' performance enhancing drugs and, say, Epo. However, I would argue that continuum does not involve crossing from 'morally pure' to 'immoral' behaviour. That threshold was effectively crossed when the first step was taken. Nor does it involve moving along a single moral continuum. Rather, other dimensions of morality are breached, as with those that are related to law breaking, deception and so forth.

Anyhow, I think that it would be interesting to see just how prevalent the use of performing enhancing substances is in the UK amateur scene. As I have said, there is a big culture in cycling of popping pills and taking 'stuff' in order to enhance performance, and there is a big industry encouraging such an attitude and pushing supposedly ergogenic products. It would be particularly interesting to see how many riders, having already decided to pass one moral threshold and to subvert the ethos that success should be purely based on talent and hard work, have then crossed other moral thresholds as well, such as those associated with using illegal substances. Unfortunately, given the lack of testing at the domestic level and the lack of research done in this area, we will probably never know.

I am sure that many would still try to argue that them using creatine, popping caffeine tablets, taking neovite and downing bicarbonate in an attempt to boost their performance in no way is immoral, or is 'cheating', or constitutes 'doping', but then again those using Epo also seem to be pretty good at rationalising their actions as well!

ocdupalais

"ethically pure"!?
Good luck with that as an absolute.
I'd say a more pressing continuum to address is the "Talking Mild - Extreme Tosh Continuum"...

r0bh

BenderRodriguez wrote:

I am sure that many would still try to argue that them using creatine, popping caffeine tablets, taking neovite and downing bicarbonate in an attempt to boost their performance in no way is immoral, or is 'cheating', or constitutes 'doping', but then again those using Epo also seem to be pretty good at rationalising their actions as well!

None of those things are prohibited by the rules, therefore they are clearly not cheating/doping and no amount of arguing by you will be able to prove otherwise. EPO was prohibited by the rules, so was cheating/doping.

It's really quite straightforward.

BenderRodriguez

r0bh wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

I am sure that many would still try to argue that them using creatine, popping caffeine tablets, taking neovite and downing bicarbonate in an attempt to boost their performance in no way is immoral, or is 'cheating', or constitutes 'doping', but then again those using Epo also seem to be pretty good at rationalising their actions as well!

None of those things are prohibited by the rules, therefore they are clearly not cheating/doping and no amount of arguing by you will be able to prove otherwise. EPO was prohibited by the rules, so was cheating/doping.

It's really quite straightforward.

'Doping' is not synonymous with 'cheating', although the concepts are closely related.

Ultimately, doping involves taking something with the intention of boosting performance. So the use of caffeine, ephedrine and Epo are all forms of doping. However, the rules state that only some forms of doping are allowed, and this is where the issue of 'cheating' arises, with those who take drugs that are not allowed being guilty of 'cheating' (cheating the rules that is), whilst those who take permitted doping products are not guilty of cheating the rules.

Following your 'logic', if Epo were taken off the prohibited list, then it's use would no longer constitute doping!

From a sporting / moral point of view, doping is controlled because it subverts the ethos that performance should be all about natural talent and hard work. In such terms any form of doping, whether it constitutes cheating the rules or not, is pretty much equivalent.

What you say reminds me of those who would argue that drinking coffee, smoking tobacco and popping sleeping tablets does not constitute drug use, with only drugs that are illegal actually constituting drugs proper!

FocusZing

I once put TWO tea bags into a tastey hot beverage on the 6th of July 2008. It was proper mental I tell thee!

No_Ta_Doctor

If I bonk I eat a gell. It's basically just processed sugar. It enhances my performance.*

I guess I'm a doper.

*I don't actually race or eat gells, but the point is enough.

No_Ta_Doctor

FocusZing wrote:

I once put TWO tea bags into a tastey hot beverage on the 6th of July 2008. It was proper mental I tell thee!

I had a double espresso in the summer of 1989.

Two days later I woke up in a field, covered in mud, wearing nothing but a tie-dyed t-shirt and a smile.

FocusZing

No tA Doctor wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

I once put TWO tea bags into a tastey hot beverage on the 6th of July 2008. It was proper mental I tell thee!

I had a double espresso in the summer of 1989.

Two days later I woke up in a field, covered in mud, wearing nothing but a tie-dyed t-shirt and a smile.

Woe dude!

Frank Maloney had TWO cappuccinos...

Jez mon

BenderRodriguez wrote:

r0bh wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

I am sure that many would still try to argue that them using creatine, popping caffeine tablets, taking neovite and downing bicarbonate in an attempt to boost their performance in no way is immoral, or is 'cheating', or constitutes 'doping', but then again those using Epo also seem to be pretty good at rationalising their actions as well!

None of those things are prohibited by the rules, therefore they are clearly not cheating/doping and no amount of arguing by you will be able to prove otherwise. EPO was prohibited by the rules, so was cheating/doping.

It's really quite straightforward.

'Doping' is not synonymous with 'cheating', although the concepts are closely related.

Ultimately, doping involves taking something with the intention of boosting performance. So the use of caffeine, ephedrine and Epo are all forms of doping. However, the rules state that only some forms of doping are allowed, and this is where the issue of 'cheating' arises, with those who take drugs that are not allowed being guilty of 'cheating' (cheating the rules that is), whilst those who take permitted doping products are not guilty of cheating the rules.

Following your 'logic', if Epo were taken off the prohibited list, then it's use would no longer constitute doping!

From a sporting / moral point of view, doping is controlled because it subverts the ethos that performance should be all about natural talent and hard work. In such terms any form of doping, whether it constitutes cheating the rules or not, is pretty much equivalent.

What you say reminds me of those who would argue that drinking coffee, smoking tobacco and popping sleeping tablets does not constitute drug use, with only drugs that are illegal actually constituting drugs proper!

If EPO wasn't on the banned list, it wouldn't be doping. Happy?

So where do protein shakes lie on the doping radar for you? Getting the correct diet isn't relying purely on hard work and talent, yet is an important part of cycling, is that cheating...


Let's be honest, it's not too hard to get your head around, if it's on the banned list, it's cheating, if not then it's not cheating...

BenderRodriguez

Jez mon wrote:

If EPO wasn't on the banned list, it wouldn't be doping. Happy?

Of course it would!

Jez mon wrote:

So where do protein shakes lie on the doping radar for you?

Using something that is of a purely nutritional value and which does not lead to abnormal values of a substance being stored in the body, say a protein shake, is not doping.

Jez mon wrote:

if it's on the banned list, it's cheating, if not then it's not cheating...

But if you take something that has an ergogenic effect (caffeine, ephedrine, glycerol, bicarbonate etc.) then it is still doping, even if it is not 'cheating' as far as the rules go.

Simple!

BenderRodriguez

No tA Doctor wrote:

I had a double espresso in the summer of 1989.

Two days later I woke up in a field, covered in mud, wearing nothing but a tie-dyed t-shirt and a smile.

Good job you didn't take 200mg of caffeine along with a 'Do Do' ephedrine tablet. You would still be 'buzzing' now!

diamonddog

Would you consider any UK riders with asthma or similar a doper for taking their required meds, just interested.

r0bh

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

If EPO wasn't on the banned list, it wouldn't be doping. Happy?

Of course it would!

Jez mon wrote:

So where do protein shakes lie on the doping radar for you?

Using something that is of a purely nutritional value and which does not lead to abnormal values of a substance being stored in the body, say a protein shake, is not doping.

Jez mon wrote:

if it's on the banned list, it's cheating, if not then it's not cheating...

But if you take something that has an ergogenic effect (caffeine, ephedrine, glycerol, bicarbonate etc.) then it is still doping, even if it is not 'cheating' as far as the rules go.

Simple!

Main Entry: doping
Function: noun
Date: 1900
: the use of a substance (as an anabolic steroid or erythropoietin) or technique (as blood doping) to illegally improve athletic performance

BenderRodriguez

diamonddog wrote:

Would you consider any UK riders with asthma or similar a doper for taking their required meds, just interested.

If something is a 'required med', and taking it does not have an ergogenic effect then I don't see how it could be considered to be doping.

If the drugs you were taking had an ergogenic effect (say high-dose steroids), then one could well be said to be doping if one raced at the same time. Of course, this becomes something of a grey area, with some arguing that the advantage to be had from using such products is unavoidable ...but then again one could always desist from racing until one is 'well' again. There is also the possibility of people taking drugs beyond what is strictly needed in order to treat a medical problem purposely in order to gain a performance benefit.

BenderRodriguez

r0bh wrote:

Main Entry: doping
Function: noun
Date: 1900
: the use of a substance (as an anabolic steroid or erythropoietin) or technique (as blood doping) to illegally improve athletic performance

Some more definitions for you:

Doping in sport is defined as “the administration to or use by a healthy individual … of any agent or substance nor normally present in the body … and/or of any physiological agent or substance … when introduced in abnormal additional quantities and/or by an abnormal route and/or in an abnormal manner, … with the purpose and effect of increasing artificially and in an unfair manner the performance of that individual during the period of competition”

(first definition of doping adopted in 1963 by the Council of Europe Committee for Out-of-School Education)

Doping in sport is defined as “the administration to sportsmen or sportswomen, or the use by them, of pharmacological classes of doping agents or doping methods”

(Council of Europe Anti-doping Convention of 16th November 1989)

From what I can see, the inclusion of terms such as 'banned' or 'prohibited' in definitions of doping are done for pragmatic and legal reasons, rather than because doping is somehow not actually doping in the strict sense, as given in those definitions above, simply because those products are not included on some list somewhere.

When people are so ready to argue that what defines doping is the inclusion of a product on a list somewhere, rather than its effect, it is perhaps no surprise that many pros seem to be willing to take the next small step and argue that doping is only doing something that might lead to a positive test!

andy_wrx

I bought a new box of mixed gels for the 12hr TT I'm doing next weekend
(I don't normally bother with gels, I normally regard them as a marketing-hype product aimed at sportiving Mamils, but will use them in the 12, together with energy drink, rice pudding and flapjacks)

Imagine how I feel when look in the box and see that a third of them contain caffeine - I'm a doper !

mm1

andy_wrx wrote:

I bought a new box of mixed gels for the 12hr TT I'm doing next weekend
(I don't normally bother with gels, I normally regard them as a marketing-hype product aimed at sportiving Mamils, but will use them in the 12, together with energy drink, rice pudding and flapjacks)

Imagine how I feel when look in the box and see that a third of them contain caffeine - I'm a doper !

Oh no!

Cafinated gels seem like a sure fire recipe for the squits if you're not used to them.

BenderRodriguez

andy_wrx wrote:

I bought a new box of mixed gels for the 12hr TT I'm doing next weekend... Imagine how I feel when look in the box and see that a third of them contain caffeine - I'm a doper !

Well, at least you are in good company. Remember this saga?

GIANNI BUGNO, the Italian former world champion, has been suspended for two years after testing positive for use of the banned substance, caffeine, the Italian Professional Cycling League said yesterday.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cycl ... 47118.html

alihisgreat

BenderRodriguez wrote:

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?

Because I think most people would see taking cough pills to be better at cycling as cheating. Regardless of the technicalities.

BenderRodriguez

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Because I think most people would see taking cough pills to be better at cycling as cheating. Regardless of the technicalities.

I would agree. But plenty on here seem to think that as long as doping does not risk falling foul of the doping regulations, then taking 'stuff' is fine, even stuff that is only a small step away from amphetamine in its effect, such as a combination of caffeine and ephedrine.

(As I said, many pros take this 'Doping is OK, as long as there is no risk of a positive test' mentality to the next level, using specialist doctors to ensure that whatever they take won't result in a positive test.)

No_Ta_Doctor

BenderRodriguez wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Because I think most people would see taking cough pills to be better at cycling as cheating. Regardless of the technicalities.

I would agree. But plenty on here seem to think that as long as doping does not risk falling foul of the doping regulations, then taking 'stuff' is fine, even stuff that is only a small step away from amphetamine in its effect, such as a combination of caffeine and ephedrine.

(As I said, many pros take this 'Doping is OK, as long as there is no risk of a positive test' mentality to the next level, using specialist doctors to ensure that whatever they take won't result in a positive test.)

Ephedrine has a set maximum allowable dose, caffeine used to have (and may still do for all I know). So it's not so much "if it isn't banned then it's not doping, no matter how performance enhancing" as "we trust the regulations won't allow anyone to get a large advantage through taking substances". To go back to your question about whether EPO would be doping if it wasn't banned, the answer is "if it wasn't banned it would probably be because it has a negligible effect. It actually has a huge effect, so it's banned". The WADA code actually has a catch-all "Non-approved substances" to cover drugs in research phase, designer drugs, vetinary drugs etc.

Looking at caffeine, do you think having a double espresso on a ride is the same as popping a pill? Caffeine is used by the general public as a stimulant every day. I can't get out of the house in the morning until I've had a coffee.

FJS

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Some more definitions for you:

Doping in sport is defined as “the administration to or use by a healthy individual … of any agent or substance nor normally present in the body … and/or of any physiological agent or substance … when introduced in abnormal additional quantities and/or by an abnormal route and/or in an abnormal manner, … with the purpose and effect of increasing artificially and in an unfair manner the performance of that individual during the period of competition”

(first definition of doping adopted in 1963 by the Council of Europe Committee for Out-of-School Education)

So, what is 'abnormal', what is 'unfair'? Completelt subjective of course. That is a completely unworkable definition. For many people taking gels as food is abnormal. Or pasta with chicken and no sauce. Taking 5 steaks for breakfast or 20 raw eggs like they used to do in the old days is 'abnormal', but it is doping? They certainly believed it helped performance, as we now believe of gels and pasta without sauce. The whole life of pro cyclists is abnormal, focused on artifically improving performance, including what they eat and drink. We may not like it, but really, the only workable definition is doping is based on what is banned.

Mad_Malx

The evidence for performance enhancement for most agents is very flimsly when you measure muscle power output or endurance.

On the day, very few substances make any improvement to muscle or vascular function, but some change alertness and perception of fatigue and will have a significant psychological effect ('I'm doped so I'm going to do well').
Caffeine - yes
Amphetaines - (probably) no
beta-agonists (clenbuterol) - minimal
corticosteroids no or minimal
blood doping - yes
most other stuff - no

In training and pre-competition the list is different and longer:
GH, Testosterone and ANABOLIC steroids - yes
EPO & blood doping- yes
clenbuterol - yes
corticosteroids - doubtful

BenderRodriguez

No tA Doctor wrote:

Looking at caffeine, do you think having a double espresso on a ride is the same as popping a pill? Caffeine is used by the general public as a stimulant every day. I can't get out of the house in the morning until I've had a coffee.

Agreed, caffeine is a pretty powerful drug that is habitually used by millions. Although strictly speaking drinking strong coffee is still drug use I would say that popping caffeine pills is not quite as 'innocent'.

BenderRodriguez

FJS wrote:

For many people taking gels as food is abnormal. Or pasta with chicken and no sauce. Taking 5 steaks for breakfast or 20 raw eggs like they used to do in the old days is 'abnormal', but it is doping?

But eating 'normal' food, even in excess quantities is qualitatively different to taking drugs such as caffeine, ephedrine and so forth, or even downing pure, processed creatine.

alihisgreat

No tA Doctor wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Because I think most people would see taking cough pills to be better at cycling as cheating. Regardless of the technicalities.

I would agree. But plenty on here seem to think that as long as doping does not risk falling foul of the doping regulations, then taking 'stuff' is fine, even stuff that is only a small step away from amphetamine in its effect, such as a combination of caffeine and ephedrine.

(As I said, many pros take this 'Doping is OK, as long as there is no risk of a positive test' mentality to the next level, using specialist doctors to ensure that whatever they take won't result in a positive test.)

Ephedrine has a set maximum allowable dose, caffeine used to have (and may still do for all I know). So it's not so much "if it isn't banned then it's not doping, no matter how performance enhancing" as "we trust the regulations won't allow anyone to get a large advantage through taking substances". To go back to your question about whether EPO would be doping if it wasn't banned, the answer is "if it wasn't banned it would probably be because it has a negligible effect. It actually has a huge effect, so it's banned". The WADA code actually has a catch-all "Non-approved substances" to cover drugs in research phase, designer drugs, vetinary drugs etc.

Looking at caffeine, do you think having a double espresso on a ride is the same as popping a pill? Caffeine is used by the general public as a stimulant every day. I can't get out of the house in the morning until I've had a coffee.

Caffeine is different because its legitimate due to its presence in Coffee, Tea, Soft drinks, etc.

Taking caffeine pills which is recognized as socially acceptable, for their intended purpose, is different to taking cough pills to be better at cycling.

Not that i would ever actually have a caffeine pill.. i like coffee too much to want to get caffeine in any other way!

BenderRodriguez

Mad_Malx wrote:

On the day, very few substances make any improvement to muscle or vascular function, but some change alertness and perception of fatigue and will have a significant psychological effect ('I'm doped so I'm going to do well').

Caffeine - yes
Amphetaines - (probably) no

I would check your facts. Amphetamine works in a very similar way to caffeine, but is much more potent and has a very powerful ability to stave off fatigue. True enough, the underlying physiology of the rider is not changed as is the case with Epo, but the rider will still be able to go much harder and for much longer. Why this is the case is pretty well explained by the 'Central Governor' theory of fatigue.

I was once involved in a discussion certain British ex-pro about the effects of amphetamine and he reckoned that he had seen some 'spectacular' performances due to its use, on a par with the effects of Epo. Of course, a rider will tend to pay the price of digging much deeper than would otherwise be possible due to using amphetamine, so it is hardly something that could be used day after day. (Look at Tom Simpson for what the ultimate cost can be if you try this.) However, for a single day event amphetamines could easily make the difference between winning and being an also-ran.

No_Ta_Doctor

OK, so on coffee/caffeine pills, is there a difference between any of the scenarios below?

1) A habitual coffee drinker that drinks his usual amount of coffee on a race day
2) A habitual coffee drinker that drinks an extra coffee on a race day to make sure he's sharp
3) A habitual coffee drinker that knows he won't be able to drink his normal amount of coffee on a race day as his Nespresso machine won't fit in his bottle cage, so takes some caffeine pills to put him at his normal level
4) A rider who hates coffee who drinks it because he thinks it will help his performance
5) A rider who hates coffee but knows everyone else is espressoed up, so takes some caffeine pills to put him level.

If this seems a bit daft, then bear in mind that the "no needles" policy adopted by the UCI is based purely on method of administration, and not substance. The vitamin supplements you can take entirely legally in pill form are forbidden if injected. And yes, I understand the reasoning behind that - riders acclimatised to injections are on a slippery slope. That's a very similar argument to the naturally occurring in coffee / doping if it's in pill form argument.

BenderRodriguez

P.s. One thing that this thread seems to show that most individuals pretty much set their own boundaries in relation to the use of performance enhancing drugs. For some caffeine is fine as long as it is taken in a 'natural' way, as in coffee. For others popping caffeine and ephedrine pills, or pretty much anything else, is fine as long as this is 'allowed by the rules'. From other discussions on here it is clear that many do not think that even taking drugs such as tramadol constitutes doping. To my mind many pros who resort to prohibited drugs probably justify their own moral decisions in a very similar way. Certainly, very few on here seem to think that being 'clean' necessitates avoiding taking any drug that might enhance their performance.

I am not sure whether all this discussion has left us any the wiser as to the extent of doping in UK domestic racing though!