# What's so bad about "dope?" Seriously.



## RedMenace (Jan 28, 2004)

If you look at the UCI list of banned sustances, I'm really at a loss to find much on there that would help a rider win a race. 

But if we grant that, say, EPO in fact MIGHT help performance, why is that bad? Why is injected EPO bad and sleeping in an altitude tent good, when the effect is fundamentally the same? Why is it OK to take vitamins, or SOME medicines and not others?

If you want to have an "organic" sport, fine. But it's not. And the artificial distinctions -- one cup of coffee is OK, two is doping, whatever; you can't use cortisone for that bee sting; don't take EPO, sleep in an altitude test if you want to thicken your blood -- are just crazy and hypocritical.

There is no drug out there that turns Harvey Milquetoast into a raging Eddy Mercyx. You can't just take a pill and be a contender. Cortisone cream's not going to do it. You're still gonna have to be good, and work your ass off.

I think it's all just crap. They're pros. They do all kinds of crazy things to be better. Let 'em "dope," if they want. Frankly, I really just don't care, when the line between "dope" and "not dope" is so fuzzy and arbitray that the distinction is lost on me.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Dope makes achievements artificial. That's why it's bad. Spectactors (and sponsors) will lose interest in racing if it's all about who has the best dope. Plus, doping can be life threatening, and can cause nasty lifetime complications. Who would want to join a sport where you had to risk your life by taking drugs? Knocking bars in a 40 mph field sprint or flying down a col at 60 mph is risky enough! If dope were legal, in twenty years, bike racing as a sport would be dead. Along with a few riders.


----------



## bsdc (Feb 15, 2002)

*Don't be a dope!*

Allowing doping in sports would force anyone that wants to be competitive to dope. Doping is generally detrimental to your health. Thus, anti-doping rules are designed to protect the athletes who want to be competitive without potential problems of doping.


----------



## RedMenace (Jan 28, 2004)

*OK, so why's an altitude tent OK?*



mohair_chair said:


> Dope makes achievements artificial. That's why it's bad. Spectactors (and sponsors) will lose interest in racing if it's all about who has the best dope. Plus, doping can be life threatening, and can cause nasty lifetime complications. Who would want to join a sport where you had to risk your life by taking drugs? Knocking bars in a 40 mph field sprint or flying down a col at 60 mph is risky enough! If dope were legal, in twenty years, bike racing as a sport would be dead. Along with a few riders.


The risk is the same. Clumpy blood.


----------



## Flav (Jun 24, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> Dope makes achievements artificial. That's why it's bad. Spectactors (and sponsors) will lose interest in racing if it's all about who has the best dope. Plus, doping can be life threatening, and can cause nasty lifetime complications. Who would want to join a sport where you had to risk your life by taking drugs? Knocking bars in a 40 mph field sprint or flying down a col at 60 mph is risky enough! If dope were legal, in twenty years, bike racing as a sport would be dead. Along with a few riders.


I don't know if I agree with you regarding the atheletes and the fans. I don't think that the majority of the fans out there really care about the atheletes so long as those they are supporting keep winning. And if their favorite's heart explodes in his or her chest, well then, at least they went down fighting. I think that is the majority sentiment regarding atheletes.

As for atheletes wanting to dope... it's very obvious that they don't worry much about the consequences if it's as prevalent as everyone thinks it is. They're looking at the big time contracts so they'll do whatever they can to win them. Will they die younger? Maybe. But they sure will 'live the life' until they do.

If you want to take the doping impetus out of sports, you need to take the money out of sports.

I do, however, agree with you 100% about it making the achievements artificial.


----------



## Mel Erickson (Feb 3, 2004)

*EPO and an altitude tent*

They are far from the same thing. Sleeping in an altitude tent or living and training at high altitude cause systemic changes to the entire body (see this post http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?postid=86441#poststop thanks to gotbones). Taking EPO only raises the red blood cell count and thickens the blood to potentially dangerous levels. There are no other systemic changes and the entire body does not adapt as is the case with altitude training.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*bad? no, its far worse*

Doping has an impact that very few folks really want to address:

it kills people, lots of them.  

Certainly, the argument is that there is a personal responsibility of the rider etc etc. No doubt. 

BUT, its those that approach the sport. Those that are young, have ability, want to achieve, thats when the problem starts.The penalties are weak. Even those who confess to doping and always tested clean wind up winning at that level another year later.

The desire to achieve, naivte, and really ambition make alot of folks take things that really are just freakish and ignorant. Blood cancers, kidney failure, liver failure, lung disease, depresssion etc etc etc 

Watching 20+ year old kids die of strokes and leukemia because they want to go fast on a bike is not my idea of a great day and the sky is blue. 

To classify this as bad or good is at best ignorant. Trolling on this topic is really not the way to go.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

RedMenace said:


> The risk is the same. Clumpy blood.


I don't think the risk is the same at all. You take the same "risk" and you acheive the same effect by living at high altitude, and you certainly can't ban living at altitude.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*This is sorry, really folks*



Mel Erickson said:


> They are far from the same thing. Sleeping in an altitude tent or living and training at high altitude cause systemic changes to the entire body (see this post http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?postid=86441#poststop thanks to gotbones). Taking EPO only raises the red blood cell count and thickens the blood to potentially dangerous levels. There are no other systemic changes and the entire body does not adapt as is the case with altitude training.


EPO has far more health issues that what you are citing.

This is really the equivalent of playing with fire here. 
Did you ever consider what happens to the bodies ability to create RBC's after the use has stopped? 
What happens during usage? 
What happens to other organs like the liver, kidneys, pancreas etc etc etc? 
Whats happening in the marrow?
Can the body recreate its natural ability to create RBC's after long term abuse?
Are there psychological impacts to this?
What are TEA's?
Can EPO cause them?
Could you ride after a TEA and damage your body further?


----------



## RedMenace (Jan 28, 2004)

*I don't troll. I'm dead serious.*



Mel Erickson said:


> They are far from the same thing. Sleeping in an altitude tent or living and training at high altitude cause systemic changes to the entire body (see this post http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?postid=86441#poststop thanks to gotbones). Taking EPO only raises the red blood cell count and thickens the blood to potentially dangerous levels. There are no other systemic changes and the entire body does not adapt as is the case with altitude training.


All that's been cited here is "threat to the rider's health." If we're worried about riders' health, we'd ban cycling altogether. It's dangerous.

No one has addressed the "performance enhancing" issue vis a vis EPO/altitude tents. Hell, from what I'm reading here, EPO is so bad for you it would probably HURT your performance, and certainly not enhance it as effectively as an altitude tent.

Forget rider health. In terms of "making the achievement artificial" : What's the difference between the two?


----------



## ClydeTri (Jan 15, 2002)

*nine riders....*

Nine pro riders and top level riders have died in the last 18 months, usually from heart failures...can you name another sport with such a death toll?


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*"REAL" results*

This thread has great potential if the question being asked is the "fairness" of training methods versus, a "real" result.

The argument about technology and the advantage gained is not the kind of issue that you can mix apples and oranges with.

Example: The EDS super bike and the horrible results of US riders on those bikes as compared to their comradeson traditional machines, embarassing.

THIS IS NOT THE SAME ARGUMENT AS:

Altitude tents and other drug induced means to mimic the living at altitude "advantage". I do not know if there is a study comparing the usage of tents and EPO in the context of boosting athletic performance. That is what we are comparing right? Can someone find a scientific study and its link on that? I am sure there are numerous journals using human beings as lab rats somewhere.

Otherwise, the issue of is it a real result? I would say in my opinion: NO. I enjoy the sport and watch it happen. I also have a healthy heart and will live a while longer to see my kids grow up (other things like life pending). Go figure


----------



## bimini (Jul 2, 2003)

*Allowing the use of synthetic EPO*

would make drug use mandatory for a high percentage of the pro peloton.

By allowing or condoning the use of these drugs, most riders would be required to use the drugs to keep their spots on the team. Either, by pure need to stay at the same performance level of the other riders on the team or by pure insistance, take the drug or get booted off the team. There are reports several years back of teams requiring the use of drugs and being kicked off the teams for not using the drugs. This is not a good situation for the riders.

When it changes from optional to mandatory use of a synthetic drug to hold your job, that is ripe with potential problems. The UCI is right for stepping in and dealing with it harshly.

Second, is the image it creates for the sport. Instead of truely heroic human effort and achievements, you have an image of skinny dopers with elastic bands and syringes lurking in dark dirty alleyways. Not the type of people I would want my kids emulating, nor the type of people that gets you big bucks from the sponsors. Who would you want selling your Subaru, A clean cut all American boy from Texas or some drugy with a pocketfull of syringes.

Third, it's hard to say what the long term effects of synthetic EPO use will be. I use to go to a health club long ago, I was always amazed at what the styroid creatins were doing to their bodies. Gosh, I am sure a couple of the guys were starting to grow horns (at least they had that frontal brow bone deformation thing going on). Geezus H Krist! For what, a few muscles to impress the other weight lifters (what a strange scene)

Yes, you can do a lot of the same things with an altitude tent as you can with EPO. At least to the level that keeps you below the magic 50% hemocrit level. The difference with this approach is it is using your own body chemisty to adapt. There is a big difference in image between a Lance Armstrong that sleeps in an Altitude tent and a LA that runs around with synthetic EPO in his veins. The altitute tent does the same thing as living up in the rockies, it's just that the athletes can live in the rockies wherever they want to work, train or play. People have been living at altitude for generations without significant harmful side effects. Hard to say what years of drug use will produce.




RedMenace said:


> If you look at the UCI list of banned sustances, I'm really at a loss to find much on there that would help a rider win a race.
> 
> But if we grant that, say, EPO in fact MIGHT help performance, why is that bad? Why is injected EPO bad and sleeping in an altitude tent good, when the effect is fundamentally the same? Why is it OK to take vitamins, or SOME medicines and not others?
> 
> ...


----------



## Flav (Jun 24, 2004)

RedMenace said:


> Forget rider health. In terms of "making the achievement artificial" : What's the difference between the two?


If you look at it purely from a win/loss standpoint, I guess it doesn't matter. Racers who only care about their wins and their contracts will be financially motivated to do whatever it takes to keep winning. Racers who care about the sport in general and who take pride in their abilities will shun doping. IMO.


----------



## Duane Gran (Feb 3, 2004)

You bring up an interesting point. It has been my contention that most of the doping that occurs is related to recovery, not performance. There may well be some legitimate and safe drugs that help with recovery.

EPO is another matter altogether though, and I think it would be a terrible loss if cyclists were dying before they reached age 30. I support the continued vigilance on drug use, but I fear that any clever drug, safe or not, will be banned in the current environment. That is irrational.


----------



## Bocephus Jones (Feb 3, 2004)

Duane Gran said:


> You bring up an interesting point. It has been my contention that most of the doping that occurs is related to recovery, not performance. There may well be some legitimate and safe drugs that help with recovery.
> 
> EPO is another matter altogether though, and I think it would be a terrible loss if cyclists were dying before they reached age 30. I support the continued vigilance on drug use, but I fear that any clever drug, safe or not, will be banned in the current environment. That is irrational.


anabolics help greatly with recovery. don't think there is anything legal that makes a huge difference. l-glutamine works for some though to be most effective it needs to be delivered intravenously and most people wouldn't do that. MSM, Chondroitin/Glucosamine sometimes is used for joint issues, but for the most part I'm not aware of any legal, safe drug that can aid recovery in any significant way.


----------



## ClydeTri (Jan 15, 2002)

*there is one supposedly...*



Bocephus Jones said:


> anabolics help greatly with recovery. don't think there is anything legal that makes a huge difference. l-glutamine works for some though to be most effective it needs to be delivered intravenously and most people wouldn't do that. MSM, Chondroitin/Glucosamine sometimes is used for joint issues, but for the most part I'm not aware of any legal, safe drug that can aid recovery in any significant way.



HGH , Human Growth Hormone supposedly is great for aiding recovery.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

> Who would want to join a sport where you had to risk your life by taking drugs?


Isn't the understanding or belief by many that this is what has been happening all along?


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

Hey! I said this last week! Man can't you ever be original ;O)


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

ClydeTri said:


> HGH , Human Growth Hormone supposedly is great for aiding recovery.


Jonathon Vaughters wrote an article in Cycle Sport last year or the year before where he detailed how to get your body to produce HGH naturally, along with something else I forget. Insulin? Whatever. It's stuff that people inject illegally, but can be produced as part of structured training. It involved riding twice a day, eating small meals five times a day, and taking naps. I don't remember any of the details, because I wasn't planning on following the plan, but it was very interesting reading. Imagine--hard work and structured training can get you all the benefits of doping, without the expense, health issues, and fear of testing positive.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Live Steam said:


> Hey! I said this last week! Man can't you ever be original ;O)


Didn't you blame the doping problem on Clinton?


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

No.... who me? No that couldn't have been me :O)


----------



## ClydeTri (Jan 15, 2002)

*George Clinton?*



mohair_chair said:


> Didn't you blame the doping problem on Clinton?



George Clinton, the minister of p-funk?


----------



## RedMenace (Jan 28, 2004)

*If this is directed at me (hard to tell with this format) ...*



Live Steam said:


> Hey! I said this last week! Man can't you ever be original ;O)


it's because I never read your cycling-related posts, being as how they're so ill-informed. All I read is your political stuff, which is just DELIGHTFULLY insightful and wise.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

Hey I resemble that remark! :O) and yes that was directed at you! It ain't that difficult. Please try to follow along.


----------



## RedMenace (Jan 28, 2004)

*Another example.*



mohair_chair said:


> Jonathon Vaughters wrote an article in Cycle Sport last year or the year before where he detailed how to get your body to produce HGH naturally, along with something else I forget. Insulin? Whatever. It's stuff that people inject illegally, but can be produced as part of structured training. It involved riding twice a day, eating small meals five times a day, and taking naps. I don't remember any of the details, because I wasn't planning on following the plan, but it was very interesting reading. Imagine--hard work and structured training can get you all the benefits of doping, without the expense, health issues, and fear of testing positive.


I don't see the difference. You're manipulating your body chemistry either way, to achieve ultimately the same end. "HGH produced through diet and naps good, HGH injected bad."

I think the use of the loaded word "dope" has a lot to do with the fear and loathing this subject causes. As in "dope-crazed axe murderer." It's not like these guys are jacked up on goofballs looking to rape and rumble. They're just diddling with their body chemistry, just like the apoxic tent crowd is.

If you want to say "We ban this because it causes health problems," great, but leave it at that. To say it taints the outcome of races and casts doubt on the integrity of the sport, well, it's hard to swallow when everyone's looking for "legal" ways to accomplish the same chemical shortcuts, and that's considered fine.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

> It involved riding twice a day, eating small meals five times a day, and taking naps.


Man sounds like a tough job. I mean I hate doing all of those things :O)


----------



## RedMenace (Jan 28, 2004)

*OK, so recap your position on "dope."*



Live Steam said:


> Hey I resemble that remark! :O) and yes that was directed at you! It ain't that difficult. Please try to follow along.


This should be good. It will be in in-boxes all over America by nightfall!


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*no, thats not quite right, sorry*



RedMenace said:


> I don't see the difference. You're manipulating your body chemistry either way, to achieve ultimately the same end. "HGH produced through diet and naps good, HGH injected bad."
> 
> I think the use of the loaded word "dope" has a lot to do with the fear and loathing this subject causes. As in "dope-crazed axe murderer." It's not like these guys are jacked up on goofballs looking to rape and rumble. They're just diddling with their body chemistry, just like the apoxic tent crowd is.
> 
> If you want to say "We ban this because it causes health problems," great, but leave it at that. To say it taints the outcome of races and casts doubt on the integrity of the sport, well, it's hard to swallow when everyone's looking for "legal" ways to accomplish the same chemical shortcuts, and that's considered fine.


The issue is a tad more complex than what you are stating.

MOST of the studies I have seen on HGH are might, coulds etc etc.Iam again not aware of hey if you do this, you are going to be a freak on the machine!

Again, the issue of HGH that your body produces versus a syringe with something that might work with hey who cares consequences are 2 very seperate issues as to health implications etc.

You do make an excellent point though about the philosophy of the win. What drives it. What is the diff etc etc. I believe that the diff you are looking for is HOW and not WHAT. How the person achives the victory versus the victory itself. 

Hey, drop the dope and get in a car. Thats the same logic you are using and yet, I am certain, gee hey that not fair.......Why? They won the stage. They just did it in a car. So what?

Sort of the ends justifying the means. I guess there is a price for everything right? 

.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

I said last week that if everyone was so concerned that the playing field was tilted because some doped and others didn't, just get rid of the doping regs. Obviously when some go undetected, the air of not having an honest race always lingers. Removing the restrictions removes any doubt. Some rides will dope and others will not, btu everyone will know. If we knew and understood all the ramifications of doping, would we discover that even riders that dope lose or have bad results? If the answer is yes, then doping is not everything people make of it.


----------



## RedMenace (Jan 28, 2004)

*Very sane. Very rational. Very reasonable.*



Live Steam said:


> I said last week that if everyone was so concerned that the playing field was tilted because some doped and others didn't, just get rid of the doping regs. Obviously when some go undetected, the air of not having an honest race always lingers. Removing the restrictions removes any doubt. Some rides will dope and others will not, btu everyone will know. If we knew and understood all the ramifications of doping, would we discover that even riders that dope lose or have bad results? If the answer is yes, then doping is not everything people make of it.


Don't worry, I won't squeal about this over in Politics Only!


----------



## freezin_is_the_reason (Feb 5, 2004)

*You act as if money was the only motivation!*

But it's not. A poll was done at the US Olympic training center a few years ago in which athletes were asked if they were given a pill which could guarentee them a gold medal in their sport, but also guarentee that they would die before reaching age 40, would they take it? A majority of the athletes asked said that they would. Now for some, I'm sure that $$ was a factor in their decision, but lets face it, A gold medal does not guaretee happiness or financial security. I think that we need to understand that most athletes live in a different world than the civilian population.


----------



## Flav (Jun 24, 2004)

freezin_is_the_reason said:


> But it's not. A poll was done at the US Olympic training center a few years ago in which athletes were asked if they were given a pill which could guarentee them a gold medal in their sport, but also guarentee that they would die before reaching age 40, would they take it? A majority of the athletes asked said that they would. Now for some, I'm sure that $$ was a factor in their decision, but lets face it, A gold medal does not guaretee happiness or financial security. I think that we need to understand that most athletes live in a different world than the civilian population.


I'm talking professional sports and I'd bet those who would take the 'magic pill' have professional level ambitions. Does a gold medal guarantee a lucrative professional career? No. But it sure helps open doors if your knocking on them. Cycling, at the level we're talking about, is a pro sport with million dollar contracts and endorsement deals. Money is HUGE factor. How much of the current TdF peleton do you honestly think would be racing in the tour this year if they weren't being paid to do so? How many do you think would continue to do it year after year? Do they live in a different world than most of us? Of course they do! Many of them are millionaires.


----------



## Mel Erickson (Feb 3, 2004)

*The problem with getting rid of doping regs*



Live Steam said:


> I said last week that if everyone was so concerned that the playing field was tilted because some doped and others didn't, just get rid of the doping regs. Obviously when some go undetected, the air of not having an honest race always lingers. Removing the restrictions removes any doubt. Some rides will dope and others will not, btu everyone will know. If we knew and understood all the ramifications of doping, would we discover that even riders that dope lose or have bad results? If the answer is yes, then doping is not everything people make of it.


The problem is that getting rid of regs tilts the playing field even more, in the opposite direction. ONLY those willing to dope, and potentially put their health and life in jeopardy, will be allowed to play. Therefore those unwilling to dope will be excluded.

I also have a concern for young people. If they see that doping is the only way to a pro career then it will (and unfortunately has) become common at very young ages. So young that they lack the ability to understand and appreciate the trade offs they are making. More extremely gifted and talented lives will be ruined and cut short at an even younger age. This is not in the best interests of our society.


----------



## RedMenace (Jan 28, 2004)

*Yes, but still ...*



Mel Erickson said:


> The problem is that getting rid of regs tilts the playing field even more, in the opposite direction. ONLY those willing to dope, and potentially put their health and life in jeopardy, will be allowed to play. Therefore those unwilling to dope will be excluded.
> 
> I also have a concern for young people. If they see that doping is the only way to a pro career then it will (and unfortunately has) become common at very young ages. So young that they lack the ability to understand and appreciate the trade offs they are making. More extremely gifted and talented lives will be ruined and cut short at an even younger age. This is not in the best interests of our society.


the argument always comes back to health effects, not performance enhancement. I suspect doping doesn't affect outcomes at the highest level all that much, or at least as much as the hysterics say it does. Because the guys who don't dope are finding "legal" ways to accomplish the same ends. Lance may not be EPOing, but he's jacking his red cell count up in a legal -- if exotic -- way. He can AFFORD to do it legally.

I still think the strongest rider wins the Tour and other elite races. Even if Lance IS EPOing, he's still the hardest working guy out there, and the smartest tactician, and a hell of a bike rider, and EPO would be a minor psychological edge for him at best -- especially since everyone else is doing it too, apparently, to listen to the hysterics.

For the record, I don't believe he's doing EPO. But if I found out he was, it wouldn't change my opinion of his achievements.


----------



## footballcat (Jul 8, 2004)

well i think you have it wrong, dope makes you better, but they are not fake gains, you still HAVE TO BUST YOUR ASS TO GET THE GAIN.

Its not going to make you the best, you still have to work.


----------



## Mel Erickson (Feb 3, 2004)

*It's hard to know*




RedMenace said:


> the argument always comes back to health effects, not performance enhancement. I suspect doping doesn't affect outcomes at the highest level all that much, or at least as much as the hysterics say it does. Because the guys who don't dope are finding "legal" ways to accomplish the same ends. Lance may not be EPOing, but he's jacking his red cell count up in a legal -- if exotic -- way. He can AFFORD to do it legally.
> 
> I still think the strongest rider wins the Tour and other elite races. Even if Lance IS EPOing, he's still the hardest working guy out there, and the smartest tactician, and a hell of a bike rider, and EPO would be a minor psychological edge for him at best -- especially since everyone else is doing it too, apparently, to listen to the hysterics.
> 
> For the record, I don't believe he's doing EPO. But if I found out he was, it wouldn't change my opinion of his achievements.


We simply don't know the extent of doping and therefore can't really tell what effect it has on race outcomes. There haven't been studies aimed at determining the performance enhancing effect of various drugs. Most, if not all, of these drugs were developed for an entirely different purpose. I'm sure if doping were legal there would be a host of studies to find out what really works and what doesn't.

We do know that most of the banned drugs can have serious negative long term health effects. I think that's always been the main reason they've been banned and that the level playing field has been secondary. There's drugs on the banned list that no athlete in their right mind would take for performance enhancing purposes (marijuana as a performance enhancer? but only banned for DH MTB racers  ). The only justification for banning them is either related to health or societal taboos.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

According to many here, there are already guys putting themselves at risk, only we don't know who. Maybe if it were legal, then it could be monitored better and the safety factor would increase. Say, isn't this the same argument for legalizing recreational drugs? Man I may just be a closet liberrreeugghhgh ..... ah I can't say it! :O)

Anyway, I could really care less either way. Those that would do it to get an edge will do it, legally or not. Just look at baseball. No one can tell me that Canseco, McGuire, Bonds, ARod and others aren't juicing. They want the big numbers to get them the big bucks, so they risk their health. Maybe they see it as a marginal risk worth taking. Lyle Alzedo might say differently if he were alive to tell. He died of a massive cancerous brain tumor that probably went out of control because he used steroids. He said as much. As I said, they race hard and who ever is the better prepared, usually wins.


----------



## footballcat (Jul 8, 2004)

HGH , Human Growth Hormone supposedly is great for aiding recovery.

also has sides, anything that you are putting into your body be it an artifical test, Growth , EPO will have sides.

But taken with the proper precaution they can be safe. Look at people on HRT , look at sprinters, baseball players.

A doc can make it so that it can be safe. It might not be legal but it can be done, and not die.


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

a tent will never get the results that EPO does.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

Mel Erickson said:


> The problem is that getting rid of regs tilts the playing field even more, in the opposite direction. ONLY those willing to dope, and potentially put their health and life in jeopardy, will be allowed to play. Therefore those unwilling to dope will be excluded.


Good point. A good analogy is professional bodybuilding. This sport seems to have embraced drugs wholeheartedly. So we have super-mutants that compete against each other. For some reason, it kind of works for them.

Those who don't want the drugs compete amongst themselves in 'natural competitions'. These guys look soooo small compared to the Mr. Olympia guys.

francois


----------



## Polaris (Jul 9, 2004)

Make the playing field even. Let everyone dope. Are we going to standardize equipment like the world hour record or the Little 500? Dr. Ferrari said EPO was as safe as orange juice. I believe whatever he says.


----------

