# Why do people care if the peloton is on dope?



## TheRooster (Aug 5, 2004)

I think almost all of them are on one thing or another. And I could care less. If they are all doing it then the playing field is level. I really do not understand the problem some have with the issue. Not just cycling but any sport. It is how they make their living. Would you criticize one of your coworkers who got a promotion over you because he worked longer hours due to being hopped up on ephedrine/caffine or other substances? Would you do the same to recieve the promotion? The only difference when applied to sport is that the money involved is so much that it is worth the risk to take substances that may cause health problems. Any of you who say you would not are liars or not competitive enough to be in that position anyways. 

If you ain't cheating then you aren't trying hard enough.


----------



## fleck (Mar 25, 2005)

TheRooster said:


> I think almost all of them are on one thing or another. And I could care less. If they are all doing it then the playing field is level. I really do not understand the problem some have with the issue. Not just cycling but any sport. It is how they make their living. Would you criticize one of your coworkers who got a promotion over you because he worked longer hours due to being hopped up on ephedrine/caffine or other substances? Would you do the same to recieve the promotion? The only difference when applied to sport is that the money involved is so much that it is worth the risk to take substances that may cause health problems. Any of you who say you would not are liars or not competitive enough to be in that position anyways.
> 
> If you ain't cheating then you aren't trying hard enough.


We don't want riders to be forced into bad longterm health decisions just to be competitive. On the otherhand more of us go down from cars then drugs.


----------



## all doped up (Nov 14, 2004)

*three legged sons and 11 fingered daughters*



dfleck said:


> We don't want riders to be forced into bad longterm health decisions just to be competitive. On the otherhand more of us go down from cars then drugs.


Ever live in a cluster????????????


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*You mean...*



TheRooster said:


> And I could care less.QUOTE]
> You mean, "I couldn't care less".
> 
> We "care" because we don't like cheaters.


----------



## fleck (Mar 25, 2005)

all doped up said:


> Ever live in a cluster????????????


i'm not sure what you mean by a cluster?


----------



## Tim M (Apr 21, 2005)

The peloton must all be on dope, 'cause I'm sure almost all the weekend warriors around me are. They keep passing me, bastards.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Why we should not care*



magnolialover said:


> TheRooster said:
> 
> 
> > And I could care less.QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## cannondale_boy (May 6, 2004)

*LoL*

I suggest you go to the docs and have them break down the name of the syndrome you have into tiny little words because what ever it is, it cant be easy to pronounce.....[/QUOTE]


Thats a good line.


----------



## fleck (Mar 25, 2005)

ttug said:


> The first thing to make clear is the word care. You mean that a complete stranger, takes a drug, that probably gives them an advantage (cheater) and you then care. In other words, it causes you concern, you "care" enough to respond etc etc
> 
> The reality is, in general, folks do not actually care about the riders themselves. IMO, most people who say they "care" are neurotic control freaks who have a warped sense of self worth and the marathon of misery they call a life is projected onto the poor slob that happens to be in their sphere of mental illness.
> 
> ...


Ok, but you're not talking just to sofa cyclist fans. Some of us race. A lot of us race. So how bout this. I'm a selfish prick because I don't want to feel compeled to have to hurt myself to be competitive.
Why should someone who loves the sport and loves the competition have to sacrifice their well being for it. 
If you want to watch doped up punks turn on a baseball game.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Why not?*



dfleck said:


> Ok, but you're not talking just to sofa cyclist fans. Some of us race. A lot of us race. So how bout this. I'm a selfish prick because I don't want to feel compeled to have to hurt myself to be competitive.
> Why should someone who loves the sport and loves the competition have to sacrifice their well being for it.
> If you want to watch doped up punks turn on a baseball game.


Well, not to sound mean, but yes, it is very selfish to expect " I don't want to feel compelled to have to hurt myself to be competitive." Last I checked, yes you do have to do that to be competetive. 

Now, if you mean a level playing field, you are right. BUT, the assumption is plain. You assume that you have to hurt to be really really good because people dope. How about, you have to hurt to be really really good? Personally, I dont bike for a living, and personally, competing on a recreational basis (non-professional) does not give anyone a special claim to let the world know the news flash about life being unfair.


----------



## technocycle (Oct 29, 2004)

TheRooster said:


> I think almost all of them are on one thing or another. And I could care less. If they are all doing it then the playing field is level. I really do not understand the problem some have with the issue. Not just cycling but any sport. It is how they make their living. Would you criticize one of your coworkers who got a promotion over you because he worked longer hours due to being hopped up on ephedrine/caffine or other substances? Would you do the same to recieve the promotion? The only difference when applied to sport is that the money involved is so much that it is worth the risk to take substances that may cause health problems. Any of you who say you would not are liars or not competitive enough to be in that position anyways.
> 
> If you ain't cheating then you aren't trying hard enough.



It really does not matter to me is Lance, Hondo, Cipp, Boonen and the rest of them are juiced out of their minds, nor does it matter if MLB players are juiced. It makes it more exciting for the general public, and the weekend warriors to watch.

However, the problem is in the youth of america and other countries. When you have 15 year old high school freshman taking steriods because Barry Bonds does, or a 15 yr old cyclist taking EPO because his favorite cyclist does or did, now you have created a problem.

I think that is why they are trying to stop the problem.


----------



## Bryan (Sep 19, 2004)

It is cheating and an unnesessary danger to ones health. If noone doped, the same level of competition would be there, just at a slower pace. But reality is, some half talent dopes to compete, and spoils the whole party.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*so, talented people must dope???*



Bryan said:


> It is cheating and an unnesessary danger to ones health. If noone doped, the same level of competition would be there, just at a slower pace. But reality is, some half talent dopes to compete, and spoils the whole party.



What if you have talent? Odds are, thats why the Olympics have elite athletes. Its elite, they have talent etc etc Bottom line, the field is never level


----------



## bikejr (Jul 30, 2004)

*Hmmm...*

I won't lose sleep one way or another, but someone must care else why would they have created this separate forum just to talk about doping? I found that odd in itself..


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*origin of doping forum*



bikejr said:


> I won't lose sleep one way or another, but someone must care else why would they have created this separate forum just to talk about doping? I found that odd in itself..


If I recall, this forum was created for the losers and whiners who have some perverse "inside scoop" about every single win in the professional peleton today.

Rider X(choose any name) won a stage, Last year they sucked, this year they won, theyt must be doping!!!!!! A gap in the teeth, oh NO, its HGH abuse! Doping makes super stars out of really sucky riders.....Its the thang my man.

So, if you took all of the above, urinated on it and buried it in a mound of amputated pickled limbs in the baking sun while drinking maggot puree and jerked off on the entire mess, it would still be the biggest collection of monkey spunk ever seen.

SO, in order to prevent these deviants from ruining other threads that had actual cycling thoughts and detail about actual races,they created this place where all of the losers go and justify things they do not like because, THEY MUST BE DOPING......Rider z lost. Therefore, the whole race is filled with dopers.  

In all honesty, I am shocked we do not have a Jan Excuse Forum because, its all about 1998 and well, you get the idea.....


----------



## cannondale_boy (May 6, 2004)

*?*



ttug said:


> If I recall, this forum was created for the losers and whiners who have some perverse "inside scoop" about every single win in the professional peleton today.
> 
> Rider X(choose any name) won a stage, Last year they sucked, this year they won, theyt must be doping!!!!!! A gap in the teeth, oh NO, its HGH abuse! Doping makes super stars out of really sucky riders.....Its the thang my man.
> 
> ...


I can't believe your 38!


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*believe*



cannondale_boy said:


> I can't believe your 38!


So, you do have some sort of expectation? If you want real strength, apply that expectation to yourself and then look at the answer provided.

Why is there a Doping Forum? Think about that question for a moment. It means that this forum was created due to the fact that people cant deal in all detachment or "fairness" that the playing field of any endeavor is not repeat level.

Talent, luck, feng shui, the force whatever you want to call it; sometimes, people will be better at things no matter what. You work your fingers to the bone, you get bony fingers. Meanwhile, rider x is waiting for you after the race, drinking beer 2 and eating hot dog 3. It happens.

However, the greatest hypocrisy is to discount talent, genetics, trainig luck etc etc and boil it all down to dope. MOST not ALL of the sour grapes are not real. People hate to lose, but champions know how to do it. Jan loses in a certain GT we all know about. What does Jan do? He drinks beer, eats sausage and makes babies. Sounds like a plan to me. 

Does he ggo to the media and whine and moan and say hey, they all dope! No. You know who did? David Millar. You might recall a certain Vuelta and this climb called the Angliru. Who complained? Who Protested? Some riders certainly, but the most vocal, the one who threw a tantrum: David Millar. Millar doped. Isnt that funny? Ironic huh?

So, while I have a different opinion, life goes on and I hope your does to. Ride well and be safe Cannondale Lad.


----------



## niterider (Feb 22, 2005)

I feel many overstate the effectiveness of performance enhancing drugs. Drugs play a part in performance, but only a small part. Individuals still have to train hard (many times harder then others) to achieve top status. I feel it is very harsh if not ignorant to think that drugs are the only reason someone is having success. The person that wins the race may in fact be doping, but he won because he trained hard, eats right, got lucky, what ever the reason - dope played a small part in the win. I think we need to remember that drugs are performance *enhancers*, meaning they only enhance ones sub-potential performance. They do not change ones genetic potential. 

If all did not take drugs, the same guys would still win. They win because they work hard, and on that day they are better/ luckier then the rest.


----------



## danielc (Oct 24, 2002)

niterider said:


> I think we need to remember that drugs are performance *enhancers*, meaning they only enhance ones sub-potential performance. They do not change ones genetic potential.


This article came out a while back but gives a good insight into what these 'enhancers' can really do. Read it then make up your own opinion.

http://outside.away.com/outside/bodywork/200311/200311_drug_test_1.html


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*and, thats the problem*



danielc said:


> This article came out a while back but gives a good insight into what these 'enhancers' can really do. Read it then make up your own opinion.
> 
> http://outside.away.com/outside/bodywork/200311/200311_drug_test_1.html


Reading Outside Online and the magical world of what doping really does is yet another Dope Myth Fiasco.Dope is the silver Bullet. No. Sorry. Wrong.

Are you telling me that every person will get enormous benefit from Doping? Every person can just walk in, tell a doc what they want and BAM, they get it. No, thats wrong, bad journalism and lest we forget, the highest probable reason that you do see doping. Hey, this stuff works!!!!!

No, it can get you killed and in all probablity, with no HGH papers on Human subject and performance sport, odds are its speculation to get higher web traffic to Outdoor Online.

Let me guess, you met the author and he is a class guy or gal???????


----------



## danielc (Oct 24, 2002)

*Wait a minute...*



ttug said:


> Let me guess, you met the author and he is a class guy or gal???????



First off, you seem to have some strong opinions on this subject. I just added the link to the article and never mentioned what my take was on it. So just lay off okay. Don't direct your aggression at me. 

As for no articles on HGH and human subjects, just do a PubMed search with 'human growth homone and exercise'.


----------



## niterider (Feb 22, 2005)

danielc said:


> This article came out a while back but gives a good insight into what these 'enhancers' can really do. Read it then make up your own opinion.
> 
> http://outside.away.com/outside/bodywork/200311/200311_drug_test_1.html



Nice article, but not sure what the point of it was - Performance enhancing drugs can have a positive effect on performance - Most would agrree with that - My point is that drugs along will not get you to the top. They do not change genitic potential. I think you'll find that the people that are willing to take drugs are the same people that work very hard and are commited to their goals. So when they have success, what truley caused the success? My opinion is that the hard work played a larger role the the drugs.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*wakey wakey*



danielc said:


> First off, you seem to have some strong opinions on this subject. I just added the link to the article and never mentioned what my take was on it. So just lay off okay. Don't direct your aggression at me.
> 
> As for no articles on HGH and human subjects, just do a PubMed search with 'human growth homone and exercise'.



There are no sanctioned ethical studies on the performance enhancing aspects of HGH and sports USING HUMAN SUBJECTS. Yes, you will make your own HGH under specific circimstances etc etc . However, juicing up on HGH and a study to see what happens is not done by a reputable medical entity because they would be sued out of existence and oh yeah, barred from the medical field as well as alot of jail. Kind of dampens the whole watch what happens when I have my second beer ever mentality. IF YOU DONT HAVE THE TALENT, DOPE WILL NOT GIVE IT TO YOU. There are some drugs that makwe you feel indestructable, but I assure you, thats not true.

You perceive aggression? No. Its intense disagreement at the media extolling the power of drugs that in reality have no scientific non biased back up to say that no matter who you are, no matter what your genetics or potential, lets do this......These threads teach us that losers do win. Losers are the folks who dont have the goods, dont have the courage to face that and then, because they cant perform, blame someone who is just better.

Lastly, what quack besides a local dope dealer is going to do that to a patient? Is this guy addicted or something?


----------



## cannondale_boy (May 6, 2004)

*Millar is an idiot!*



ttug said:


> So, you do have some sort of expectation? If you want real strength, apply that expectation to yourself and then look at the answer provided.
> 
> Why is there a Doping Forum? Think about that question for a moment. It means that this forum was created due to the fact that people cant deal in all detachment or "fairness" that the playing field of any endeavor is not repeat level.
> 
> ...


Remember, dont get Mad.......get even!


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*better yet*



cannondale_boy said:


> Remember, dont get Mad.......get even!



When life gives you lemons, squeeze the juice out, fill a squirt gun and blind the SOBs who gave you the lemons.....

Otherwise, Millar was not wise at all. I have to agree. However, does this mean that everyone in todays ranks of the peleton is another David Millar? IMO, I say no. However, IMO.

You can have another opinion, and thats fine too. Just remember that the idea here is to exchange ideas. Its easy, very easy to fall into the notion that one example, a really really good one like David Millar could be applied to anyone. Not really. Millar wanted an easy out an was a chronic whiner......

There are plenty of great riders who do not whine. Do they dope? I leave that to the experts.......


----------



## steel515 (Sep 6, 2004)

*a*



niterider said:


> Nice article, but not sure what the point of it was - Performance enhancing drugs can have a positive effect on performance - Most would agrree with that - My point is that drugs along will not get you to the top. They do not change genitic potential. I think you'll find that the people that are willing to take drugs are the same people that work very hard and are commited to their goals. So when they have success, what truley caused the success? My opinion is that the hard work played a larger role the the drugs.


Drugs alone might not get you to the top but taking drugs does give you an advantage
and different drugs give different advantages making it really unfair, it becomes a battle over who has the best drugs/doctors.
(Do you know that dr ferrari, lance's doctor charge maybe $60K? (guess from memory)

and gives unfair advantage over anyone who is really clean while the sport in name is supposed to be clean.

You and others are trying to rationalize drug-taking. Its illegal. If you want to make it legal, call it "professional doping cycling" and "professional doping cyclist." 

It creates gap between haves and have nots.


----------



## steel515 (Sep 6, 2004)

TheRooster said:


> I think almost all of them are on one thing or another. And I could care less. If they are all doing it then the playing field is level. I really do not understand the problem some have with the issue. Not just cycling but any sport. It is how they make their living. Would you criticize one of your coworkers who got a promotion over you because he worked longer hours due to being hopped up on ephedrine/caffine or other substances? Would you do the same to recieve the promotion? The only difference when applied to sport is that the money involved is so much that it is worth the risk to take substances that may cause health problems. Any of you who say you would not are liars or not competitive enough to be in that position anyways.
> 
> If you ain't cheating then you aren't trying hard enough.


-------
First, its about cheating. Sports are designed with rules, to play fair, otherwise it becomes meaningless. There are always rule-abiding citizens. We civilized people live with uncivilized people in a supposedly civil society.

When I watch cycling now, I see no resemblance between me,other amateurs and tour de france riders.

I dont like to watch robots on bikes or hitting a baseball.

Maybe there should be 3 leagues. amateur, non-doping professionals, and admitted-doping-professionals.


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

*Human Research on HGH and athletic performance*



ttug said:


> There are no sanctioned ethical studies on the performance enhancing aspects of HGH and sports USING HUMAN SUBJECTS.


Actually, there are sanctioned ethical studies of HGH and athletic performance. See, for instance, the review papers, P.J. Jenkins, "Growth hormone and exercise: physiology, use and abuse," Growth Hormone and IGF Research, Vol. 11, Supplement A, pp. S71-7 (2001) and M.J. Rennie, "Claims for the anabolic effects of growth hormone: a case of the emperor's new clothes?" British Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 37, pp. 100-5 (2003). However, the results of these studies showed no ergogenic effects from administering supraphysiological doses of HGH, and thus support your assertion that HGH will not enhance your performance.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*repeatable??*



Fredke said:


> Actually, there are sanctioned ethical studies of HGH and athletic performance. See, for instance, the review papers, P.J. Jenkins, "Growth hormone and exercise: physiology, use and abuse," Growth Hormone and IGF Research, Vol. 11, Supplement A, pp. S71-7 (2001) and M.J. Rennie, "Claims for the anabolic effects of growth hormone: a case of the emperor's new clothes?" British Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 37, pp. 100-5 (2003). However, the results of these studies showed no ergogenic effects from administering supraphysiological doses of HGH, and thus support your assertion that HGH will not enhance your performance.


http://bjsm.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/37/2/100

The above is using known issues with usage in HIV patients and the known problems of over use/abuse.

The article below however is the point of HGH usage, you cant ethically test what happens when you abuse it. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...d&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15231228&query_hl=3

Due to the ethical limitations (fun huh?)


of studying the use of high doses of GH in isolation or combined with anabolic steroids, the scientific literature has not produced compelling results on its efficacy. GH has potential as an anti-aging drug and does lead to some improved athletic performance in isolated studies. Despite the lack of compelling data, GH seems to have developed a reputation among athletes for enhancing performance. The detection of illegal doping with GH has been the focus of a concerted international effort by the International Olympic Committee.


----------



## niterider (Feb 22, 2005)

steel515 said:


> Drugs alone might not get you to the top but taking drugs does give you an advantage
> and different drugs give different advantages making it really unfair, it becomes a battle over who has the best drugs/doctors.
> (Do you know that dr ferrari, lance's doctor charge maybe $60K? (guess from memory)
> 
> ...


"You and others are trying to rationalize drug-taking" 

Funny - I have not stated any opinion on the right or wrong of drug taking in sport. I just stated my opinion that drugs are a small part of ones success in sport. The idea that cycling or any sport is becoming a war of “best chemist” is outrageous and in my opinion is a defense used by whiners not winners (winners don’t have to win by the way). 

Only at the absolute highest level of ones genetic potential would true artificial performance gap be gained – meaning if it were possible that two athletes had the same genetic potential, trained exactly the same, had the exact same reactions to the training, elevated themselves right to the same point of their potential (say 95% of potential), but then one athlete took a performance enhancing drug to reach 97% potential, only then would a truly artificial performance gap exists. Below that level hard work still wins (luck also helps). 

It is my opinion that an athlete can compete and win drug free. It is true that you may have to work harder to get that success, but you can do it. I think you’ll find that athletes that use the “unfair advantage” defense to their loss truly did not work hard enough to beat the guy drugs or no drugs. 

When society overstates the effectiveness of performance enhancing drugs it risks devaluing the results gained by hard work. It is my opinion that if we message out to athletes that drugs really don’t matter much in your performance and support the values of hard work and dedication to your goals as the true path for success, drugs will really become a non-issue.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*yup*



niterider said:


> "You and others are trying to rationalize drug-taking"
> 
> Funny - I have not stated any opinion on the right or wrong of drug taking in sport. I just stated my opinion that drugs are a small part of ones success in sport. The idea that cycling or any sport is becoming a war of ?best chemist? is outrageous and in my opinion is a defense used by whiners not winners (winners don?t have to win by the way).
> 
> ...


you da man.


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

ttug said:


> The article below however is the point of HGH usage, you cant ethically test what happens when you abuse it..


The two articles I cited above review the literature and cite in turn several papers describing experiments in which healthy adults were given high doses of HGH and the effects on their athletic performance were measured:
_To date, however, although the number of properly controlled trials is small, *the scientific evidence suggests that even large doses of GH are without marked benefit, but are instead associated with significant side-effects*. These studies have involved both healthy, but previously nonexercising, young men as well as athletes undergoing regular
training. Yarasheski et al/. [53] administered rhGH in a double-blind manner to the former group before and during a 12-week programme of daily resistive weight training. They observed no difference between the two groups with regard to muscle strength, despite serum GH and IGF-I levels increasing sixfold and threefold, respectively, in the GH-treated group. A similar lack of any effect was observed in power athletes already undertaking regular intensive training (8-14h/week). Despite elevation of both serum GH and IGF-I levels to approximately threefold above normal, there was no significant difference in muscle strength between the GH and placebo groups; there was also no change in body composition [53,54]._ [Jenkins, p. 74, emphasis added]​


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*and......*



Fredke said:


> The two articles I cited above review the literature and cite in turn several papers describing experiments in which healthy adults were given high doses of HGH and the effects on their athletic performance were measured:
> _To date, however, although the number of properly controlled trials is small, *the scientific evidence suggests that even large doses of GH are without marked benefit, but are instead associated with significant side-effects*. These studies have involved both healthy, but previously nonexercising, young men as well as athletes undergoing regular
> training. Yarasheski et al/. [53] administered rhGH in a double-blind manner to the former group before and during a 12-week programme of daily resistive weight training. They observed no difference between the two groups with regard to muscle strength, despite serum GH and IGF-I levels increasing sixfold and threefold, respectively, in the GH-treated group. A similar lack of any effect was observed in power athletes already undertaking regular intensive training (8-14h/week). Despite elevation of both serum GH and IGF-I levels to approximately threefold above normal, there was no significant difference in muscle strength between the GH and placebo groups; there was also no change in body composition [53,54]._ [Jenkins, p. 74, emphasis added]​


I thought it was also of note that the usage of rhGH in coordination with steroid use also yielded no benefits. Kind of makes you wonder.

However, I would still like to see abuse statistics. Given our modern world, and a test for rhGH MAYBE (dont hold your breath) on the horizon, who knows what new cancers we can create? We may have willing test subjects displaying side affects within the next 2 decades.....


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*hmmmmmmm*



Fredke said:


> The two articles I cited above review the literature and cite in turn several papers describing experiments in which healthy adults were given high doses of HGH and the effects on their athletic performance were measured:
> _To date, however, although the number of properly controlled trials is small, *the scientific evidence suggests that even large doses of GH are without marked benefit, but are instead associated with significant side-effects*. These studies have involved both healthy, but previously nonexercising, young men as well as athletes undergoing regular
> training. Yarasheski et al/. [53] administered rhGH in a double-blind manner to the former group before and during a 12-week programme of daily resistive weight training. They observed no difference between the two groups with regard to muscle strength, despite serum GH and IGF-I levels increasing sixfold and threefold, respectively, in the GH-treated group. A similar lack of any effect was observed in power athletes already undertaking regular intensive training (8-14h/week). Despite elevation of both serum GH and IGF-I levels to approximately threefold above normal, there was no significant difference in muscle strength between the GH and placebo groups; there was also no change in body composition [53,54]._ [Jenkins, p. 74, emphasis added]​


Fredke, if I did not know any better, I would actually believe that you care about the athletes as much as the sport.

That makes you a bird of rare plummage. Kudos to you


----------



## TheRooster (Aug 5, 2004)

You see no resemblance between you and Tour riders? I should hope you don't. They are professionals you are not. Do you dislike the NFL because you don't resemble Bret Favre or Michael Vick. 

That was my whole point. These guys get paid big money so if they want to use substances to help them perform at such a high level then big deal. I don't know what you do for a living but if you were good enough at your job so that you and a select few others were to be promoted to a special job paying big money but the job demands required you to take speed to be able to handle the workload for a few years you would. There is no difference.


----------



## steel515 (Sep 6, 2004)

*Say hi to the doping team*



TheRooster said:


> You see no resemblance between you and Tour riders? I should hope you don't. They are professionals you are not. Do you dislike the NFL because you don't resemble Bret Favre or Michael Vick.
> 
> That was my whole point. These guys get paid big money so if they want to use substances to help them perform at such a high level then big deal. I don't know what you do for a living but if you were good enough at your job so that you and a select few others were to be promoted to a special job paying big money but the job demands required you to take speed to be able to handle the workload for a few years you would. There is no difference.


Youre not professional either so why do you care that they should be on dope?
Are you one of them?
You think everyone in the country should take performance-enhancing drugs?
Do you work in the pharmaceutical industry?
I can't think of a better way to generate business.
-------------
I'm not going to watch cycling anymore. 
Pill popping losers.


----------



## TheRooster (Aug 5, 2004)

I don't care if they do. People like me are not the ones who write to the magazies or post on message boards that their is a crisis in cycling. I could care less. And I never said people should take perfrormance enhancing drugs just that I understood why people would given the amount of money theycan earn. Combine that with the short career, relatively speaking, and it is a no brainer for cycling and other professional sports. 

Besides everyone takes perfprmance enhancing substances of one form or another. That coffee in the middle of the day to get that extra little boost to be more productive at the office for instance. That drink at night to unwind so as to be able to rest for the next days work.


----------



## steel515 (Sep 6, 2004)

*Good article*

http://www.torelli.com/home.html?http://www.torelli.com/owen/1986tdf.html&1

I just read this article. Obviously I dont get money supporting Lemond, since he's already retired.


----------



## vonteity (Feb 13, 2005)

12345


----------



## argylesocks (Aug 2, 2004)

vonteity said:


> 12345


my sentiments, exactly.


----------



## vonteity (Feb 13, 2005)

argylesocks said:


> my sentiments, exactly.


HA! I honestly don't even know what this thread is about, sorry.  

I just posted a reply to the first post on the list to bump the deleted thread from the main page.


----------

