Would you consider taking PEDs to improve your cycling performance?
Comments
-
The thing is, how do I know all my mates and other club riders are clean? If I want to ride on a level playing field there's only one way to be sure... (furiously pedals to boots to raid the PED's counter)
To be serious, I always feel slightly suspicious when some of my mates get their inhalers out before particularly hilly rides. If they said here have a go, would I... dunno, but would certainly be interested to find out if it would have an affect
All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0 -
Shortfall wrote:
https://youtu.be/04ck8LwApd4
He did it so you don't have to, and he was only micro dosing. It's a BBC Panorama doc. Well worth a watch.
I did see that at the time. Made me realise that it's a bit of an arms race and as soon as the testers come up with a more sensitive technique or more stringent testing regime, those really determined to cheat will find a new way of using existing drugs, look for new ones / masking agents, or otherwise thwart the tests. Don't think we'll ever see a return to the mental days of massive EPO injections or blood bags, but I doubt the sport will ever be 100% clean either.
I suspect that if I tried it the effect would be like putting a turbocharger in a Micra and something else would go pop as I tried to sprint up the first hill
0 -
Shortfall wrote:fat daddy wrote:Shortfall wrote:[Yourself? Your mates? Every guy you pass who can't stay on your wheel but could if you weren't juiced? .
its a hard one, because lots of stuff can give you an advantage .. ie caffine, so whas the difference between loosing the guy on your wheel because you had 200mg of caffeine in your system and he didn't .. compared to you having drunk cough mixture and he didn't ? ... the only difference is that the competing sports body has deemed one of them illegal
but you are not competing in sport ?
is it also cheating to have a bike that weights 6.2kg .... that's illegal in races and without it you might not have accelerated away from the guy on the 8kg bike behind you
ultimately I guess I would if it was cheap enough ....... thinking about it if they banned caffeine for competing sports use, I certainly wouldn't stop taking it as an enhancing supplement before workouts and rides
Well setting aside the obvious fact that sipping a couple of espressos is in no way comparable to the effects given by even the mildest of PEDs, and setting aside also the moral and ethical questions about taking drugs and their long term effects on health and relationships, what exactly is the point of taking them if you're NOT racing? It won't make your cycling any easier, you'll still hurt when you're going up a big climb or doing g a maximum effort sprint, and if you don't tell your mates that you're doing it then it'll eat you up inside that you're only better than them due to chemicals and not through your own efforts. If you do make them aware that you're on something then the chances are they'll think you're an arsehole. Most of us have probably toyed with the idea of juicing at one time or another to see if it really does make as much of a difference as people say it does, but is it worth it so much to you to scratch that itch with all the associated downsides? I remember reading Kimmage's Rough Ride and how he described the massive performance boost he got from taking a fraction of the dose of amphetamines that his peers were on. So yes they work, and God alone knows how much of a boost modern drugs give you compared to the bit of speed he took. But it's worth remember the agonies he went through afterwards, the disillusionment and self loathing that almost destroyed his love for cycling.
"what exactly is the point of taking them if you're NOT racing? It won't make your cycling any easier, you'll still hurt when you're going up a big climb"
There is the feeling of being strong and fit when you are going well, where you can knock out a ride at a good pace and get up your toughest local hills without hurting. There is pleasure in that. It's not racing (against yourself of others), but does involve measure against what you consider to be a 'good pace' or the pace that you like to ride at. Could this be achieved more often using a PED (or for longer as you age), or does the whole thing hinge on it being a rare event and that you've worked for it?
I share a level of curiosity to experience what it would be like to be on the special sauce.0 -
Alex99 wrote:Shortfall wrote:fat daddy wrote:Shortfall wrote:[Yourself? Your mates? Every guy you pass who can't stay on your wheel but could if you weren't juiced? .
its a hard one, because lots of stuff can give you an advantage .. ie caffine, so whas the difference between loosing the guy on your wheel because you had 200mg of caffeine in your system and he didn't .. compared to you having drunk cough mixture and he didn't ? ... the only difference is that the competing sports body has deemed one of them illegal
but you are not competing in sport ?
is it also cheating to have a bike that weights 6.2kg .... that's illegal in races and without it you might not have accelerated away from the guy on the 8kg bike behind you
ultimately I guess I would if it was cheap enough ....... thinking about it if they banned caffeine for competing sports use, I certainly wouldn't stop taking it as an enhancing supplement before workouts and rides
Well setting aside the obvious fact that sipping a couple of espressos is in no way comparable to the effects given by even the mildest of PEDs, and setting aside also the moral and ethical questions about taking drugs and their long term effects on health and relationships, what exactly is the point of taking them if you're NOT racing? It won't make your cycling any easier, you'll still hurt when you're going up a big climb or doing g a maximum effort sprint, and if you don't tell your mates that you're doing it then it'll eat you up inside that you're only better than them due to chemicals and not through your own efforts. If you do make them aware that you're on something then the chances are they'll think you're an arsehole. Most of us have probably toyed with the idea of juicing at one time or another to see if it really does make as much of a difference as people say it does, but is it worth it so much to you to scratch that itch with all the associated downsides? I remember reading Kimmage's Rough Ride and how he described the massive performance boost he got from taking a fraction of the dose of amphetamines that his peers were on. So yes they work, and God alone knows how much of a boost modern drugs give you compared to the bit of speed he took. But it's worth remember the agonies he went through afterwards, the disillusionment and self loathing that almost destroyed his love for cycling.
"what exactly is the point of taking them if you're NOT racing? It won't make your cycling any easier, you'll still hurt when you're going up a big climb"
There is the feeling of being strong and fit when you are going well, where you can knock out a ride at a good pace and get up your toughest local hills without hurting. There is pleasure in that. It's not racing (against yourself of others), but does involve measure against what you consider to be a 'good pace' or the pace that you like to ride at. Could this be achieved more often using a PED (or for longer as you age), or does the whole thing hinge on it being a rare event and that you've worked for it?
I share a level of curiosity to experience what it would be like to be on the special sauce.
...caffeine definitely has the effect of reducing fatigue and perception of effort. I like that.0 -
bianchimoon wrote:The thing is, how do I know all my mates and other club riders are clean? If I want to ride on a level playing field there's only one way to be sure... (furiously pedals to boots to raid the PED's counter)
To be serious, I always feel slightly suspicious when some of my mates get their inhalers out before particularly hilly rides. If they said here have a go, would I... dunno, but would certainly be interested to find out if it would have an affect
You can use mine. I only ever get exercise induced asthma if it has been triggered by house dust or something within the last week or two. You'll either notice no improvement or you'll realise you are mildly asthmatic and you'll be back to using full lung capacity.
To be honest, if there were no side effects I would be interested to feel their impact for training. If someone told me ibuprofen or similar increased to a useful extent my long ride endurance and enabled me to be fitter and healthier in general from increased training I would go for it. I wouldn't go for anything that just made long rides very easy though because that would make it pointless (say if my mates couldn't keep up so I spent my time sitting and waiting, come to think of it I am slightly suspicious of one of them...). I don't race but I occasionally get sucked into really long multi day rides with my mates, I'd probably tell them I'd tried something during training though.0 -
bianchimoon wrote:To be serious, I always feel slightly suspicious when some of my mates get their inhalers out before particularly hilly rides. If they said here have a go, would I... dunno, but would certainly be interested to find out if it would have an affect
Presumably they've been able to convince a doctor to prescribe them, so they must have some symptoms of asthma? Or do you just say I get a bit wheezy when it's cold and they take your word for it and just prescribe the first thing on the list of things to try and send you packing?
My breathing has never been the limiting factor in my cycling, my legs always give up first. Running and it's the other way round.0 -
Yes they've been prescribed, not sure how bad the symptoms were, it's anecdotal but at least one of them is noticeably better on hills/long rides after taking the inhaler, another has just been prescribed an inhaler (clenbuterol based) after suffering this winters coughing virus, He's never used one before and is over his virus, be interesting to see if he uses it now!keef66 wrote:bianchimoon wrote:To be serious, I always feel slightly suspicious when some of my mates get their inhalers out before particularly hilly rides. If they said here have a go, would I... dunno, but would certainly be interested to find out if it would have an affect
Presumably they've been able to convince a doctor to prescribe them, so they must have some symptoms of asthma? Or do you just say I get a bit wheezy when it's cold and they take your word for it and just prescribe the first thing on the list of things to try and send you packing?
My breathing has never been the limiting factor in my cycling, my legs always give up first. Running and it's the other way round.All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0 -
Interesting to hear it makes a difference, if it's making that much of a difference then it's grounds for prescription. I've had salbutamol as long as I can remember and it only makes a difference if I'm bad with asthma generally at the time, then it brings me back up to a reasonable level but not back to normal really as it usually accompanies phlegm...0
-
Hinaultscrapcousin wrote:lyn1 wrote:Blond wrote:We see pros taking many over the counter PEDs as TUE to increase their performance such as synthetic corticosteroid and salbutamol (which were taken by Wiggina I believe) and prednisolone (which is basically steroids, taken by Froome couple years ago). Of course these guys are top riders and thus with pressure from sponsors etc to win, it's comprehensible that they take them.
Would you though consider such drugs given they were safe?
As a general point, your original premise, that presumably gave rise to your question, is incorrect. There is very little scope to abuse TUE under the current procedure. Are you aware that of the several thousand riders who may apply for and require a TUE that only THIRTEEN were granted during 2015? (The last year shown on UCI site). The impression given in some media and on some forums, that these are currently given out like confetti, is a myth. We do not know whether there is abuse currently, but if there is, it is very small numbers
Quoting those numbers is massively deceptive. That is the number of TUEs granted by the UCI, but the UCI automatically recognises TUEs granted by the following NADOs:
NADO of the French Community of Belgium
Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport
Agence Française de lutte contre le dopage
Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte
Antidoping Switzerland
Antidoping Denmark
NADO Vlaanderen
National Anti-Doping Agency Austria
Anti-Doping Norway
UK Anti-Doping
South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport Science Institute
United States Anti-Doping Agency
Swedish Sports Confederation
Nationale Anti Doping Agentur Deutschland
You are correct in that these bodies can grant TUE. However they can only deal with riders who are not on the testing program. Virtually all the riders most people consider to be "proper pros" are on the testing program, so they will be included in the UCI number of 13 for 2015. Even if we leave aside all women, and all disciplines other than road (which would significantly increase the number of people on the pool and reduce the % if included), then that still leaves over a thousand WT and PC mens riders plus some Conti riders who race internationally for their Federation and have been added to the testing pool. In total for 2015 we are probably looking at TUE being issued to less than 1% of the "pro peloton". Hence my comment that these are not as prevalent as the OP and some others would have us believe.0 -
lyn1 wrote:Hinaultscrapcousin wrote:lyn1 wrote:Blond wrote:We see pros taking many over the counter PEDs as TUE to increase their performance such as synthetic corticosteroid and salbutamol (which were taken by Wiggina I believe) and prednisolone (which is basically steroids, taken by Froome couple years ago). Of course these guys are top riders and thus with pressure from sponsors etc to win, it's comprehensible that they take them.
Would you though consider such drugs given they were safe?
As a general point, your original premise, that presumably gave rise to your question, is incorrect. There is very little scope to abuse TUE under the current procedure. Are you aware that of the several thousand riders who may apply for and require a TUE that only THIRTEEN were granted during 2015? (The last year shown on UCI site). The impression given in some media and on some forums, that these are currently given out like confetti, is a myth. We do not know whether there is abuse currently, but if there is, it is very small numbers
Quoting those numbers is massively deceptive. That is the number of TUEs granted by the UCI, but the UCI automatically recognises TUEs granted by the following NADOs:
NADO of the French Community of Belgium
Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport
Agence Française de lutte contre le dopage
Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte
Antidoping Switzerland
Antidoping Denmark
NADO Vlaanderen
National Anti-Doping Agency Austria
Anti-Doping Norway
UK Anti-Doping
South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport Science Institute
United States Anti-Doping Agency
Swedish Sports Confederation
Nationale Anti Doping Agentur Deutschland
You are correct in that these bodies can grant TUE. However they can only deal with riders who are not on the testing program. Virtually all the riders most people consider to be "proper pros" are on the testing program, so they will be included in the UCI number of 13 for 2015. Even if we leave aside all women, and all disciplines other than road (which would significantly increase the number of people on the pool and reduce the % if included), then that still leaves over a thousand WT and PC mens riders plus some Conti riders who race internationally for their Federation and have been added to the testing pool. In total for 2015 we are probably looking at TUE being issued to less than 1% of the "pro peloton". Hence my comment that these are not as prevalent as the OP and some others would have us believe.
Sorry, that simply isn't true. Both Callum Skinner and Laura Trott are part of the UCI RTP. Both of them had their TUEs issued by UK anti-doping, Trott in '09 and Skinner in '14. Both were part of the testing pool at this time. And it's not just the case that it's only male road pros who get UCI approval. Nino Schurter and Emma Johansson both had TUEs issued by the UCI.
UCI guidelines specifically allow for the approval of NADO TUEs in the usual, UCI mess of their rules that leaves loop-holes galore. Yes, RTP athletes should apply directly to the UCI for TUEs, but it's clear that several don't.
The fact is we really have no idea how many riders have TUEs, all we do know is we can't take the UCI numbers as a total.0 -
Hinaultscrapcousin wrote:lyn1 wrote:Hinaultscrapcousin wrote:lyn1 wrote:Blond wrote:We see pros taking many over the counter PEDs as TUE to increase their performance such as synthetic corticosteroid and salbutamol (which were taken by Wiggina I believe) and prednisolone (which is basically steroids, taken by Froome couple years ago). Of course these guys are top riders and thus with pressure from sponsors etc to win, it's comprehensible that they take them.
Would you though consider such drugs given they were safe?
As a general point, your original premise, that presumably gave rise to your question, is incorrect. There is very little scope to abuse TUE under the current procedure. Are you aware that of the several thousand riders who may apply for and require a TUE that only THIRTEEN were granted during 2015? (The last year shown on UCI site). The impression given in some media and on some forums, that these are currently given out like confetti, is a myth. We do not know whether there is abuse currently, but if there is, it is very small numbers
Quoting those numbers is massively deceptive. That is the number of TUEs granted by the UCI, but the UCI automatically recognises TUEs granted by the following NADOs:
NADO of the French Community of Belgium
Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport
Agence Française de lutte contre le dopage
Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte
Antidoping Switzerland
Antidoping Denmark
NADO Vlaanderen
National Anti-Doping Agency Austria
Anti-Doping Norway
UK Anti-Doping
South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport Science Institute
United States Anti-Doping Agency
Swedish Sports Confederation
Nationale Anti Doping Agentur Deutschland
You are correct in that these bodies can grant TUE. However they can only deal with riders who are not on the testing program. Virtually all the riders most people consider to be "proper pros" are on the testing program, so they will be included in the UCI number of 13 for 2015. Even if we leave aside all women, and all disciplines other than road (which would significantly increase the number of people on the pool and reduce the % if included), then that still leaves over a thousand WT and PC mens riders plus some Conti riders who race internationally for their Federation and have been added to the testing pool. In total for 2015 we are probably looking at TUE being issued to less than 1% of the "pro peloton". Hence my comment that these are not as prevalent as the OP and some others would have us believe.
Sorry, that simply isn't true. Both Callum Skinner and Laura Trott are part of the UCI RTP. Both of them had their TUEs issued by UK anti-doping, Trott in '09 and Skinner in '14. Both were part of the testing pool at this time. And it's not just the case that it's only male road pros who get UCI approval. Nino Schurter and Emma Johansson both had TUEs issued by the UCI.
They are now but Trott was a junior in 2009, so unlikely she was on ADAMS, so the UKAD route is explainable. Skinner says he had UCI and UKAD approval, so not clear which route he took. I did not say women or other disciplines were not part of the ADAMS system, but ignored them from the calculation because the numbers of riders involved was harder to establish than WT and PC riders. As I said, if you include these additional groups it makes the % of TUE in the pro ranks even smaller, which would have strengthened my case. I agree it is not watertight, but it is better than it was and I do not believe shed loads of TUE are being issued nowadays. No wish to be argumentative though and respect your view.0 -
lyn1 wrote:They are now but Trott was a junior in 2009, so unlikely she was on ADAMS, so the UKAD route is explainable. Skinner says he had UCI and UKAD approval, so not clear which route he took. I did not say women or other disciplines were not part of the ADAMS system, but ignored them from the calculation because the numbers of riders involved was harder to establish than WT and PC riders. As I said, if you include these additional groups it makes the % of TUE in the pro ranks even smaller, which would have strengthened my case. I agree it is not watertight, but it is better than it was and I do not believe shed loads of TUE are being issued nowadays. No wish to be argumentative though and respect your view.
No, they were part of the testing pool then as well. As per the Fancy Bears release of their documentation, both are listed as part of the registered testing pool. Skinner's documents show that the TUE was granted by UKAD and approved by the UCI, so it would not appear in the UCI stats. I'm not accusing either of anything, in fact Callum wrote this fantastic piece detailing his medical history http://www.scotsman.com/sport/cycling/c ... -1-4241059 (this is exactly how others probably should have approached it...). Both should probably have submitted to the UCI according to their rules but went via their NADO. The rules are a mess and it just muddies the waters.
I wasn't implying that you said they weren't part of the testing pool, I just listed other athletes not in the male PT/PC in case people thought that everyone other than PT/PC went via the NADO.
There is no way we can know the number of TUEs in the pro ranks no matter who you include, that's the only point I'm making. The UCI number is a single data point and it's easily shown that it's mis-leading.
I also don't think TUEs are as big an issue or as prevalent as many do, I agree on that. OOC use is the biggest issue for me.
Really, my only disagreement was with this statement:Are you aware that of the several thousand riders who may apply for and require a TUE that only THIRTEEN were granted during 2015?
That's all.0 -
Shortfall wrote:fat daddy wrote:Shortfall wrote:Well setting aside the obvious fact that sipping a couple of espressos is in no way comparable to the effects given by even the mildest of PEDs,
that's not quite true though is it .... in the example the OP gave as over counter PEDs "synthetic corticosteroid and salbutamol" found in cough mixtures. the effects of Caffine on exersize are a lot more ... drinking cough mixture doesn't see you climb the alps some 10% quicker ..... it gives a better response to pain/breathing/blood oxygen levels right at the physical limit of what your body is capable of.
so why use them if not competing ?
If it allows you to push harder and longer during training then your body will improve quicker .... so when you stop taking them, even though your performance will drop in relation, it will still be stronger than it would have been if you hadn't been on them
basically it could be used to increase the intensity of training .... like caffine
as for anabolics .... no way I am screwing with my hormones even cycling and coming off with a decent PCT etc is a danger too far in my books
I think this is semantics. If you knowingly take a product with the intention of artificially boosting your own performance then to my mind you've crossed a line. We can cloud the issue with false comparisons like some I've heard that using energy gels rather than eating fig rolls is the same as doping, or that buying a lighter bike than your mates is cheating, or pretending that taking some over the counter medicines that are banned in competition isn't quite as bad as taking X Y or Z. But the bottom line is this. It's your body, your health, your moral code and whether you can look at yourself in the mirror.
Leaving anabolic's out though ....
Salbutamol is normal asthma inhaler .... the blue one. Should we ban everyone who has asthma ?
Asthmatics obviously go faster when they can breath.... so its performanbce enhancing.
I've got some prendnislone within arms reach as I type.... must really get round to disposing of it...
Nasty stuff.... didn't even finish my prescribed course and given how generally weird it makes you feel I can't see how it really enhances performance except to reduce swelling from injuries. Quite why we would differentiate between swelling from training and say due to an accident is where I get confused.
Would it be OK to take it if they fall down stairs but not if they have swelling from training... how about a bike crash ???
The whole thing just seems such a quagmire... and certainly for any amateur you gotta think if a Dr. prescribes something you should be OK....0 -
Isn't the question moot?
In order to take some drugs to act as a PED, you would have to go through some rigorous testing and be checked by a doctor regularly so that your not putting your health in danger. A cocktail of PED's is highly risky and even taking just EPO alone, can cause the blood to thicken fatally. So the suggestion is improbable because it would be very difficult and very risky to do it solo.
http://www.ridemedia.com.au/features/ep ... en-deaths/
Human Growth hormone would assist in increased muscle mass but extra muscle is heavy and specific training would be required to maximise the effects.
BTW, I have been on huge doses of Methyl Prednisolone and you can hardly label it as 'performance enhancing'. Side effects include low blood pressure and fluid retention (adverse kidney function). It's not an anabolic steroid and people react to steroids differently.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I would take drugs that enhanced my performance if prescribed by my doctor for some reason but I'm not that bothered about my performance otherwise. I've only done 1 sportif this year and not raced since 2015 and then only for fun, the performance enhancing drugs would have to be a 250 watt micromotor for me to beat the local riders :-)BASI Nordic Ski Instructor
Instagramme0 -
Pinno wrote:BTW, I have been on huge doses of Methyl Prednisolone and you can hardly label it as 'performance enhancing'. Side effects include low blood pressure and fluid retention (adverse kidney function). It's not an anabolic steroid and people react to steroids differently.
It's pretty horrid, I was on a 2 week low dose. Last thing I'd call it is performance enhancing!0 -
Yes0
-
-
Is it only cheating because a certain group of people say so? They say cheating makes it unfair to others by gaining an advantage.
I like scenarios as i am useless at being concise when trying to explain things so..
Riders A and B have identical fitness, strength and power but rider A can afford an expensive lightweight Dura-Ace Di2 equipped bike where as rider B can only afford a £750 one. Could this be classed as cheating? (if enough people said so) Rider B is being disadvantaged due to financial circumstances therefore is rider A "financially doping"
I know in reality this will never be an issue.
As for the Asthma case: Well if i'm having a "wheezy" day then my performance is reduced, so i take my salbutamol and my performance is increased. Thats me improving my performance using drugs, but thats ok as someone says its OK.0 -
0
-
A better question would be "Would you take PEDs to improve your cycling performance if it was at the expense of your health?"
Then you'd draw the line. I'd suck up a caffeine addiction from time to time, but I'd probably draw the line at having blood so thick with toothpaste that I needed an heart-rate monitor alarm to wake me up when my heart rate dropped too low.0 -
As a very new member of this forum (normally only lurk in my local Australian forums) I thought this an interesting post after watching some recent youtube clips of the TUE issue and I acknowledge that isn't the original thread as posted but I also stumbled across a published and peer reviewed article on inhaled salbutamol that explained a little to me. Firstly, I'm just a 52 yo post hip replacement cycler trying to get fit, never thought about performance enhancement (once took Viagra for a laugh one Sunday nite, never do this if you have an early work state Monday....) but always somewhat dismayed that this wonderful sport can't once and for all put drugs in cycling behind it, never the less, the published paper 'Effects of inhaled salbutamol in exercising non-asthmatic athletes' did highlight for me, a couple of points (and I will summarise)
No benefit in peak performance in cycling but a benefit in the ability to get to a peak output quicker - As in previous studies, salbutamol had a significant bronchodilating effect in our normal subjects.22 23 At the beginning of exercise this effect may improve adaptation to the increased work of breathing by reducing respiratory resistance. Consistent with this possibility, salbutamol increased minute ventilation at the beginning of exercise and decreased the sensation of dyspnoea. Also the ability to absorb proteins and carbs - Although inhaled β2 agonists are generally used for their bronchodilating effect, we know that oral β2 agonists also increase muscle mass by stimulating protein anabolism and they also increase the metabolism of lipids and carbohydrates.
My view was that whilst taking this drug in competition may not have a peak performance benefit, the marginal gain ( and I understand the connotation of this phrase in this context) is in getting from a somewhat rested state to a sprint or climb state (that struggle for breath as you exert initially) would be easier and the ability to absorb food throughout a race maybe somewhat easier.
Again, don't mean to hijack or push an agenda but there is may ways to measure what a drug does and it isn't always through looking to the obvious 'performace enhancement' that we look for.
I'm off to ride in 28cel sunny weather then home to take my Viagra for peak performance enhancement;)0 -
I would take some PED if it was safe without unwanted side effects. ( i do not race) Perhaps it would be more honest to have an electric motor in your bike0
-
mac9091 wrote:Is it only cheating because a certain group of people say so? They say cheating makes it unfair to others by gaining an advantage.
I like scenarios as i am useless at being concise when trying to explain things so..
Riders A and B have identical fitness, strength and power but rider A can afford an expensive lightweight Dura-Ace Di2 equipped bike where as rider B can only afford a £750 one. Could this be classed as cheating? (if enough people said so) Rider B is being disadvantaged due to financial circumstances therefore is rider A "financially doping"
I know in reality this will never be an issue.
As for the Asthma case: Well if i'm having a "wheezy" day then my performance is reduced, so i take my salbutamol and my performance is increased. Thats me improving my performance using drugs, but thats ok as someone says its OK.
Which is really the point, it's strictly arbitrary....
But so is genetics overall.....
I'd have no reason to take salbutamol ... indeed due to some genetic freak my haemoglobin oxygen capacity is apparently in the same range as Peruvians.... indeed at one point my doctor joked I must have been crossbred with a Llama...
It's just how I was born.... I didn't earn this... so why shouldn't someone else not start from a level playing field even if that means taking PED's??? Just like the sponsored rider vs the one on the £750 bike....0 -
Steve-XcT wrote:mac9091 wrote:Is...OK.
Which is really the point, it's strictly arbitrary....
But so is genetics overall.....
I'd have no reason to take salbutamol ... indeed due to some genetic freak my haemoglobin oxygen capacity is apparently in the same range as Peruvians.... indeed at one point my doctor joked I must have been crossbred with a Llama...
It's just how I was born.... I didn't earn this... so why shouldn't someone else not start from a level playing field even if that means taking PED's??? Just like the sponsored rider vs the one on the £750 bike....
...and therein lies the improbable theoretical:
Given a bunch of cyclists that wan to race each other, would we be entering the realms of levelling the playing field by a) applying PED's to level it out or b) weight attached to the bike like a horse race?
It offers up the invert of PED's because if a person could fake certain physical frailties, then they would suffer less of a weight penalty.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Like that's ever going to happenPinno wrote:Given a bunch of cyclists that wan to race each other, would we be entering the realms of levelling the playing field by a) applying PED's to level it out or b) weight attached to the bike like a horse race?
It offers up the invert of PED's because if a person could fake certain physical frailties, then they would suffer less of a weight penalty.0 -
bompington wrote:
Like that's ever going to happenPinno wrote:Given a bunch of cyclists that wan to race each other, would we be entering the realms of levelling the playing field by a) applying PED's to level it out or b) weight attached to the bike like a horse race?
It offers up the invert of PED's because if a person could fake certain physical frailties, then they would suffer less of a weight penalty.
...and take it to another level:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19325756seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
One gets used to being beaten... and hey a 6th place is a result .. thats what I say... there were people behind me who just plain gave up.0
-
Steve-XcT wrote:mac9091 wrote:Is it only cheating because a certain group of people say so? They say cheating makes it unfair to others by gaining an advantage.
I like scenarios as i am useless at being concise when trying to explain things so..
Riders A and B have identical fitness, strength and power but rider A can afford an expensive lightweight Dura-Ace Di2 equipped bike where as rider B can only afford a £750 one. Could this be classed as cheating? (if enough people said so) Rider B is being disadvantaged due to financial circumstances therefore is rider A "financially doping"
I know in reality this will never be an issue.
As for the Asthma case: Well if i'm having a "wheezy" day then my performance is reduced, so i take my salbutamol and my performance is increased. Thats me improving my performance using drugs, but thats ok as someone says its OK.
Which is really the point, it's strictly arbitrary....
But so is genetics overall.....
I'd have no reason to take salbutamol ... indeed due to some genetic freak my haemoglobin oxygen capacity is apparently in the same range as Peruvians.... indeed at one point my doctor joked I must have been crossbred with a Llama...
It's just how I was born.... I didn't earn this... so why shouldn't someone else not start from a level playing field even if that means taking PED's??? Just like the sponsored rider vs the one on the £750 bike....
First of all we have to have rules in sport or else anything goes and to put it bluntly, if we abandon rules on the grounds that they're difficult to enforce then anarchy follows. Secondly, what is this obsession people have with a level playing field? Someone will always have better genetics, or more money, or better access to training facilities or a better coach etc. Allowing people to take drugs won't change that and by the way, if you want to see what a sport looks like when the authorities give up and it becomes a free for all take a look at professional bodybuilding - a freak show with rigged results and a staggering record of premature deaths and disease amongst it's competitors. Hell, pro cycling was headed that way at one point. Remember all those Belgians having heart attacks when the epo had turned their blood to jam? Remember when you couldn't look at the results without wondering if the winner was the best cyclist or the guy with the best doping doctor or who had the UCI in his pocket?
The thing that makes sport so compelling is watching people overcome their inherent weaknesses and disadvantages to become champions. Geoff Boycott didn't have a tenth of the natural cricketing ability of his peers and yet through hard work, determination, strength of character and sheer bloody mindedness he became one of the outstanding batsmen of the 20th Century. Sport is about using the rules to your advantage either by training smarter than your opponent, being more dedicated, being stronger mentally, devising better equipment or better ways to use it, or sometimes simply using your personality to whip up support from the crowd to your advantage. Sometimes it's all of these things. Drugs subvert all that and you wind up with results that no-one believes in anymore and what's the point of that? With regards to the question from the OP, if you're gonna cheat by using drugs, why not just strap a motor to your crank?0
