What would it take you to dope?

Matthewfalle

Simple question - what would it take you to dope?

Pro contract in the offing?
Winning local race series?
Beating PB?
Winning against a mate?
Beating clubbies?
Inquisitiveness as to enhancements?
Boredom?

Discuss.

fenix

There's only point in doping to get a pro licence if you can get away with doping once you're there.

For me - doping is a line I'd never need to cross. I'm not good enough to win outright but I have had a couple of AG wins.
If I doped and got better it'd be a hollow performance. It's always better to achieve things through hard work than cheat to get there.

fat daddy

I would consider the use of triamcinolone, if I thought for a second it would help me loose enough fat so I could look da bomb on holiday

but even if it helped me shed 1% .... I would still be miles away for the perfect beach body, so I cant be arsed

homers_double

If nothing else, this.

Matthewfalle wrote:

Inquisitiveness as to enhancements?

But I think there are much better ways to enhance my performance other than a slim margin drugs would give so it'd be pointless.

bianchimoon

What would it take? Beating Eric Smith from round the corner on the strava segment outside my front door, 25% downhill for 30 metres, but i'm sure he only goes out with the wind behind him, or he straps some heavy weighs to his panniers on his 3 speed sturmy archer Dawes, he's a git, just give me the drugs i'll show him, it's only fair, after all he is weight doping, all that food and beer I see him taking on down the local:(

debeli

There is doping and doping.... But let us define it (for the purposes of my response) as the use of pharmaceutical products to derive an unfair advantage in competition.

I was an average-ish athlete in my youth, in sports where today doping is rife and where real levels of use are probably significantly higher than perceived levels.

I did not dope. Why?

It was not a moral issue. It simply wasn't around at my level in my era. I am not talking about cycling.

I look at the riders for whom I've had a high regard over the years. Many, many were dopers. I do not think they entered their teens dreaming of needles and improved recovery times and blood bags in hotel fridges. They dreamed of winning and all that goes with it.

Of recent riders, I hold Voeckler, Evans, Vino, Pinot, Schleck A, Greipel, Hushovd, Pantani, Virenque and many, many other dopers in high regard.

I think they doped because it was what was done, what went on all around them, what they were advised to do and what they believed they'd get away with.

I think that with their talent and dedication I too would have doped. I had neither and it was not an issue.

I believe that much sport is still riddled with doping. The Wiggins/Brailsford/Jiffygate nonsense suggests that poncing around in public and talking about being clean and above suspicion is as much clever PR as it is a mission statement.

I do not feel defrauded by Sky because I never bought it in the first place. And I do not buy it now.

But if I were fast enough, young enough and determined enough.... and if I though I'd get away with it.... I would dope.

Man Of Lard

I always just used an old paintbrush when I doped in the past.

You are talking about this sort of doping, right?

ben@31

I wouldn't even know where you buy it from? It's not like you could order some with a free bag of Haribo from that online retailer.
I wouldn't trust Ebay or AliExpress. I think the "too cheap to be true" Zipp wheelsets on there are dodgy nevermind buying something pharmaceutical from a random stranger.

sandyballs

A job that doesn't have Compulsary Drug Testing

fudgey

I think for me, loosing 2 stone will make me faster than snorting a line of coke off a hookers ass...

But, ask me what would be more fun and im sure cocaine and hookers will win every time..

team47b

I Tried doping in the 70's i thought I could handle it but it got so bad I even thought about buying a bike

I'll get me coat :oops:

bbrap

I'd never do it, I heard it makes your dick shrink to approximately 40% of its original size, I don't want a 4" dick

slowmart

This. A firm female body and a ready supply of drugs.




Who gives a fuck about going quick on a cycle? :roll:

shortfall

homers double wrote:

If nothing else, this.

Matthewfalle wrote:

Inquisitiveness as to enhancements?

But I think there are much better ways to enhance my performance other than a slim margin drugs would give so it'd be pointless.

I think the whole point of doping is that the margins are absolutely huge. Regardless, it's cheating and it's worrying that so many people even consider it.

pinno

Debeli wrote:

There is doping and doping.... But let us define it (for the purposes of my response) as the use of pharmaceutical products to derive an unfair advantage in competition.

I was an average-ish athlete in my youth, in sports where today doping is rife and where real levels of use are probably significantly higher than perceived levels.

I did not dope. Why?

It was not a moral issue. It simply wasn't around at my level in my era. I am not talking about cycling.

I look at the riders for whom I've had a high regard over the years. Many, many were dopers. I do not think they entered their teens dreaming of needles and improved recovery times and blood bags in hotel fridges. They dreamed of winning and all that goes with it.

Of recent riders, I hold Voeckler, Evans, Vino, Pinot, Schleck A, Greipel, Hushovd, Pantani, Virenque and many, many other dopers in high regard.

I think they doped because it was what was done, what went on all around them, what they were advised to do and what they believed they'd get away with.

I think that with their talent and dedication I too would have doped. I had neither and it was not an issue.

I believe that much sport is still riddled with doping. The Wiggins/Brailsford/Jiffygate nonsense suggests that poncing around in public and talking about being clean and above suspicion is as much clever PR as it is a mission statement.

I do not feel defrauded by Sky because I never bought it in the first place. And I do not buy it now.

But if I were fast enough, young enough and determined enough.... and if I though I'd get away with it.... I would dope.

This ^. Excellent post.

Norbert has grown up in Belgium. He's watched the Museeuw's and the van Petegem's and heard lots about the De Vlaemincks and the Looy's. He's done nothing but dream cycling since he was knee high to a TV set. His walls are covered with pics of Gilbert and GVA. He's got a bike. He's showing talent. His friends at school look up to him. His family run around him doing his cycling laundry and cooking specific foodstuffs, their dreams are invested in him just like the next budding Messi, somewhere deep in Argentina. They ferry him from race to race and scrape him off the deck every time he has a spill. He rises through the ranks of some serious amateur races until finally, Norbert signs a pro-am contract.
Now he's in the bigger league - in amongst serious wannabe's. He struggles for a season or two despite his obvious talent and then a Soigneur approaches him and says "...if you don't take this, you can kiss goodbye to your dreams...you can train as hard as you like but it won' be enough..."

What is Norbert going to do?

It's fine for us to sit here and pontificate but we're mere mortals without such aspiration and expectation and whilst I don't like the doping, we cannot sit in isolated moral high ground. So the question is moot.

Anyway, looks like the Pinno, Slowmart, Team47b and Fudgey's weekend out is going to be a cracker.

shortfall

Pinno wrote:

Debeli wrote:

There is doping and doping.... But let us define it (for the purposes of my response) as the use of pharmaceutical products to derive an unfair advantage in competition.

I was an average-ish athlete in my youth, in sports where today doping is rife and where real levels of use are probably significantly higher than perceived levels.

I did not dope. Why?

It was not a moral issue. It simply wasn't around at my level in my era. I am not talking about cycling.

I look at the riders for whom I've had a high regard over the years. Many, many were dopers. I do not think they entered their teens dreaming of needles and improved recovery times and blood bags in hotel fridges. They dreamed of winning and all that goes with it.

Of recent riders, I hold Voeckler, Evans, Vino, Pinot, Schleck A, Greipel, Hushovd, Pantani, Virenque and many, many other dopers in high regard.

I think they doped because it was what was done, what went on all around them, what they were advised to do and what they believed they'd get away with.

I think that with their talent and dedication I too would have doped. I had neither and it was not an issue.

I believe that much sport is still riddled with doping. The Wiggins/Brailsford/Jiffygate nonsense suggests that poncing around in public and talking about being clean and above suspicion is as much clever PR as it is a mission statement.

I do not feel defrauded by Sky because I never bought it in the first place. And I do not buy it now.

But if I were fast enough, young enough and determined enough.... and if I though I'd get away with it.... I would dope.

This ^. Excellent post.

Norbert has grown up in Belgium. He's watched the Museeuw's and the van Petegem's and heard lots about the De Vlaemincks and the Looy's. He's done nothing but dream cycling since he was knee high to a TV set. His walls are covered with pics of Gilbert and GVA. He's got a bike. He's showing talent. His friends at school look up to him. His family run around him doing his cycling laundry and cooking specific foodstuffs, their dreams are invested in him just like the next budding Messi, somewhere deep in Argentina. They ferry him from race to race and scrape him off the deck every time he has a spill. He rises through the ranks of some serious amateur races until finally, Norbert signs a pro-am contract.
Now he's in the bigger league - in amongst serious wannabe's. He struggles for a season or two despite his obvious talent and then a Soigneur approaches him and says "...if you don't take this, you can kiss goodbye to your dreams...you can train as hard as you like but it won' be enough..."

What is Norbert going to do?

It's fine for us to sit here and pontificate but we're mere mortals without such aspiration and expectation and whilst I don't like the doping, we cannot sit in isolated moral high ground. So the question is moot.

Anyway, looks like the Pinno, Slowmart, Team47b and Fudgey's weekend out is going to be a cracker.

It's one thing to understand the motivation to dope but quite another​ to condone it. If Norbert starts taking drugs he's just condemning the next kid behind him to the same choice. The drug dealers and thieves near me probably use similar excuses for their criminal actions:.No jobs, no opportunities, no prospects, no way out of the ghetto. It still doesn't make it right though. Surely the right way to ensure a level playing field would be to make doping career suicide? Instead we've had decades of levelling things up by ignoring it and we wonder why it's endemic in most sports? Unfortunately I think we're past the point where fans and spectators of many sports don't care enough about the ethics of competing and winning which is why for instance fouling and abuse of the referee is so casually accepted in football, steroid and GH abuse is common in rugby and weightlifting, and blood doping etc is prevalent in athletics and cycling.

DeVlaeminck

If I could take something relatively safe and get a pro contract now - given I'm nearly 50 and doing naff all cycling at the moment yes I probably would if by pro contract you mean decent pro-tour not subsistence level UK domestic pro. I'd be willing to take the abuse if I got caught for the retirement pot a couple of years as a half decent pro tour rider would give me.

Of course no amount of gear is going to get me to that level and if I was young, close enough to making it that it would make the difference and faced with that choice - can't say I've ever been in that position to know what I'd do but if I thought everyone else was clean - and my assumption is that they probably are mostly relatively clean - I doubt I'd do it. If I'd devoted enough of my time to get to that level I just think I'd want to see if I could take that final step on talent and hard work alone - I think that would outweigh the money aspect for me at that age. If I thought every other rider was on the sauce though yeah maybe - I'd probably see it as putting myself on a level playing field.

As for the rest of the list of motivations for doping - no chance - if you could guarantee me it was safe and cheap then yes I might but I guess stuff that is safe and cheap is either not banned or it's so ineffective as to be a irrelevant. Each to their own but winning an amateur race, beating my mates or setting a pb (even less point) by doping would hold zero attraction for me - other than perhaps a short lived laugh as I rode my mates off my wheel but I'd have to tell them how it was done eventually otherwise where is the fun.

ugo.santalucia

Debeli wrote:

Of recent riders, I hold Voeckler, Evans, Vino, Pinot, Schleck A, Greipel, Hushovd, Pantani, Virenque and many, many other dopers in high regard.

I think they doped because it was what was done, what went on all around them, what they were advised to do and what they believed they'd get away with.

I think that with their talent and dedication I too would have doped. I had neither and it was not an issue.

I believe that much sport is still riddled with doping. The Wiggins/Brailsford/Jiffygate nonsense suggests that poncing around in public and talking about being clean and above suspicion is as much clever PR as it is a mission statement.

I do not feel defrauded by Sky because I never bought it in the first place. And I do not buy it now.

But if I were fast enough, young enough and determined enough.... and if I though I'd get away with it.... I would dope.

Refreshing to see someone who is not full of hypocrisy!

I totally agree with your points

slowbike

It's easy to answer - nothing would pursuade me to "dope" - beyond what I need to keep me alive prescribed by doctors - at an amateur level as low as mine I don't think there's anything the doctor would or could prescribe that would take me to the front of the pack.

Why would I want to dope? Whats in it? Bragging rights & Kudos is about all there is - but TBH that would be such a hollow victory I would regret doing it.

But - that's now ...

Back in my youth (I can just about remember that far back) the temptation would be far greater - morals being formed - if I asked my youth self if I would cheat to do better or win - if the cost was low enough and the chances of being caught negligable then yup, I think I would have been seriously tempted. Fortunately the opportunity never arose as I never did cycle as anything more than transport back then. I did race dinghies though - don't recall ever cheating in those races either - certainly no "body enhancing substances" - might have polished the bottom of the boat - but I think that was within the rules...

964cup

I'd dope to level the playing field. I suppose I already do, in the sense that I take Symbicort in order to be able to breathe. Without it, I'd not keep up on the club runs. Formoterol (one of the ingredients of Symbicort) is controlled, and I'd need a TUE if I was on a higher dose than I am. When I had my back op my haematocrit fell to about 38; if it hadn't recovered, I expect I'd have been asking for EPO to get it back up, again so I could keep up on the club run. If I have a bad cold, or particularly bad hayfever, I'll take pseudoephedrine (Lemsip or Sainsbury's own brand decongestant, I'm that glam) to clear my nose. The Formoterol would put me under suspicion if I were a pro; the pseudoephedrine might see me banned depending on how much I took, and EPO definitely would but I didn't need it in the end.

I suppose morally I'd like to think that I'd rule out doping to gain an advantage as opposed to compensate for my disadvantages - but what does that mean? Some of my clubmates are more aerobically gifted than others; amongst other things they have higher natural haematocrit than, say, I do. So would it be OK to take EPO to get my blood score back up to 44, but cheating to raise it to 48? Despite being a lifetime asthmatic, no-one has ever offered me Triamcinolone or Terbutaline; but should I refuse if my doctor suggested them, with the view that they might improve my aerobic performance or peak flow from its current level?

Brakeless

I'd give it a go purely out of interest. I'd never do it to gain a competitive advantage but along with many on here we've been aware of it and discussed it for years, I'd be interested to have first hand experience but certainly wouldn't be interested in using it to cheat in any way.

pinno

Shortfall wrote:

It's one thing to understand the motivation to dope but quite another​ to condone it. If Norbert starts taking drugs he's just condemning the next kid behind him to the same choice.

Norbert is not going to make that moral philosophical choice. Norbert wants to be a cyclist. Norbert is too young and too ambitious. It's not condoning drug taking, it's just providing a hypothetical reason as to why Norbert would be tempted.
You can't pin the decision to dope or not to dope on Norbert. It's part of the status quo. The Soigneur and the DS are culpable but are probably under the pressure of commerce - advertising, sponsorship etc. The decision is not exclusive to Norbert.

Shortfall wrote:

The drug dealers and thieves near me probably use similar excuses for their criminal actions:.No jobs, no opportunities, no prospects, no way out of the ghetto.

Illegal substances is a matter of social subjectivity. I do not quite see the relevance here.

Shortfall wrote:

Instead we've had decades of levelling things up by ignoring it and we wonder why it's endemic in most sports?

That is a presumption.

The potential gain; fame. fortune, success far over rides the risks. That gain is driven by marketing, money and the celebrity culture. Combine the aspirations of an individual with the financial motives of Nike, Adidas, Movistar, SKY, Mapei, Systeme U, KAS, Z vetements enfants etc etc etc and there you have the foundation for the desire to gain advantage.
It's too simplistic to put the moral choice down to one individual and blame that individual for not making the right choice.

charlie_potatoes

Matthewfalle wrote:

Simple question - what would it take you to dope?

Some dope.

photonic69

Charlie Potatoes wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Simple question - what would it take you to dope?

Some dope.

Har Har!!!!

I concur. That, and lack of moral fortitude..

sloppyschleckonds

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/lates ... est-321123

benjamess

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/55-year-old-british-amateur-cyclist-banned-after-failed-dope-test-321123

So the answer is about 25 quid

shortfall

Pinno wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

It's one thing to understand the motivation to dope but quite another​ to condone it. If Norbert starts taking drugs he's just condemning the next kid behind him to the same choice.

Norbert is not going to make that moral philosophical choice. Norbert wants to be a cyclist. Norbert is too young and too ambitious. It's not condoning drug taking, it's just providing a hypothetical reason as to why Norbert would be tempted.
You can't pin the decision to dope or not to dope on Norbert. It's part of the status quo. The Soigneur and the DS are culpable but are probably under the pressure of commerce - advertising, sponsorship etc. The decision is not exclusive to Norbert.

Shortfall wrote:

The drug dealers and thieves near me probably use similar excuses for their criminal actions:.No jobs, no opportunities, no prospects, no way out of the ghetto.

Illegal substances is a matter of social subjectivity. I do not quite see the relevance here.

Shortfall wrote:

Instead we've had decades of levelling things up by ignoring it and we wonder why it's endemic in most sports?

But

That is a presumption.

The potential gain; fame. fortune, success far over rides the risks. That gain is driven by marketing, money and the celebrity culture. Combine the aspirations of an individual with the financial motives of Nike, Adidas, Movistar, SKY, Mapei, Systeme U, KAS, Z vetements enfants etc etc etc and there you have the foundation for the desire to gain advantage.
It's too simplistic to put the moral choice down to one individual and blame that individual for not making the right choice.

Except I'm not blaming one individual. I'm saying I understand his motivation without condoning his actions. I actually blame team bosses, coaches, soigniers, the media, sponsors, sporting organisations (like the UCI) and ultimately fans, all of whom either encourage drug taking or turn a blind eye to it. Someone needs to hold the line (if you'll excuse the pun).

AK_jnr

My girlfriend has Colitis (fuck1ng terrible disease) and at one point was on steroids for 6 bloody months so there has always been a few different types lying around that I could of taken. Including prednisolone.

As I only enter a few races a season max, I've never been tempted. Now that I'm more into running, maybe I should. Ha.

pinno

AK_jnr wrote:

My girlfriend has Colitis (fuck1ng terrible disease) and at one point was on steroids for 6 bloody months so there has always been a few different types lying around that I could have taken. Including prednisolone.

Colitis is not fun. I presume and hope she has recovered. Darren Fletcher had Colitis and is back playing professional football and I had a friend who was on a diet of fruit juice (mainly carrot juice) for a number of years after getting 7 yds of gut removed.

I was on methyl-prednisolone for 5 years. I can tell you for a start, it won't make you faster on your bike. It also weakens the immune system, that's mainly why I took it - as a transplant anti rejection therapy. It also caused avascular necrosis in both hips and subsequently, I have had bi-lateral hip replacements and hip revision. Prednisolone in any quantity above 8mg is considered high dose as the body produces a natural 7 to 8 mg of steroidal like substances and 15mg is considered 'high dose'. The level which may cause AVN.

https://www.drugs.com/prednisone.html

Besides, it's not an anabolic steroid or a hormone like HGH.

Without having a Dr Ferrari on hand, taking PED's in random quantities and randomly would be quite futile.
Anabolic steroids may cause Kidney problems and fluid retention as well as putting on muscle mass and muscle mass is only as good as the heart and lung capacity. Extra muscle mass will make you heavier.
Human Growth Hormone will allow you to make quick gains in muscle development but like anabolic steroids, the addition of muscle mass might be detrimental. HGH can have side effects like the reduction of insulin production, swelling and joint pain. To name but a few.
Steroidal use has been known to increase risk of certain cancers. That was emphasised in one of the documentaries about Lance Armstrong. Which makes it surprising that he would want to increase his risk of secondary cancer by continuing his the use of certain drugs like Testosterone.
EPO can cause blood to thicken to a fatal point as seen by deaths of young cyclists:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2004/ ... g.cycling1

You could always take a 'Willy Vloet' cocktail - some Cocaine mixed in with other substances as a pain killer but long term use of Cocaine causes restriction of the arteries. It's also addictive. Paolini will testify to that. Had he been caught out of competition and not during competition, he may not have faced a ban as the UCI recognise that it's not really high on the 'Performance enhancing list' (see the wording of the tribunal conclusion below):

“The Anti-Doping Tribunal found the rider guilty of a non-intentional anti-doping rule violation (presence of a cocaine metabolite - benzoylecgonine) and imposed an 18-month period of ineligibility on the rider. In accordance with the Procedural Rules of the Anti-Doping Tribunal, the decision will shortly be published on the UCI website.”

On top of all that, EPO, HGH etc is very expensive.

I would suggest getting a blood letting kit and drawing off a couple of pints of blood in winter and then a transfusion at a later date - probably the safest method but ffs, don't get it infected and make sure it is chilled at the right temperature in sterile conditions.

Other drugs are available but without measuring VO2 max, endurance, recovery etc in a scientific way, you would be shooting in the dark (no pun intended) as everybody reacts differently to different drugs.

It's not as simple as 'take some PED's' and you go a bit quicker. Again, it will be down to the reaction of the substance in the individual.

A messy quagmire innit?

term1te

Years ago I was into running and agreed to enter a relay marathon. The day before the event I went down with a nasty cold, on the morning of the event my nose was streaming, I was coughing, had a sore throat and earache. Not wanting to let the others down, I took every medication I could find in the bathroom cabinet and ran five miles in a strange daze. If nothing else I would have failed a test for pseudoephedrine. I'm not sure if it helped to get me around the course any quicker, but it helped to get me into my running kit and to the start line.

I can justify myself, as I didn't want to let the others down, I was clearly ill, and it was only half a step above a fun run. Where I think it gets a bit more dodgy is when you see so many people at the beginning of an event, or even just a club ride, puffing away on Ventolin inhalers to prevent "exercise-induced bronchoconstriction".

I think "low level doping" if you can call it that, is not too difficult to justify to oneself on the grounds of health, or aiding recovery. But that doesn't make it right, and can be the first step on a slippery slope.

StillGoing

As I'm allergic to NSAIDs and have to wear a medical bracelet warning first aiders and carry an epipen in case I'm exposed to them, I wouldn't touch them. I'd be dead within minutes of taking them if they had a similar effect to NSAIDs.