# What is the doping myth



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

I wanted to ask folks here what their opinion is about defining the doping myth.

In my opinion, the doping myth is that if a person dopes, they will become far better than normal men and basically become the uber athlete.

I do not agree with this notion as, I think, again, In my opinion, you have to have ability before doping can provide any result. SO, the couch slug, who dopes is not going to win the TDF or any Mr Universe body building titles too soon.

What do you think?

I also believe, In my opinion, that the peleton of today, by and large dopes. SO, again, while we do not have the freakish displays super athletes, we do have faster finish times on tougher courses and as has been noted, group finishes on certain stages that were the place of stragglers..........


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

I think part of the myth is that the courses are tougher. They aren't. In some ways, they are easier. Hell, in the old days, they were climbing dirt roads, or barely improved roads. Coppi held the record for climbing Alpe d'Huez for many years, and he he did it way before it had the nice smooth pavement it has now. Then there were the two-a-day split stages that were all the rage for a while, until the riders started complaining and neutralizing the stages under protest.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

I think it was Merckx who said "all the dope in the world won't turn a donkey into a race horse" or something along those lines. I'm sure it can only account for so much improvement in endurance performance.

It would, however, be interesting to know what it can account for. Could it turn your typical local cat. 3 guy into one of the better local cat. 1s, maybe someone who could even get a pro contract domestically? Probably not, but what about cat. 2?

Seems like having access to blood doping in the professional ranks made a large difference once the EPO test and 50% HCT rule were instituted. Lots of guys using the new "undetectable" EPO the last few years were the ones winning.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*understood*



mohair_chair said:


> I think part of the myth is that the courses are tougher. They aren't. In some ways, they are easier. Hell, in the old days, they were climbing dirt roads, or barely improved roads. Coppi held the record for climbing Alpe d'Huez for many years, and he he did it way before it had the nice smooth pavement it has now. Then there were the two-a-day split stages that were all the rage for a while, until the riders started complaining and neutralizing the stages under protest.


There were of coursey those TDFs which did not have thje mountain stages.

However, technology and better roads can go only so far........


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

p-e-l-o-t-o-n


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I think it was Merckx who said "all the dope in the world won't turn a donkey into a race horse" or something along those lines. I'm sure it can only account for so much improvement in endurance performance.
> 
> It would, however, be interesting to know what it can account for. Could it turn your typical local cat. 3 guy into one of the better local cat. 1s, maybe someone who could even get a pro contract domestically? Probably not, but what about cat. 2?
> 
> Seems like having access to blood doping in the professional ranks made a large difference once the EPO test and 50% HCT rule were instituted. Lots of guys using the new "undetectable" EPO the last few years were the ones winning.


Bjarne Riis is supposedly the example for Donkey -> racehorse transformation. However, even he was good enough to be a pro in the first place, which means he had *much *more ability than the average person.

In the OP, ttug defined the myth as "In my opinion, the doping myth is that if a person dopes, they will become far better than normal men and basically become the uber athlete". I don't think many people believe this. I believe most people recognise that to be a top pro athlete, you at least need to be as good as e.g. Bjarne Riis was before EPO made him a contender. How good would you have to be to make domestic pro? I doubt a serious cat 3 who can't get into cat 2 would have any chance at all, I'd even say they wouldn't make cat 1 - just because I think the difference between cat 3 and cat is greater than the actual difference EPO makes.


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> I think part of the myth is that the courses are tougher. They aren't. In some ways, they are easier. Hell, in the old days, they were climbing dirt roads, or barely improved roads. Coppi held the record for climbing Alpe d'Huez for many years, and he he did it way before it had the nice smooth pavement it has now. Then there were the two-a-day split stages that were all the rage for a while, until the riders started complaining and neutralizing the stages under protest.


I once read that the Alpe d'Huez stage Coppi won finished at the village, which is some distance from the ski area. I can't find a link for that anymore, it used to exist!

If you look at the average speeds for the classics, you'll see that the flatter classics have been raced at surprisingly constant pace since around 1960, whereas e.g. LBL has shot up in speed. example: MSR 1960s, about 42 km/hr, 282 km distance (typical). In the last decade it is still around 42 km/hr. LBL in the 60s: 36 km/hr, last decade almost 40 km/hr.

http://bikeraceinfo.com/ has the data.

Like you say, the tour has probably got easier, in many respects. There are no 300km long stages, no split stages, the route is typically 3500 km instead of up to 4500 km etc.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

*hmm*

Nobody thinks that doping wil take a phatarse to the front of the TdF. Genetics + training + team+ diet + high pain thresh + da dopey dope = odds are highly increased.

On a scale from one to ten..ten being the most naturally gifted cyclist, this is how I see it...

IMO dope will elevate your performance two levels. For example, if you are a seven...it can take you to a nine with all else remaining constant (team/training/diet etc).

Lance was already nearly a 10. With dopey dope he is now a 12 with a solid team etc..:thumbsup: 

Where does that leave us? Eights (maybe some clean riders?) thru tens at the back of the peloton and 11+ riders at the front...

This is how I assume it works...pure speculation..:idea:


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I think it was Merckx who said "all the dope in the world won't turn a donkey into a race horse" or something along those lines. I'm sure it can only account for so much improvement in endurance performance.


I am of the opinion that the vast majority of people do not come close to every realizing their athletic potential. While I believe some are lucky enough to have their talent emerge early enough for it to be developed, most with 'superior' athletic talent don't become professional athletes. So I don't buy the notion that professional cyclists as a group are a breed apart from us mere mortals.

With apologies to Stephen Jay Gould . . . I am somehow less interested in the weight and convolutions of Merckx's lungs than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

mohair_chair said:


> I think part of the myth is that the courses are tougher. They aren't. In some ways, they are easier. Hell, in the old days, they were climbing dirt roads, or barely improved roads. Coppi held the record for climbing Alpe d'Huez for many years, and he he did it way before it had the nice smooth pavement it has now. Then there were the two-a-day split stages that were all the rage for a while, until the riders started complaining and neutralizing the stages under protest.



That guy's legs are HUGE compared to the rest of his body.. Must have been a mountain machine!!


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

rydbyk said:


> Lance was already nearly a 10. With dopey dope he is now a 12 with a solid team etc..:thumbsup:


Look at the guys who won in the 'EPO' era and they all had pretty solid teams. Indurain, Riis, Ullrich, Armstrong. (Don't remember how solid Mercatone Uno was for Pantani, but so many riders and teams checked out during that tour, it likely doesn't matter.) Considering how scarce team unity was in the years immediately prior, it has to be a factor.


----------



## Kristatos (Jan 10, 2008)

You could make a case for Indurain same as Riis - wasn't much of a factor then all of a sudden dominated for 5 straight years. Riis' success came at the end of his career and with an up-and-coming Jan Ullrich waiting in the wings so he didn't have the opportunity to win multiple TdF. EPO was def in the peloton in the Indurain years, guys were already dying from making their blood too thick. Just as important as the team was the doctor. 

As far as doping myth - look at Joe Papp's clients. Most of the ones we've heard about went from placing 100th in their regional masters races to placing 89th.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

rydbyk said:


> Must have been a mountain machine!!


It's Coppi. Enough said.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

jorgy said:


> I am of the opinion that the vast majority of people do not come close to every realizing their athletic potential.


That's probably true, still even if everyone did there would still probably be a near bell-shaped curve of performance across the population.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

rydbyk said:


> Nobody thinks that doping wil take a phatarse to the front of the TdF. Genetics + training + team+ diet + high pain thresh + da dopey dope = odds are highly increased.
> 
> On a scale from one to ten..ten being the most naturally gifted cyclist, this is how I see it...
> 
> ...


I'll leave doping alone with Lance, but given that his competition had been popped for doping, perhaps doping would have been fair.

Lance's training was eventually built around the TdF. Nice in theory, but most riders are needing to hit a lot more races to pay the bills and go after new contracts. Doping aside, he was extremely lucky not to face the injury that other greats experienced. 

With the team built 100% around him, this is a gamble and it was not cheap since a lot of this meant buying a lot of strong riders. If you watch the 2004 TdF, they were sort of penalized if you watch how teams couldn't lose as much time, which was due to US Postal having so many strong riders on the payroll while other teams would never be able to afford the horsepower. 

Johan was also a pretty good tactician and to a point that the tactics are indeed unfair. I don't think Lance could have stood a chance without the smart tactics.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Coppi*



spade2you said:


> I'll leave doping alone with Lance, but given that his competition had been popped for doping, perhaps doping would have been fair.
> 
> Lance's training was eventually built around the TdF. Nice in theory, but most riders are needing to hit a lot more races to pay the bills and go after new contracts. Doping aside, he was extremely lucky not to face the injury that other greats experienced.
> 
> ...


The same accusation of building a team was made of Coppi at one point amd I believe Merckx.

It was of note, that somewhere in bizarre cycling trivia that one of Coppis calf muscles had a vein that bulged when he exerted. Teams, would scream, the vein, the vein and attck. This could be total hearsay, but oh well.

Strategy is fine, as to fairness and having a gifted team, its what the market allows. Ergo, thats fair.

No, you do not win the TDF 7 times in a row on tactics and skill alone. Sorry, look at the other 5 time winners. Hinault, Antquil, Merckx, Indurain ....I mean, any of these guys had a better skill set for cycling, were arguably just as gifted and far more gifted in the case of Antiquil (sp) (smoked and partied) and Merkcx who won EVERYTHING else........

AND YET.........its all good? No, sorry, aint so

This is an instance, IMO, where doping worked, very well, if not fantastically.....


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

I'd suggest reading the book The Lore of Running, which will give you an idea of the quality of athlete it takes to make it into world class endurance races like the big pro bike races, the Olympics, etc. Genetics play a HUGE role and only a very small percentage of the world's population has the physical capability of getting there, no matter how hard they train. But the sheer number of people with that ability is actually quite large, even though most are couch potatoes or due to poverty or other reasons never have the chance to realize their potential. 

Now, does doping among the several hundred riders who are good enough and train hard enough to compete at that level make a difference? 

Yes, all the difference in the world. Remember we are talking very small differences that separate Tour de France winners from guys who weren't quite good enough to even make the team.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

ttug said:


> The same accusation of building a team was made of Coppi at one point amd I believe Merckx.
> 
> It was of note, that somewhere in bizarre cycling trivia that one of Coppis calf muscles had a vein that bulged when he exerted. Teams, would scream, the vein, the vein and attck. This could be total hearsay, but oh well.
> 
> ...


While Lance's reign seems unprecedentedly long, one still can't ignore that he was extremely lucky compared to even the greats. Only Indurain had similar luck with his 5 in a row. Hinault, Antquil, and Merckx all had many obstacles during their prime. Armstrong was never able to capture multiple GTs in a year unlike the other 4 greats. Given LeMond's unfortunate accident and being instructed to ride for someone else, I have a feeling that he could have also racked up 5 TdFs. 

If the literature is correct, I think Andquil refused to ride the TdF after his 5th win because he had little to gain and a lot to lose.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*And*



spade2you said:


> While Lance's reign seems unprecedentedly long, one still can't ignore that he was extremely lucky compared to even the greats. Only Indurain had similar luck with his 5 in a row. Hinault, Antquil, and Merckx all had many obstacles during their prime. Armstrong was never able to capture multiple GTs in a year unlike the other 4 greats. Given LeMond's unfortunate accident and being instructed to ride for someone else, I have a feeling that he could have also racked up 5 TdFs.
> 
> If the literature is correct, I think Andquil refused to ride the TdF after his 5th win because he had little to gain and a lot to lose.


Interesting, Lemond had pellets in his chest and camp back to win a TDF. Lance gets cancer, nearly dies and comes back to win it 7 in a row. This is the same man when asked, who was the greatest cyclist, zero hesitation he states Eddy Merckx.

I agree that Geeg shold have hadf the TDF but was IMO duped to wait for Hinault, that was however Gregs choice. 

However, there is a point where, 7 in a row, winning after a gun shot and metal still in the chest yah, I think not.

Merckx did get nailed for doping, he lost the chance to ride in a GT for it and did test positive on other occassions.

Bottom line, the skill required to win a single TDF, much less multiple, much less 7 in a row, its freakish. And the idea that in the 100+ years history of the whole race, you have few 5 time winners, much less a 7 timer...........especially when you know, the man nearly ded of cancer and outrode guys who juiced, and the guys who juiced were not slackers in the least. IMO, they disprove the "Doping Myth" that dope makes a super athlete, you have to have a set of genertic goods and talent, IMO, it does confirm, to win, you will dope.


----------



## bigbill (Feb 15, 2005)

Back in the early to mid 90's, I knew of several guys who were shooting steroids in the winter to build muscle mass and strength so they could take the early season Southeast races and move up to Cat 1 in hope of a pro contract. Since there was no likely drug testing until districts or nationals, they had nothing to lose. I never did steroids but I spent most of the 94-95 seasons jacked up on Pep products (ephedrine) which made me jittery as hell if I didn't get out and ride. I dropped a bunch of weight, got faster, and became a good climber for my size (6'2" 185 at the time). I've got a handful of state medals and high blood pressure.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

ttug said:


> Interesting, Lemond had pellets in his chest and camp back to win a TDF. Lance gets cancer, nearly dies and comes back to win it 7 in a row. This is the same man when asked, who was the greatest cyclist, zero hesitation he states Eddy Merckx.
> 
> I agree that Geeg shold have hadf the TDF but was IMO duped to wait for Hinault, that was however Gregs choice.
> 
> ...


I'm not being a punk, but I just don't see how 7 TdFs is much more amazing than 7 GTs in 5 years like Indurain or Merckx and his 10. 

It's easy to blame doping, but Armstrong is about the only rider I've seen over the years who was able to ride so many TdFs without injury or major illness. He seemed to get paid back in 2010 with more crashes in that race than all of his prior TdFs combined. On the flipside of the same coin, you can't help but be amazed with how many times Vaughters crashed out or got stung by a bee.


----------



## mmoose (Apr 2, 2004)

Doping myth? If all other things are equal, a person on dope another not on dope. Doper could raise performance X% and beat the other.

But things are almost never 'equal'. As others have said, this is a complex equation. If one were genetically gifted but didn't want to put the training time in, they're not going to get results. Going on a doping program would change several things. First, raise the commitment level (so they're less likely to stay sitting on the couch). They're also going to train harder (dope+couch=1% gain...dope+hardtraining=10%). The feedback from training would be much more positive, so they are more likely to continue on such a program other than get lazy and train less on certain days. Hopefully, if doping, there is a doctor or coach watching over who will also motivate proper training.

Then on race day, if you are more confident, you're more likely to take more chances. 

(I believe this is why most dopers 'believe' that they 'earned' the results. They didn't just dope and win. They doped, trained harder and competed more aggressively than they normally would have. The dope can be just a seed that changes many other things.)

Personal opinion only of course.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*understood*



spade2you said:


> I'm not being a punk, but I just don't see how 7 TdFs is much more amazing than 7 GTs in 5 years like Indurain or Merckx and his 10.
> 
> It's easy to blame doping, but Armstrong is about the only rider I've seen over the years who was able to ride so many TdFs without injury or major illness. He seemed to get paid back in 2010 with more crashes in that race than all of his prior TdFs combined. On the flipside of the same coin, you can't help but be amazed with how many times Vaughters crashed out or got stung by a bee.


I do not think you are being a punk at all.

You are stating your opinion, which is fine as well.

As to why the 7 in a row is IMO, a tad, miraculous, consider that Merckx could have won more TDFs than any rider out there had he not ridden just about everything else in the universe. 

I do not blame doping per se. I blame the idea that there are folks who do not really see all of cycling history and thus, 7 in a row is all good. This is not a slam at you at all.

All you have to do is look at the 5 time winners, and then some of other greats who rode and then ask this question:

We know some of the past winners doped. Its a fact. We know some of the greats doped, thats a fact. Yet, its OK for one guy, a cancer survivor to drop all the dopers, win it 7 times in a row and in the same breath, absolutely, admit, oh yeah, some of the greats doped, but not Lance. Does this make any sense at all? Not to me.

Further, same folks, cant see that given the freakish level of pre to win a GT, much less, 7 in a row and know that his greatest competition doped, he could not have because.....he said so.

Sorry, I do not believe that and thats my opinion and I will accept it as that.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

ttug said:


> I do not think you are being a punk at all.
> 
> You are stating your opinion, which is fine as well.
> 
> ...


If you look at the other 5 time winners, they had injuries or other factors keeping them from riding or completing a TdF. I'm much more baffled to how Armstrong somehow avoided these. Sans injuries or illness, I have no doubt that the original greats should have been able to obtain these victories as they were much stronger riders. 

While they seem sensational, Armstrongs victories seem easy to explain with team and tactics. More or less, he knew when to attack Jan during his weaker moments in the mountains and when he was out of team mates. While waiting for Jan seemed to be a gesture of etiquette, he knew Jan had a team mate and it would have been a very long slog to fight to the finish on his own.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

IMO, it takes 3 things to win at the pro level:

1.) Freakish genetics. These guys (by and large are way out on the end of the bell curve in terms of aerobic capability, pain tolerance, correct muscle types etc.

2.) Incredible work ethics and discipline.

3.) Good drugs.

The third, IMO, is the difference between winning and finishing in the pack, for the most elite.

Len


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

Len J said:


> IMO, it takes 3 things to win at the pro level:
> 
> 1.) Freakish genetics. These guys (by and large are way out on the end of the bell curve in terms of aerobic capability, pain tolerance, correct muscle types etc.
> 
> ...


I think you are 100% correct. 

There is NOBODY in the pro peloton who has average genetics or is lazy. They would never, ever come close to making it in pro cycling. They are all the elite in terms of their genetic potential and they also all know about effort and discipline. 

The doping becomes a big factor when you are looking only at a pool of a couple hundred guys who all work their ass off and who all were gifted with incredible genetics.


----------



## Chris Oz (Oct 8, 2005)

I know it is not this simple but a 1% performance boost would have give Martin ~ 36 seconds in last years TT at the TdF. That would have given him the podium by 19 secs. So 1 % isn't as small advantage. 

Considering EPO can give you anything from a 13% to 54% advantage in some circumstance I would not call it a myth. http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.html

I can't find the reference but I have read that a pro cyclist can expect on average up to a 10% boost from EPO which I suspect would definitely change you from the Lantern Rouge to a super domestique or a super domestique to a contender. However as with all things the effect vary with each athlete. Some cyclists will get a couple of percent boost with other the jackpot. In my view you can't just say the because everyone does it the field is level. The best natural rider won't always come up trumps in a doped peleton especially when you consider some riders have better dope doctors.


----------



## worst_shot_ever (Jul 27, 2009)

When you and your competition are all already running at the nth percent of possible human aerobic endurance performance, a small increase can net significant gains. Pretty simple and no myth. The myth idea is a more apt description for amateurs who dope, seems to me.


----------



## waldo425 (Sep 22, 2008)

spade2you said:


> I'm not being a punk, but I just don't see how 7 TdFs is much more amazing than 7 GTs in 5 years like Indurain or Merckx and his 10.
> 
> It's easy to blame doping, but Armstrong is about the only rider I've seen over the years who was able to ride so many TdFs without injury or major illness. He seemed to get paid back in 2010 with more crashes in that race than all of his prior TdFs combined. On the flipside of the same coin, you can't help but be amazed with how many times Vaughters crashed out or *got stung by a bee*.


I got stung by a bee while warming up for a race. Sucker crashed off my helmet and then stung me in the hamstring. Hurt for a half hour or so (at which point races were starting.) I have great satisfaction in knowing that bee is dead now.


----------



## waldo425 (Sep 22, 2008)

I think that the myth the every pro dopes is propagated by the weak to comfort their shattered egos when they were unable or unwilling to win. Just because you can't does't mean that it is impossible. HFTU. 

Of course there are those who do in fact dope; it is naive to think otherwise. I don't think that all of them dope. Cycling media fixates on those who do get caught and it is all we hear about.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

waldo425 said:


> I think that the myth the every pro dopes is propagated by the weak to comfort their shattered egos when they were unable or unwilling to win. Just because you can't does't mean that it is impossible. HFTU.


Or, perhaps after seeing one too many doping scandals they just figure it's better to assume the worst. Not every pro racer dopes, but it's becoming plain that a good number are getting away with it.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

waldo425 said:


> I think that the myth the every pro dopes is propagated by the weak to comfort their shattered egos when they were unable or unwilling to win. Just because you can't does't mean that it is impossible. HFTU.
> 
> Of course there are those who do in fact dope; it is naive to think otherwise. I don't think that all of them dope. Cycling media fixates on those who do get caught and it is all we hear about.


I think the myth is that people still believe there are clean riders in the Peloton.

How many people need to be caught to prove it's true? From the top to the bottom of the peloton riders have been caught and it seems every several weeks another is caught, or there is evidence pointing to the fact that they are using PED's.

It has nothing to do with people "Comforting their shattered egos when they were unable to win"...It however does have EVERYTHING to do with how many riders have been caught and continue to get caught.

Just look at Ricco...Just to get back into the peloton at a base level he's already blood doping. I'm sure he had EPO, HGH and several other drugs lined up to try and get back to the front of the peloton.

However, he was a very gifted cyclist even without the PED's and would likely destroy any amature racer or domestic pro...but to compete at that level, he needed PED's otherwise he was a very weak domestic pro and probably wouldn’t make it to another contract without them.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*yes*



Wookiebiker said:


> I think the myth is that people still believe there are clean riders in the Peloton.
> 
> How many people need to be caught to prove it's true? From the top to the bottom of the peloton riders have been caught and it seems every several weeks another is caught, or there is evidence pointing to the fact that they are using PED's.
> 
> ...


I think this is also in some ways, a start of the myth. I believe your statement is accurate. The issue is, how the statement is interpreted. I.E., the young guy or gal who says, if I dope, I will be the next superstar, not so, and its to me, obvious.

This can be applied to every level of cycling

You could in all probability perform better, BUT the next superstar...naaaah


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Dr Evil's view on the topic:
http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=88

Other than the self serving BS I think he's basically correct. There are far too many variables that enter into athletic performance for one drug/method or even dozens of them to change the output more than a few % in something like a GT. 45 minute lab tests using untrained or untalented subjects may be another story but are hardly relevant to pro cycling.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*understood, BUT*



terzo rene said:


> Dr Evil's view on the topic:
> http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=88
> 
> Other than the self serving BS I think he's basically correct. There are far too many variables that enter into athletic performance for one drug/method or even dozens of them to change the output more than a few % in something like a GT. 45 minute lab tests using untrained or untalented subjects may be another story but are hardly relevant to pro cycling.


A few % in aGT means minutes of a lead.

Consider this, I pick a number 600 minutes or waht we call 10 hours.

Lets say, you juice, you get a 1% advantage...Thats 6 minutes. NOW, if I am good, and I am a overall hopeful, I like having 6 minutes, how about you?


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

pro cycling is like pro wrestling


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

rubbersoul said:


> pro cycling is like pro wrestling


Perhaps, although at least we don't have juggalos.


----------

