# Dopes believe in doping



## Tom Kunich (Oct 16, 2002)

Contrary to what you might think the human body is a pretty complicated device. So complicated that at the level of performance that the Tour de France and most bicycle racing is concerned there are no drugs that can boost performance.

In these races you are maxed out on every bodily function and making a change to one will NOT effect performance because all the other factors are at their max.

Listening to the Tour a couple of days ago I heard this comment in regard to the latest doping standards: "We don't see riders finishing a stage feeling good anymore."

We NEVER saw any riders finishing stages near the front that felt good. And today's times continue to fall at the same rates as before.

What was happening with doping is that those who took it THOUGHT that they had an advantage which gave them more confidence. And those who refused thought that they were at a disadvantage and this gave them doubts at critical points.

So while doping did make a difference in the results it wasn't because it made any real difference in the human performance potential.

My advice would be to continue drug testing but don't make it priority number one.


----------



## brianmcg (Oct 12, 2002)

View attachment 307452


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Climate change is not real. The Easter bunny is real. Just in case you were wondering.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

SicBith said:


> Climate change is not real. The Easter bunny is real. Just in case you were wondering.


If we are basing the same logic as the OP is using, then yes, I agree with you.


----------



## turbogrover (Jan 1, 2006)

Hey this is the "doping Forum". I expect to see more posts on how to dope properly, lol.


----------



## craiger_ny (Jun 24, 2014)

Tom Kunich said:


> In these races you are maxed out on every bodily function


Even number two?


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

So, in other words, Conconi and Ferrari were bigger con men than Ponzi? All the dopers had to do to go from 80th to the podium in a year or two was read Norman Vincent Peale. :thumbsup:


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

mpre53 said:


> So, in other words, Conconi and Ferrari were bigger con men than Ponzi? All the dopers had to do to go from 80th to the podium in a year or two was read Norman Vincent Peale. :thumbsup:


gewis-ballan had an awesome motivational speaker each winter


----------



## Tom Kunich (Oct 16, 2002)

So either doping had nothing directly to do with it or because of the continuously increasing speeds of the peloton everyone is now using?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Tom Kunich said:


> So either doping had nothing directly to do with it or because of the continuously increasing speeds of the peloton everyone is now using?


times up alpe d'huez do not support this at all. 
(please don't tell me you use average speed on flat stages).


----------



## Tom Kunich (Oct 16, 2002)

Alpe d'Huez is hardly a measure. If you correct for bicycle weight and the length of the stage Fausto Coppi probably still holds the record.

Since 1992 the average speed per km of the Tour has hovered around 40 kph with small ups and down that have to do with the difficulty and length of the race. It has NOT changed with the disappearance of Armstrong nor the appearance of the Blood Passport.

These speeds are tied to human endurance and that is not controlled by some shot in the arm. The sooner people understand this the sooner they'll stop killing themselves using drugs to increase performances that cannot be increased more than training.

Armstrong took everything under the Sun if he thought he could gain something by it and he sure as hell wasn't any Eddy Merckx.


----------



## Sumguy1 (Apr 5, 2008)

Tom Kunich said:


> Contrary to what you might think the human body is a pretty complicated device. So complicated that at the level of performance that the Tour de France and most bicycle racing is concerned there are no drugs that can boost performance.
> 
> In these races you are maxed out on every bodily function and making a change to one will NOT effect performance because all the other factors are at their max.
> 
> ...


Lol. 
I came to read about Paolini and the cocaine but I read this instead.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Tom Kunich said:


> Alpe d'Huez is hardly a measure. If you correct for bicycle weight and the length of the stage Fausto Coppi probably still holds the record.
> 
> Since 1992 the average speed per km of the Tour has hovered around 40 kph with small ups and down that have to do with the difficulty and length of the race. It has NOT changed with the disappearance of Armstrong nor the appearance of the Blood Passport.
> 
> ...


"probably"
funny you should choose the early 90s for the start of the counting.
edit: you do know Coppi was doped right?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Sumguy1 said:


> Lol.
> I came to read about Paolini and the cocaine but I read this instead.


This thread is now about cocaine. 


Paolini informed of cocaine positive at Tour de France | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

Informed of a positive? He already knew!


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

I feel bad for Paolini, as I did for Boonen when he got busted for cocaine a few years back. EPO, blood doping and hormones - sure, zero tolerance. But weed, cocaine etc. - Ridiculous!
Let's fade it - these are recreational drugs. Riding for three weeks while turning yourself inside out is no fun. I wouldn't want to do it, not for million dollars.
So before the tour these guys should be allowed to relax and party because of what's coming their way. It's like when you are going off to jail, or - worse, serving in Iraq or Afghanistan - you need to throw a hell of a party. So some people get high, big deal.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

55x11 said:


> I feel bad for Paolini, as I did for Boonen when he got busted for cocaine a few years back. EPO, blood doping and hormones - sure, zero tolerance. But weed, cocaine etc. - Ridiculous!
> Let's fade it - these are recreational drugs. Riding for three weeks while turning yourself inside out is no fun. I wouldn't want to do it, not for million dollars.
> So before the tour these guys should be allowed to relax and party because of what's coming their way. It's like when you are going off to jail, or - worse, serving in Iraq or Afghanistan - you need to throw a hell of a party. So some people get high, big deal.


he can snort all he wants. as long as it's out of the system when he is at the start line (from a cycling point of view anyway). Which is the reason Boonen got no ban from the UCI. 
But it's awesome you already know the reason he took it.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Yes, that blows. I really don't think coke is a PED.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

I think he used a tainted straw to mix his grappa and soda.


----------



## Tom Kunich (Oct 16, 2002)

den bakker said:


> "probably"
> funny you should choose the early 90s for the start of the counting.
> edit: you do know Coppi was doped right?


By all means tell us what this "dope" was. And by all means give us some references that show that any drugs used increased human performance.

Do you have cleats on the bottom of those floppy shoes? And does that large red nose get in the way of your sunglasses. Oh wait, I keep forgetting that you people that run on about "cheaters" don't actually ride so you don't have any points of reference.


----------



## CBus660R (Sep 9, 2011)

Tom Kunich said:


> And by all means give us some references that show that any drugs used increased human performance.


This is an interesting read, How I became a drug cheat athlete to test the system - BBC News


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Tom Kunich said:


> Do you have cleats on the bottom of those floppy shoes? And does that large red nose get in the way of your sunglasses. Oh wait, I keep forgetting that you people that run on about "cheaters" don't actually ride so you don't have any points of reference.


enjoy playing in the pig sty.


----------



## Tom Kunich (Oct 16, 2002)

Can you explain what this has to do with either Fausto Coppi or increases in human performance?

As someone that has spent the better part of a long life developing medical instrumentation let me explain something to you. When Armstrong was racing the hematocrit was limited to 50%. The NORMAL hematocrit of healthy people is between 47 and 54%. So unless a rider was riding hard all the time there was a chance of being disqualified (not being found guilty of doping) without ever knowing what dope is.

And if you have very much higher than 54% you have a good chance of having heart failure from the blood being too thick.

But there is a DIFFERENT problem. Even if your blood can carry more oxygen it cannot carry more calories to your muscle, they cannot absorb any more rapidly since the mechanism is fixed by physiology and your muscles cannot put out any more power than that which is determined by your genetic composition. And that composition is LIMITED to the human ability and not to increased red corpuscles that are LIMITED to begin with.

Can you beat the tests? Probably - but with the limited hematocrit what's it matter? And even if you claim that somehow a reduction in hematocrit due to extreme output over time can be corrected with EPO or some such, muscle exhaustion cannot.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

It's good for hangover recovery.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

Nobody here knows how. Besides, this is really the "Hate-Lance" forum.


----------



## Tom Kunich (Oct 16, 2002)

Unfortunately that's too true. Look at how familiar so many are with illegal drugs and then tell us that Lance is a cheater.


----------



## CBus660R (Sep 9, 2011)

Tom Kunich said:


> But there is a DIFFERENT problem. Even if your blood can carry more oxygen it cannot carry more calories to your muscle, they cannot absorb any more rapidly since the mechanism is fixed by physiology and your muscles cannot put out any more power than that which is determined by your genetic composition. And that composition is LIMITED to the human ability and not to increased red corpuscles that are LIMITED to begin with.


In order for this to be the case, the rider has to be operating at max aerobic effort for the entire length of the stage and running a caloric deficit all day. And they do that day after day. But that's not the case. On the flat stages where the pelaton is intact, they're cruising most of the day, burning less calories than they can consume through gels, drinks, bars, and real food. So if EPO can raise your VO2 max, as the article I linked earlier pretty clearly demonstrates, then when the riders do get to a point where they go max aerobic effort (like on a mountain stage or time trial), the cheater has an advantage, and that is where a certain Texan made his hay on his way to his tainted victories, buy gaining time in the portions of the race where max aerobic efficiency won or lost time, not in the day-to-day grind through flat stages where the pelaton was intact.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> Yes, that blows. I really don't think coke is a PED.


It's doubtful. It's a really short high. It's also stupid easy to detect.


----------



## CBus660R (Sep 9, 2011)

Tom Kunich said:


> Unfortunately that's too true. Look at how familiar so many are with illegal drugs and then tell us that Lance is a cheater.


You don't have to be a cheater or even a cyclist to find plenty of information about the affects of EPO and how it can help a cyclist (any endurance athlete really) or how steroids can help a strength athlete. Do you really think steroids didn't help a few guys go from warning track power to power hitter status? Lots of other examples in real life. I've never used heroin or cocaine, but I know if you use too much, you'll kill yourself with an overdose.


----------



## Tom Kunich (Oct 16, 2002)

Don't look now but races are won from maximum aerobic output and NOT cruising along in the peleton eating gels etc. Have you ever raced?


----------



## GlobalGuy (Jun 9, 2015)

Mainstream PEDs work--they only vary in how they physiologically work and the degree of enhanced performance by the athlete user. There's a reason why a high percentage of the world's track and field records have either stood since the eighties and nineties or some have just recently been broken.


----------



## CBus660R (Sep 9, 2011)

Tom Kunich said:


> Don't look now but races are won from maximum aerobic output and NOT cruising along in the peleton eating gels etc. Have you ever raced?


I have done and continue to do endurance type racing, just not on a bicycle. My bicycle is for training for the racing I do. My races range from 2 hours up to 6. My results are directly related to how in shape I'm in. So what's your point? All you have to do is watch the TV coverage of the Tour where they're showing HR, power outputs, etc.. to know they're not going 100% very often. The times where they do, especially in the mountains, is where the winners and losers in the GC are determined.


----------



## Tom Kunich (Oct 16, 2002)

Until Armstrong came along the ONLY so-called PED's were pain killers and excitation drugs like uppers that DID NOT ENHANCE PERFORMANCE any more than caffeine.

Until Ferrari came up with the idea of blood transfusions and then EPO there were NO drugs that could even be hinted at as being truly performance enhancers. And as I stated before - in the first place you had to be heavily trained in the first place to have your hematocrit down to the legal levels so adding EPO would only bring it up after you were saving transfused blood.

You grow wearisome when you talk about performance enhancing but cannot answer why the speed of the peleton hasn't changed before, during and after.

Exactly how difficult is it to understand that your muscles can only deliver so much power for so long REGARDLESS of how much oxygen is in your bloodstream? You body cannot regenerate muscle tissue except at a given rate. It cannot absorb nutrients except at a genetically specific rate which all top athletes have.

Why is it that Armstrong could NOT climb until after his cancer treatments and he had lost 20% of his body weight? Isn't this SOME sort of clue?


----------



## Sumguy1 (Apr 5, 2008)

Tom Kunich said:


> Until Armstrong came along the ONLY so-called PED's were pain killers and excitation drugs like uppers that DID NOT ENHANCE PERFORMANCE any more than caffeine.
> 
> Until Ferrari came up with the idea of blood transfusions and then EPO there were NO drugs that could even be hinted at as being truly performance enhancers. And as I stated before - in the first place you had to be heavily trained in the first place to have your hematocrit down to the legal levels so adding EPO would only bring it up after you were saving transfused blood.
> 
> ...


You really have no idea what you're talking about. Please, just stop.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Get a clue. PEDs have a long history of use in cycling.


----------



## Tom Kunich (Oct 16, 2002)

Thank you for showing such a great knowledge of physiology. Your grasp is world shaking. Though I might add that the way you feel after snorting coke is hardly indicative of the real world.


----------



## shermes (Jul 26, 2008)

Tom Kunich said:


> Thank you for showing such a great knowledge of physiology. Your grasp is world shaking. Though I might add that the way you feel after snorting coke is hardly indicative of the real world.


Your thoughts on doping are hardly indicative of the real world.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Tom Kunich said:


> Don't look now but races are won from maximum aerobic output and NOT cruising along in the peleton eating gels etc. Have you ever raced?


No, they're not.

They're won by a couple of VERY well timed suprathreshold efforts.


----------



## Tom Kunich (Oct 16, 2002)

I was wondering how BMC won today's stage. You really should be a pro team leader. There aren't that many people around with knowledge like yours.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Tom Kunich said:


> As someone that has spent the better part of a long life developing medical instrumentation let me explain something to you. When Armstrong was racing the hematocrit was limited to 50%.


Your understanding of exercise physiology is lacking. Your comments are similar to an engineer claiming expertise i n a field in which they have no experience, as though their experience is applicable across all aspects of engineering.



Tom Kunich said:


> I was wondering how BMC won today's stage. You really should be a pro team leader. There aren't that many people around with knowledge like yours.


And if you were at all confident in your knowledge, you wouldn't feel so offended to sling insults/snark at those who called you out.

Your idea of the limitations of muscular endurance implies that there is no benefit to training (let alone doping) and that we should all be able to perform to the very limits of our capabilities, straight off of the couch.


----------



## Tom Kunich (Oct 16, 2002)

And yet you cannot defend your stupid "suprathreshold efforts." Instead you turn to "snarky" comments about people who actually have experience.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderator Note*

Not sure why you decided to go into insult mode, but enjoy the posting vacation to figure it out.


----------

