To what extent does doping permeate the British scene?

deejay

Jez mon wrote:

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

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...

That's how Moreno Argentin and his all conquering Team Gewiss and from that team came Bjarne Riis to make Duetsch Telekom the most Fraudulent team ever, have got away with it. (Poor Lists)
The banned list has developed this century for the Media to realise what Fools they were before these lists and that LA took the subject to new levels and therefore new lists are needed.

Mad_Malx

BenderRodriguez wrote:

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.

What a coach thinks he sees or what a doper feels are not facts to support an ergogenic effect.
Amphetamines do affect fatigue perception, but in trials looking at power output and time to exhaustion there is precious little evidence to support enhanced performance.

I'm aware of the purported mechanisms of action of caffeine and amphetamines, and they do indeed overlap but they aren't the same. There is evidence for ergogenic effects from caffeine.

argyllflyer

Rick Chasey wrote:

Forget the winning - I bet riding on EPO feels f*cking great.

Sure I saw a quote from Vaughters or the like where it was said you just take longer to feel like sh!t.

alihisgreat

No tA Doctor wrote:

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.

There is a difference I think. Caffeine is caffeine and its legitimate in the same way that alcohol is, in that its fine unless you're abusing it.

We can differentiate between having a glass of wine with dinner because you enjoy it, having a glass of wine because you need it (in that its part of your routine), and having a bottle of wine because you're an alcoholic.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

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!

The same difference of opinion probably exists in the British peloton; I would guess that more people fall on the side of "well its not against the rules" when there is money involved.

Did we ever establish whether 'do do' pills would be enough to put you over the limit for ephedrine?

BenderRodriguez

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Did we ever establish whether 'do do' pills would be enough to put you over the limit for ephedrine?

I have just had a quick look on the web and came across this:

In the case of ephedrine administration in a sustained-release formulation containing 12 mg of ephedrine, 2 of 3 subjects exceeded the urinary cutoff value of 10 microg/mL.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19571776

A single 'Do Do Chesteze' tablet contains 18.3 mg of ephedrine, so even taking into account individual variability a single tablet will see most people test 'positive', and so you would be well advised to get a TUE before taking them.

Thinking back, the fact that a single Chesteze table is enough to produce a positive test is probably why I was convinced that a TUE is needed if you use ephedrine, irrespective of whether or not you are using diuretics as well.

Bottom line is that the old caffeine / ephedrine combination is not only doping, as far as the rules go it is also cheating and would probably see you test positive, should you actually be tested. It also seems that, irrespective of arguments about the semantics of terms such as 'doping' and 'cheating', given the seemingly widespread use of 'Do Do tablets and caffeine', and the ease of passing the threshold limit for ephedrine, there are quite a few bona fide dopers around the UK domestic scene, even at the 3rd cat level.

Perhaps those 'professional 3rd cats' who have the outlook of a chaudiere should look to doping with something less likely to produce a 'positive', such as tremadol.

markwb79

'Seemingly widespread'?

Any proof on that? Or just an opinion?

BenderRodriguez

Markwb79 wrote:

'Seemingly widespread'?

Any proof on that? Or just an opinion?

No proof, just an impression based on what I have seen and been told. And I am not the only one to have seen such abuse, as this post from earlier in the thread shows.

--Darren-- wrote:

Seen quite a few riders with pro plus and do do pills at 2nd & 1st cat races

So that is two 'eye witnesses' just in this thread!

markwb79

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Markwb79 wrote:

'Seemingly widespread'?

Any proof on that? Or just an opinion?

No proof, just an impression based on what I have seen and been told. And I am not the only one to have seen such abuse, as this post from earlier in the thread shows.

--Darren-- wrote:

Seen quite a few riders with pro plus and do do pills at 2nd & 1st cat races

So that is two 'eye witnesses' just in this thread!

Not sure two = Widespread to be honest?

Also, from what years are your experiences from? From what you said, it gave me the impression that it was a few years ago now?

BenderRodriguez

Markwb79 wrote:

Not sure two = Widespread to be honest?

As a proportion of the number of poster in this thread, two is pretty significant number!

Markwb79 wrote:

Also, from what years are your experiences from? From what you said, it gave me the impression that it was a few years ago now?

Not raced for about 10 years, so no recent experience, but I doubt that much has changed, especially given that there still a culture in cycling of taking 'stuff' to make you go faster, perhaps even more so than back them, what with all the 'advances' in sports science.

As I said earlier, we will probably never know the true extent of 'low level' drug abuse in domestic racing. We can be sure that it happens though.

jerry3571

A mate of mine used to race Surrey League races and he gave an incident saying about a well known rider holding off a quality peloton with his eyeballs as big as saucers. Who knows, ey?? ;-)

bompington

jerry3571 wrote:

A mate of mine used to race Surrey League races and he gave an incident saying about a well known rider holding off a quality peloton with his eyeballs as big as saucers. Who knows, ey?? ;-)

Well, before I was thinking this thread was all "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" but after reading this level of clear, detailed evidence - now I'm convinced!

ocdupalais

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Markwb79 wrote:

Not sure two = Widespread to be honest?

As a proportion of the number of poster in this thread, two is pretty significant number!

Markwb79 wrote:

Also, from what years are your experiences from? From what you said, it gave me the impression that it was a few years ago now?

Not raced for about 10 years, so no recent experience, but I doubt that much has changed, especially given that there still a culture in cycling of taking 'stuff' to make you go faster, perhaps even more so than back them, what with all the 'advances' in sports science.

As I said earlier, we will probably never know the true extent of 'low level' drug abuse in domestic racing. We can be sure that it happens though.

No.
'seemingly widespread' isn't represented by two shared experiences of seeing riders taking pills (with several hundred viewers of this thread - with possibly thousands of separate racing experiences amongst them): this is unsubstantiated and uncorroborated gossip and a meaningless number- and needs to be treated as such.

What you've written on the subject is so ball-achingly loaded: why not save time and wrap everything in inverted commas? It's how I read most of what you write anyway...

markwb79

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Markwb79 wrote:

Not sure two = Widespread to be honest?

As a proportion of the number of poster in this thread, two is pretty significant number!

Markwb79 wrote:

Also, from what years are your experiences from? From what you said, it gave me the impression that it was a few years ago now?

Not raced for about 10 years, so no recent experience, but I doubt that much has changed, especially given that there still a culture in cycling of taking 'stuff' to make you go faster, perhaps even more so than back them, what with all the 'advances' in sports science.

As I said earlier, we will probably never know the true extent of 'low level' drug abuse in domestic racing. We can be sure that it happens though.

Ah sorry, by all your questions and examples of doping, i thought (wrongly) that you had recent, relevent experience of widespread doping.

Your questions here are for who has 'seen' doping. Then you get two examples.
You havent asked for people to reply with examples where they havent seen doping?

Sounds like trolling to me.

jerry3571

bompington wrote:

jerry3571 wrote:

A mate of mine used to race Surrey League races and he gave an incident saying about a well known rider holding off a quality peloton with his eyeballs as big as saucers. Who knows, ey?? ;-)

Well, before I was thinking this thread was all "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" but after reading this level of clear, detailed evidence - now I'm convinced!

Sorry for not having a water tight case, your honour. Some people,ey!

Better not talk about it and pretend the world is fine. 8) Happy days!

BenderRodriguez

Markwb79 wrote:

Your questions here are for who has 'seen' doping. Then you get two examples.

No, two posters on here, including me, have seen multiple examples of doping, which is not quite the same thing.

Markwb79 wrote:

You havent asked for people to reply with examples where they havent seen doping?

For one, most people keep doping pretty much under wraps, so absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You also overlook the fact that some who have looked into this thread may well have indulged themselves, but they are hardly going to admit it on here, are they?

Whatever, if you want to believe that there is next to no doping in domestic racing, then that is up to you. I also hear that the pro scene is all-but clean as well these days.

BenderRodriguez

P.s. I was just looking to see if any research has been done on the incidence of doping in amateur sport / cycling and, as one might expect, hard figures are hard to come by and much depends on how doping is defined. A few studies suggest that an incidence of around 15% of competitors might not be far off the mark, but I guess even if this were proven everyone would then spend days arguing as to whether or not this amounted to 'widespread' doping.

I also came across this rather interesting article which echos what I have already said about, in my experience, doping being most likely amongst '3rd cat professional' / obsessive personality types.

Paul Melia, chief executive officer of the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) and the man primarily responsible for tackling Canada’s doping habit, can’t pinpoint how “few” or “many” guys are out there. But given what he calls the “well-entrenched culture of doping in cycling,” he believes that medicinal cheating has certainly “filtered down.”

...Something rational is lost when one joins the religious order of serious amateur cyclists: Self-worth is measured against how thoroughly one thrashes others in the same cloistered sect. The outside world shrinks, dims and disappears. In this context, regardless of how meagre the stakes seem to those on the outside, cheating becomes about the survival of the self.

Andrew Tilin, whose book The Doper Next Door details his year as a middle-aged amateur on performance-enhancing drugs, has said in an interview that, “even in a stupid bike race, metrics pull on our self-worth and sensibilities as if they were gravity.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/w ... /?page=all

andyp

The plural of anecdote is not data.

BenderRodriguez

andyp wrote:

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Actually, even a single case-study constitutes 'data'.

I wonder if you would also dismiss the 'anecdotes' of people like Willy Voet, Floyd Llandis et al on the grounds they too do not constitute experimental, quantitative data?

rick_chasey

argyllflyer wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Forget the winning - I bet riding on EPO feels f*cking great.

Sure I saw a quote from Vaughters or the like where it was said you just take longer to feel like sh!t.

Sounds pretty good.

The whole risk to health thing is a bit of a bummer though. Shame.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/19/us/st ... eaths.html (check out the date of that!!)

markwb79

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Markwb79 wrote:

Your questions here are for who has 'seen' doping. Then you get two examples.

No, two posters on here, including me, have seen multiple examples of doping, which is not quite the same thing.

Markwb79 wrote:

You havent asked for people to reply with examples where they havent seen doping?

For one, most people keep doping pretty much under wraps, so absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You also overlook the fact that some who have looked into this thread may well have indulged themselves, but they are hardly going to admit it on here, are they?

Whatever, if you want to believe that there is next to no doping in domestic racing, then that is up to you. I also hear that the pro scene is all-but clean as well these days.

So I had a race last night, 70 people. No solo escapes, no one looking dodgy. In fact, in all my races this season I have seen any out of place results of performances.

I dont for one second thing that doping doesnt happen.

I am just disputing your claims of wide spread doping when its only 2 people that say they have seen it. One of those people raced years ago.

jerry3571

Saw a guy at Thruxton who rode the. E12 race who had veins and muscles like a bodybuilder. Scary chap and unreal looking.
Also, 10 years ago there was a Bournemouth rider who bought an oxygen tent for his bed and his 25 times went from over an hour to 54 minutes.
Anyhow, a great proportion of the public use illegal drugs whether steroids, E's or whatever so we all come from this world so it's highly possible. I haunted heard that a large proportion of male policemen use steroids when keeping up their fitness.
Tricky stuff. :-/

markwb79

jerry3571 wrote:

Saw a guy at Thruxton who rode the. E12 race who had veins and muscles like a bodybuilder. Scary chap and unreal looking.

Definitely guilty then, should be handed a 2 year ban now.

BenderRodriguez

Markwb79 wrote:

So I had a race last night, 70 people. No solo escapes, no one looking dodgy. In fact, in all my races this season I have seen any out of place results of performances.

For one, the sort of stuff that most amateurs have access to is not going to make them ride as if they were on a motorbike and the few percentage points difference that it might make is hardly going to be noticeable to an observer.

Secondly, I wonder what sort of performance a rider would have to come out with for it to be declared that the rider was definitely doping? Just think back to Froome's 'comedy motorbike impression' on the Ventoux, which was unbelievably spectacular, and yet was supposedly the sort of thing even a clean rider is capable of.

Truth is, we simply don't know the extent of doping in amateur cycling, even more so than in professional cycling. However, given the that way taking caffeine tablets, using creatine and so forth is pushed in the cycling press, I would think that a good proportion of riders will have tried 'doping' with products that, even if they are pretty effective, do not contravene the rules. Once a rider has adopted the 'enhanced performance comes in a pill' mentality, I would think that it would be pretty easy for a proportion of them, especially all those obsessive '3rd cat pros', to 'take the next step' and try something a little more potent. Given the psychological make up of such individuals, why wouldn't they, given that the chance of being caught is effectively zero?

I think that for some, resorting to low-level (and possibly illicit) doping, makes them, in their mind, just a little more 'pro' and a little closer to the 'no holds barred warriors' that they would like to be. Also, like the pros, keeping anything they are doing a secret and denying that they ever used anything at all would also be in line with the example set by the pros that they dream of being. I have certainly met quite a few riders who fit this model in my time. But then again, perhaps it has just been my lot to associate with an unusual number of obsessive 'wannabes'.

BenderRodriguez

Markwb79 wrote:

I dont for one second thing that doping doesnt happen. I am just disputing your claims of wide spread doping when its only 2 people that say they have seen it. One of those people raced years ago.

OK, in the hope of 'putting this to bed', if the incidence of illicit doping is around 15% of riders, as a number of studies has suggested, would you say that this constitutes 'widespread' doping or not? For my part, I would say 'yes'.

markwb79

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Markwb79 wrote:

I dont for one second thing that doping doesnt happen. I am just disputing your claims of wide spread doping when its only 2 people that say they have seen it. One of those people raced years ago.

OK, in the hope of 'putting this to bed', if the incidence of illicit doping is around 15% of riders, as a number of studies has suggested, would you say that this constitutes 'widespread' doping or not? For my part, I would say 'yes'.

15% you say....have you got a link to the study please?

BenderRodriguez

Markwb79 wrote:

15% you say....have you got a link to the study please?

First, 15%: 'widespread' or not?

r0bh

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Truth is, we simply don't know the extent of doping in amateur cycling, even more so than in professional cycling.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

OK, in the hope of 'putting this to bed', if the incidence of illicit doping is around 15% of riders, as a number of studies has suggested, would you say that this constitutes 'widespread' doping or not?

So what is it? We don't know, or it's 15%?

jerry3571

r0bh wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Truth is, we simply don't know the extent of doping in amateur cycling, even more so than in professional cycling.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

OK, in the hope of 'putting this to bed', if the incidence of illicit doping is around 15% of riders, as a number of studies has suggested, would you say that this constitutes 'widespread' doping or not?

So what is it? We don't know, or it's 15%?

How can anyone know when we haven't a clue about doping in the professional ranks where they are tested and amateurs are not. It's all conjecture. :-/

tailwindhome

You may be interested in this thread>

viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12960380&hilit=illegal

Bottom line is that doping and cheating are fairly vague terms which mean different things to different people.
Things are either legal or illegal. That line may be arbitrary but it's still the line.

danlikesbikes

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Markwb79 wrote:

15% you say....have you got a link to the study please?

First, 15%: 'widespread' or not?

FWIW if 15% were a relatively reliable figure (not questioning/condoning/supporting the validity of this figure) I would class this as wide spread.

There are studies out there with as you can imagine varying results but I did find one from Germany with Triathletes and a suggested figure of 13% http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25727050