Doping in amateur sport

phil2161

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

As to why people do it? Human nature I suppose. Narcissism. People lie and cheat all the time, and amateur and participation cycling events would be no different. I suspect that doping in the sportive/fondo circuit is probably worse than in local category racing.

Also add in a relatively large number of well to do fellows in the 35+ age group catagories.

BenderRodriguez

Why do amateurs dope? Some interesting observations in this article. For example,

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.

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

rick_chasey

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

bompington wrote:

OK, so it's cool to cheat cos you get laid. Definitely top-level ethics there.

We are not here to discuss whether doping is legit or not but why people do it... the problem is you never get to see the victims of your crime... name a victim, someone who has been seriously damaged by someone else's doping, I can't think of anyone.
It's fairly easy to cheat if you don't see any victim... and please don't tell me that a mamil deprived of a car 3 win is a crime

Just because you can't think of anyone doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I know several people who missed out on qualification for events which meant lost opportunities to compete at a higher level and learn and develop, those who missed out on team selection to dopers, those who lost their title and credibility because team mate went positive. Yes, amateurs one and all.

I've also coached riders who were flogged mercilessly when they should have been rested simply to fill in for a known doper who screwed up their doping protocols such that they would go positive at a race (women who are really still amateurs). It has been so bad that many such riders have been left physically damaged from actual overtraining and have left the sport.

As a coach I am terrified that I might one day be coaching someone stupid enough to dope - the collateral damage to my reputation would be a most serious thing and would result in various damages to me, my business and business partners, including financial.

I guess alex there is a distinction between riders who are really amateur, as in, never good enough to be at an elite level, does it for no good reason other than because it's a hobby (however serious), and those who are in the amateur levels with a view to heading into the elite levels.

BenderRodriguez

An interesting story, with a similar conclusion to that earlier article.

In search of relevance, a Cat. 3 turns to EPO and HGH

“There’s no justification for what I did,” Anthony said. “Over these three-and-a-half years, I got completely consumed by it. And I think that cycling is different. Somehow, it’s different than everything else. It rewards the obsessive, compulsive nature.

http://www.velonews.com/2012/08/news/in ... hgh_232611

rick_chasey

Christ, must have some complex if you think it rewards obsessive compulsive.

Surely it rewards guys who cycle fast?

For all the chat about marginal gains and all the training advice on sites like this, ultimately you just need to cycle fast, and the pros could easily beat all of us on very little training and a hangover.

I mean Andy Schleck reportedly came 20th in the Tour on just 6,000km of training that year.

ugo.santalucia

BenderRodriguez wrote:

An interesting story, with a similar conclusion to that earlier article.

In search of relevance, a Cat. 3 turns to EPO and HGH

“There’s no justification for what I did,” Anthony said. “Over these three-and-a-half years, I got completely consumed by it. And I think that cycling is different. Somehow, it’s different than everything else. It rewards the obsessive, compulsive nature.

http://www.velonews.com/2012/08/news/in ... hgh_232611

I think Bender you've hit the nail on the head... that is exactly the reason and I don't understand why people don't understand.
Most of my friends record every single mile they ride on Strava, everything is constantly compared and ranked... they can't even afford to just cycle to work... they have to race to work, beat a PB, maintain a high average, day in day out... the next step is almost straightforward, if you move the goalpost a little bit further.

Some stop at weed, some stop at cocaine, some go a bit further, some get sucked in and are completely addicted to heroin, I don't see the difference

BenderRodriguez

Rick Chasey wrote:

Christ, must have some complex if you think it rewards obsessive compulsive. Surely it rewards guys who cycle fast?

And the quest to get fast ideally suits the obsessive - spending vast sums on expensive kit, coaches and so on. Spending endless hours hammering oneself on the turbo or riding in all weathers on the road. Watching everything one eats. Cutting down or cutting out booze, treats and other little pleasures. Spending hours reading training articles, examining one's power figures, Strava placings and so on. I have known people who have hardly gone out in the racing season - including going without a girlfriend - in order to cut down on the risk of catching something in the run up to an 'important' event. Back in the day it was even necessary to ask for butter on one's toast in the cafes favoured by cyclists in my neck of the woods as so many cyclists had said 'no butter please' that if you were on a bike they didn't give you any!

Moving on, there is a huge 'taking stuff is a short cut to speed' culture in cycling - vitamins, supplements, caffeine, creatine, colostrum, bicarb, the list is endless. Add in the knowledge that the pros are pretty all much on something, be this corticosteroids in order to lean out whilst maintaining power (perhaps backed up with a TUE so you won't be busted if you are still 'glowing' come race time) though to micro-dosing with Epo, then taking something a little 'stronger' is, for some, almost a natural part of adopting the 'cycling warrior' image they admire. After all, if you are so obsessed with winning some amateur race that you will forego having a girlfriend, taking something a bit 'naughty' is almost the next logical step.

Being obsessive, hyper-competitive and ego-driven are pretty much pre-requisites if you are going to get anywhere in competitive sport. Having such traits also make the step to doping a much easier one to take.

rick_chasey

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Christ, must have some complex if you think it rewards obsessive compulsive. Surely it rewards guys who cycle fast?

And the quest to get fast ideally suits the obsessive - spending vast sums on expensive kit, coaches and so on. Spending endless hours hammering oneself on the turbo or riding in all weathers on the road. Watching everything one eats. Cutting down or cutting out booze, treats and other little pleasures. Spending hours reading training articles, examining one's power figures, Strava placings and so on. I have known people who have hardly gone out in the racing season - including going without a girlfriend - in order to cut down on the risk of catching something in the run up to an 'important' event. Back in the day it was even necessary to ask for butter on one's toast in the cafes favoured by cyclists in my neck of the woods as so many cyclists had said 'no butter please' that if you were on a bike they didn't give you any!

Moving on, there is a huge 'taking stuff is a short cut to speed' culture in cycling - vitamins, supplements, caffeine, creatine, colostrum, bicarb, the list is endless. Add in the knowledge that the pros are pretty all much on something, be this corticosteroids in order to lean out whilst maintaining power (perhaps backed up with a TUE so you won't be busted if you are still 'glowing' come race time) though to micro-dosing with Epo, then taking something a little 'stronger' is, for some, almost a natural part of adopting the 'cycling warrior' image they admire. After all, if you are so obsessed with winning some amateur race that you will forego having a girlfriend, taking something a bit 'naughty' is almost the next logical step.

Being obsessive, hyper-competitive and ego-driven are pretty much pre-requisites if you are going to get anywhere in competitive sport. Having such traits also make the step to doping a much easier one to take.

Yeah I'm not sure I entirely agree, particularly with the last statement. You mainly need to be genetically gifted if you want to get anywhere in sport.

I've had the privileged to cycle on a now Pro's first ever club run. Guy rocked up on not much more than a shopping bike, strung the group out for 3 hours and ran us ragged/dropped us on the flats, and went home again. And, like I said, Andy Schleck, for example, knocked out a 20 on GC TdF on less mileage than half of the guys over on commuter chat.

That's not marginal gains. That's just being fast, naturally.

If you have the propensity to be obsessive, you'll take that to whatever hobby you do - cycling, rowing, fishing, photography, painting, whatever.

BenderRodriguez

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm not sure I entirely agree, particularly with the last statement. You mainly need to be genetically gifted if you want to get anywhere in sport.

I would agree, but you won't make the best of your gifts if you aren't particularly obsessive about your performance, hyper-competitive and so on. What's more a lot of people who are not super-talented go a long way on simple bloody-mindedness. Consider the example of Merckx. He was doubtlessly super-talented, but his rivals still said that the true secret to his success was that 'his will was stronger than he was'. And who could he deny that he was an obsessive about everything he did?

Whatever, when one looks at the ranks of 'hobbyists', cycling does seem to attract an awful lot of obsessive individuals who really get drawn into the whole 'professional amateur' thing, more than anything else I have ever known, including running and climbing.

rick_chasey

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm not sure I entirely agree, particularly with the last statement. You mainly need to be genetically gifted if you want to get anywhere in sport.

I would agree, but you won't make the best of your gifts if you aren't particularly obsessive about your performance, hyper-competitive and so on. What's more a lot of people who are not super-talented go a long way on simple bloody-mindedness. Consider the example of Merckx. He was doubtlessly super-talented, but his rivals still said that the true secret to his success was that 'his will was stronger than he was'. And who could he deny that he was an obsessive about everything he did?
.

Well he did smoke and have a few cocktails at a garden party the day before his world hour record, so I'm not so sure about that...!

bobmcstuff

From what I understand there's nothing special about cycling - to be a top level sportsperson you need to be fully committed and obsessed pretty much regardless of sport. Obviously it requires genetic talent as well but generally speaking they will be competing against a field of genetically talented people.

Course there's a few freaks like Usain Bolt who don't seem to be so much, but on the whole that's the case.

rick_chasey

Meh, I think the whole obsessive thing is overplayed in elite level sport.

The main skill you need is the will to push your body further than most people would.

But I imagine most of us, if it was out job and we had something like the olympics to aim for, probably would be able to, if we had the talent...

voodooman

The difference between pro and good amateur in many sports to me is the ability to properly unload everything without worrying what you've got left in reserve.

And the genetically talented are just that - freakishly good at something. Often slightly less likely to make it than the very good who have to work a bit harder, and do so. But they're all different class to mere mortals. As an example I can do a parkrun in just over 21 mins (47, 16 stone), my mate who's a runner in 17:30 (43, ~12 stone) and Richard Nerurkar ran it a few years ago in 16:16 - aged 50, and he wasn't really trying that hard. I couldn't have come close to a time like that aged 22!

Would I take drugs to improve my cycling though? What's the point as I'm 47 and spent my best years playing football and cricket. Now I'm too old and slow to ever get anywhere near a competitive level (though I do of course take great pleasure in overtaking TT cyclists on my way home given half a chance). Would I take drugs to improve recovery and / or battle an injury - I'd consider it due to numerous chronic issues based on wear and tear, but I'd do my research.

ben@31

ugo.santalucia wrote:

If it didn't have so many side effects, then yes, of course... problem is it does... but the side effects of PED can be managed if one is smart... look at Cipollini, he seems alright to me... not much wrong with Virenque or Millar either... even Armstrong looks pretty fit and healthy to me...

Armstrong did develop cancer after taking a lot of drugs.
I'm no Doctor but my understanding is that cancer is a biological cells reaction to something, like a toxin.

ben@31

homers double wrote:

I've heard a rumor of a local guy who's pretty handy on a bike who entererd a race and a doping tent was in place. He scooted away sharpish after doing quite well.

Again, hearsay and I wonder why a doping tent would be there at a local race but there you go...

I'm not defending PEDs but surely at a local ammature cat 3 race, "dopage control" can't be enforced? What are they going to do about it if you don't test?
I've done many running races where as soon as you've crossed the finish line, people go home.

rick_chasey

ben@31 wrote:

homers double wrote:

I've heard a rumor of a local guy who's pretty handy on a bike who entererd a race and a doping tent was in place. He scooted away sharpish after doing quite well.

Again, hearsay and I wonder why a doping tent would be there at a local race but there you go...

I'm not defending PEDs but surely at a local ammature cat 3 race, "dopage control" can't be enforced? What are they going to do about it if you don't test?
I've done many running races where as soon as you've crossed the finish line, people go home.

You need a British cycling licence to race.

Part of having that is abiding by UKAD rulez.

Alex_Simmons/RST

ben@31 wrote:

homers double wrote:

I've heard a rumor of a local guy who's pretty handy on a bike who entererd a race and a doping tent was in place. He scooted away sharpish after doing quite well.

Again, hearsay and I wonder why a doping tent would be there at a local race but there you go...

I'm not defending PEDs but surely at a local ammature cat 3 race, "dopage control" can't be enforced? What are they going to do about it if you don't test?
I've done many running races where as soon as you've crossed the finish line, people go home.

If anti doping attend and put up a notice at race control that a nominated rider on the start list is to be tested, and they are a no-show at control, then it is an anti-doping rule violation and will be treated the same as a failed doping control test.

All licensed riders are subject to anti doping regulations.

phil2161

In the states I suggest having controls if it were financially possible at not only all cat 1/2/3 races but Also masters races because that is really were use is at its highest. Also here we have many people racing buying a one day license and destroying entire fields, it is beyond obvious.