# Is this cheating/doping?



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

There is much talk on this forum about "cheating" and "doping". But do we all really understand what cheating and doping truly is? Remember the "principals and ethics" are the same for minor "cheating and doping" as they are for major cheating and doping.

*
"There is doping and then there is doping" Twice busted Eddy Mercyx*

I am not "pro doping" by the way...but I am a realist.



How many of you think cheating is only about "breaking the rules"? Cheating runs much deeper than this.

If you take *anything* that has an enhancing affect on your performance other than food and water then you are doping, and if the others guys do not, then you are "cheating" ,and it doesn't matter if the stuff you take is "legal".

How many of you take Caffeine before a race? It is a fairly powerful stimulant and has fairly good glycogen sparing properties in the first 45-60 minutes of a race. Not everyone is taking 5-9mg of Caffeine per kilo(a large strong 16 OZ coffee like at Starbucks) an hour or two before races....so if you take it you are "cheating".You have an unfair advantage over those that don't use this drug.

What about you guys that can afford 15 pound bikes for hill climb races.....not everyone can afford these bikes? How many of you say the hell with the minimum weight restriction and ride a 12 pound bike? Do you not have an "unfair" advantage? The bike weights is "stretching" things a bit ...but I put it there to make people think....especially those that race a bike well under the minimum weight...and there are plenty.

What about you sprinters that take Creatine. It helps a fair bit doesn't it? It can help in a crit and especially in track sprinting. Don't you think that is doping?

What about you guys that use a certain herb, yes herb, and you guys know who you are, that will increase crit by up to 5 points if you take enough of it for a long time with a little iron supplementation. No it's not epo nor any variant of epo. Isn't that doping? Aren't you "cheating"? But it's not on the banned list so it isn't cheating some will say..HA! Some will say it's not a drug....it sure the heck is guys...just because it grows in soil doesn't mean it's not a drug.

What about you guys that can afford to use a hypoxic(altitude) tent at night while sleeping to simulate the Oxygen concentration at 10,000 feet.....that can give you a 3 or maybe even 5 point increase in crit...and if you then use "the herb" too you might even get to 50% from a highly trained aerobic athletes 39-43 crit. Is that doping...is that cheating? You are raising your epo level above what you normally have... ethically it's absolutely no different than if you used exogenous epo to do the same.

What about you guys that have the financial security and or job portability to allow you to relocate to a town at 9,000 feet? Are you not getting a little red cell boost advantage? hmmm

What about you guys 35 and up that are on HRT for testosterone or both test and HGH. You have youthful levels of these hormones for health and disease prevention reasons but should you race in the masters divisions with this "unfair" advantage. Are you not doping if you race?

*Life is not fair now is it....nor is it "fair" at any level of sport.*


So don't get too mad at these pro's guys. They have additional temptation...they are all dreaming about getting very rich if they preform really well, and it doesn't matter what there sport is...so they don't have to live a life of financial mediocrity at best when they retire. 


As long as millions are to be made in sport doping simply cannot stop, and we delude ourselves to think otherwise. If the world wants clean pro's in any sport then take away the potential to make really big money. But alas, it isn't going to happen in this world because pro sport is a creation of our corrupt world.

OK...flame away  

Cheers

"Leave me in peace; everybody takes dope."
Jacques Anquetil

"Doping? What doping? Did he or did he not make them play the Marseillaise abroad?" President, Charles de Gaulle on Anquetil


“It’s like when you’re driving. The law says there’s a speed limit of 100 km/h, but everyone is driving at 120 km/h. Why should I be the one who obeys the speed limit? So I had two options: either fit in and go along with the others or go back to being a house painter.” Alex Zulle

Then DeCanio says this:
“Clinger told me that while he was racing in 2002 on the United States Postal Service Pro Cycling Team he used HGH, testosterone and EPO along with Floyd Landis. David told me, and I quote, 'Landis used more HGH than anyone he had ever witnessed before. He would use entire vials of HGH and he is crazy.' ”

Frankie Andreu and Jonathan Vaughters ....an instant-message session that is on file.
"Johan and Lance dumped Floyd's rest day blood refill down the toilet in front of him in last year's tour to make him ride bad."


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

You wont get a flame from me.....

I realized something, I got in some back and forth arguments with you, lookrider, blackhat ect....I asked ya about your feeling with doping. Seems like we agree on some things. Doping will never go away. Somebody will always look for an "edge". I liked your answer about legalizing it all but reporting what they use. Monitor your levels and have safe limits. 
Bryan


----------



## cocoboots (Apr 13, 2006)

Realgains said:


> Frankie Andreu and Jonathan Vaughters ....an instant-message session that is on file.
> "Johan and Lance dumped Floyd's rest day blood refill down the toilet in front of him in last year's tour to make him ride bad."



i would love to see that IM conversation


----------



## jim392 (May 30, 2007)

and i would love to know what herb your talking about


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

jim392 said:


> and i would love to know what herb your talking about



Doper he he he 

I have been asked to not tell anyone about "the herb" by some pro cyclists....I have to respect that request. But trust me ...it isn't fun taking the amount of "herb" that is needed to jack your crit perhaps 4 points if you are lucky. WADA is so F-ed up that they ban the herb if too many guys know about it.

Cheers


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Realgains said:


> What about you guys that can afford 15 pound bikes for hill climb races.....not everyone can afford these bikes? How many of you say the hell with the minimum weight restriction and ride a 12 pound bike? Do you not have an "unfair" advantage?


And those darn people who have the time and motivation to train. What about them? Don't they have an unfair advantage over those too busy or lazy to work harder? And don't even start on tactics. How do we take care of those who seem to know which is the best wheel to follow or which breaks have the best chance of working? 

And isn't what you say about caffeine equally applicable to food and water. I think people who eat properly before a race and then eat and hydrate during the event should face the same two year ban as an illegal drug user; no wait, lifetime bans for everyone.

Total rubbish.


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

asgelle said:


> And those darn people who have the time and motivation to train. What about them? Don't they have an unfair advantage over those too busy or lazy to work harder? And don't even start on tactics. How do we take care of those who seem to know which is the best wheel to follow or which breaks have the best chance of working?
> 
> And isn't what you say about caffeine equally applicable to food and water. I think people who eat properly before a race and then eat and hydrate during the event should face the same two year ban as an illegal drug user; no wait, lifetime bans for everyone.
> 
> Total rubbish.


Yeah...my post is going to piss some guys off. 

How can you put caffeine, a stimulant and glycogen sparing DRUG, in the same "ball park" as food and water, hard work, training, tactics etc etc. 
It's dope friend...plain and simple. Sure it's mild but it's still dope. I know many guys that don't use caffeine for that very reason. I also have Mormon friends that think it's a very bad drug.

I recommend that you read the very large article in national geographic last year about Caffeine.

The world has told you that caffeine is fine so you believe it.

My post is not total rubbish. Why not comment on all the points mentioned in my post.. I admit that the part about the bike weights is "stretching" things a bit...but I put it there to make people think....especially those that race a bike well under the minimum weight...and there are plenty.

"There is doping and then there is doping" Twice busted Eddy Mercyx

Cheers


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

cocoboots said:


> i would love to see that IM conversation


part here:
http://forum.velonews.com/read.php?f=2&i=295305&t=295273

the exchange quoted here is referenced in the piece below. 
http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/20070708-9999-lz1s8landis.html


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Realgains said:


> How can you put caffeine, a stimulant and glycogen sparing DRUG, in the same "ball park" as food and water, hard work, training, tactics etc etc.


Well let's see, what do they have in common? They're all external aids, they all make the rider go faster, they're all legal under the rules. Works for me. 

See I'm simple. I can't follow all these super-secret double-probation unwritten bylaw codes. All I can do is look at the rule book and see what is allowed and what is prohibited.


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

asgelle said:


> Well let's see, what do they have in common? They're all external aids, they all make the rider go faster, they're all legal under the rules. Works for me.
> 
> See I'm simple. I can't follow all these super-secret double-probation unwritten bylaw codes. All I can do is look at the rule book and see what is allowed and what is prohibited.


Can I pm you and give you a list of stuff that is not on the list that will significantly increase your performance on the bike, and more than caffeine.....it wouldn't be cheating or doping because they are not on "the list".

You have a pro's mind friend....if it's not on the list it's not doping. he he he

I am not trying to flame or ridicule you....I just want you to take your thought a tad deeper 


Cheers


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Realgains said:


> Can I pm you and give you a list of stuff that is not on the list that will significantly increase your performance on the bike, and more than caffeine.....it wouldn't be cheating or doping because they are not on "the list".


I think you need to re-read the prohibited list. You don't seem to understand what is and is not banned.


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

asgelle said:


> I think you need to re-read the prohibited list. You don't seem to understand what is and is not banned.



huh?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Realgains said:


> huh?


http://www.uci.ch/includes/asp/getTarget.asp?type=FILE&id=MzQxNzI


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

asgelle said:


> http://www.uci.ch/includes/asp/getTarget.asp?type=FILE&id=MzQxNzI



Maybe I am a bit "thick" but I don't get your point.

Are you saying that the stuff I know about that is not on the list all falls within the classifications listed on the banned list even if they are not specifically listed?


----------



## RSPDiver (Jun 3, 2006)

Realgains said:


> Can I pm you and give you a list of stuff that is not on the list that will significantly increase your performance on the bike, and more than caffeine.....it wouldn't be cheating or doping because they are not on "the list".


Hell YES! Oh wait; damn, you weren't referring to all of the readers.

I get your post, and have to agree with it. Funny, I've sometimes said to myself "uh, what about the dudes with light bikes versus heavy bikes?" Especially after there was some discussion about bikes that would have to contain ballast to be UCI legal. And, talking to a former pro, he has helped me put the term "cheating" in perspective. On car enthusiast forums, there are similar discussions about performance via all-motor means, and "cheating" with turbos and NOx. Could add octane levels in that argument, as well as brands of intake filters (or no filter), etc.

I suppose, ultimately, the governing body will determine what is cheating and what is not. Sure would be cool to exploit the things that aren't (yet), though!


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Realgains said:


> Maybe I am a bit "thick" but I don't get your point.


You would not be the first who did not understand him. Some subscribe to another version of reality that is often difficult to communicate to mere mortals.:thumbsup: 

Perhaps the best part of your post was the quote by Zulle.

"Either fit in and go along with the others or go back to being a house painter" 

Cycling in the states is a sport for rich dentists, in the rest of the world it is what people do to avoid working in a coal mine or carpet mill. If your choice is the needle or crawling down a dark hole which would you choose?

Legalizing, or regulating, doping usage is a big challenge, but many would say this is essentially what the UCI did until 2005. The biggest challenge is the sport no longer is about who is able to train the best but who responds the best, and has the best access, to dope. 

There is dope and there is DOPE. Some aids have significant advantages over others. You can drink all the Red Bull and vitamins you want but the guy on EPO wins. 

In the long run the best we can do is attempt to change the culture of the sport. JV, Bob Stapleton, and many of the French teams have made great strides in a short time....but long term do they really have a chance against the far greater forces trying to keep the sport, and society in general, as it always has been?


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> ...but long term do they really have a chance against the far greater forces trying to keep the sport, and society in general, as it always has been?


Yeah, the world, and thus our dear sport at the pro level, is all about money and sex, but money trumps sex. Win in pro cycling and you have both money and sex....ask Cipo

This is what the riders are working ...copy and paste..a picture says a million words.

http://www.grahamwatson.com/gw/imagedocs.nsf/images/05cipo2/$file/9.jpg


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Interesting perspective from Realgains.

I enjoyed what he wrote here and on another thread.

It seems to me that he's saying, in the final analysis, it's most important to be honest with yourself. At least that's the way I look at things.

I myself think there is entirely too much emphasis put on sports and that's not because I couldn't cut it. I wrestled and my father was an elite wrestler, 2nd in the National AAU's and champion of many college tournaments. I had the physical ability, probably better than my father, but my mental aspect was lacking, especially as a teenager. I was more like my mother, my sister got my father's aggressiveness and volatile temper.

Wrestling is nuts. You weigh 126lbs at about 3 to 5% body fat and you have to lose 12 pounds in two days to make 114, that's insane, and yet the regular MO of high school and college teams and coaches across the country. Your skin on your stomach is about the same thickness as the skin on the back of your hand and you're going to drop over 10lbs of water to make weight and you're 15 years old. This is a very sick thing.

One of the reasons I'm so disgusted with LA is that the guy is dishonest in just about every aspect of his life, and will ruin people to keep his secret. He's a very ruthless guy.

At any rate, at my stage of life, I'm only competing against myself. I'm 43, but can still ride a bit, and people run into me and want me to race and all that. I've been there and done that with the competitive side. What, I'm going to compete to be 5,628th in the world? What's the point?

The authors of Game of Shadows, gave Barry Bonds the last word in their highly condemnatory book.

Bonds said, you want to talk about cheating? If somebody pays $60 for a ticket, and I'm not in the line up, who's getting cheated? Not me.

"You want to define cheating in America? When they make a shirt in Korea for a dollar fifty and sell it here for $500."

I'm riding my bike because I enjoy it, and that is worlds away from people who do it to make a living. That's fine, but what rubbed me the wrong way was Armstrong holding himself up as a beacon of moral courage and using this lie for gigantic profits and other advantages. Look at the way he characterized his marriage in his first book. It was a nice story at the time as were his initial TdF victories. Then the truth came out. The guy's life is the exact opposite of his representations.....


----------



## oarsman (Nov 6, 2005)

lookrider said:


> I'm riding my bike because I enjoy it, and that is worlds away from people who do it to make a living. That's fine, but what rubbed me the wrong way was Armstrong holding himself up as a beacon of moral courage and using this lie for gigantic profits and other advantages. Look at the way he characterized his marriage in his first book. It was a nice story at the time as were his initial TdF victories. Then the truth came out. The guy's life is the exact opposite of his representations.....


I am with you on this. I love to ride (and row, my main sport). It is the hypocrisy that drives me crazy. Maybe it is impossible to win a grand tour without being "jacked". But please, don't hold yourself out as 'clean' when you are not. Maybe everyone does dope (but the deluded optimistic in me keeps saying, "no, I think he is clean"). Fine. Just don't say 'doping is evil' when you are running back to your hotel room and injecting yourself with this or that PED.


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

jim392 said:


> and i would love to know what herb your talking about


probably something related to ******, such as enzyte


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

despite trying to stir things up, none of your points are particularly new and some reveal basic misunderstandings. Obviously, merely taking something beyond food and water that may enhance performance is not a sufficient condition for doping. Nor is living at altitude, investing in light bike equipment, etc. All these are in principle governed by 'unfair advantage' rules, which attempt to limit the amount of advantage select riders can obtain by utilizing equipment, supplements, and practices whose access is especially limited and that result in 'non-human physiological' performance. The UCI has been debating altitude tents for a long time based on these considerations, and their equipment rules, such as geometry and weight constraints, are supposed to limit the advantages due to limited access technology. 

In terms of PEDs, the point is also unfair advantage and 'non-human physiological' performance. The latter is obviously a normative notion that is difficult to quantify, but then most normative notions are, particularly those that relate to what constitutes human performance. The 50% hematocrit ceiling is supposed to reflect that, but is imperfect. Informally, if a rider is genuinely concerned about whether a substance constitutes a PED even if it is not on a banned list, one condition would be to ask whether it would result in "non-human physiological performance," that is a level of physiological performance that could not reasonably be otherwise obtained by a human. What are the parameters of human physiological performance? Those are again vague and subject to debate, but could be inferred from a better basic science of exercise physiology (which is admittedly a pretty dismal science in its current state).


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

lookrider said:


> Interesting perspective from Realgains....
> 
> One of the reasons I'm so disgusted with LA is that the guy is dishonest in just about every aspect of his life, and will ruin people to keep his secret. He's a very ruthless guy.
> 
> .....


IMO the best way to beat guys like LA or Johann "the hog" Bruyneel is to ignore them. Don't buy their books, don't listen to them speak if they're in town, turn your back on them. A few years ago my LBS tried to peddle the little yellow "LiveStrong" wristband on me telling me it's for cancer research. It had been a while since my last donation to the Canadian Cancer Society so after getting back home I sent a cheque to them instead.
I told my LBS owner that I would never put that on, not because it is not genuine, meaning the money goes for cancer research but because at the same time it helps promote the L.A. brand. The "truth" as you said is between them and whatever god they believe in.
I also agree with Realgains' perspective. Last year I started a thread on this forum titled: "Doping an alternate point of view". Like Realgains I got flamed by some and others agreed with me. It made for an interesting discussion.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

Doping is only what's included on the WADA banned substance list, unfortunately.

I'll leave it at that.


----------



## BikeGeek (Mar 19, 2005)

I don't believe the sport will ever be clean. If you look at the alternative as others have pointed out. If I was in the position of many of the pros and had the choice of either a crappy factory job or keeping a position in the peloton I don't know that I can honestly say I would give it all up to keep a moral high ground on a doped field.

Just look at what goes on in corporate america. Predated stock options, cooked books, outsourcing for a better return for the share holders. 

How different is it really from what the rest of the population does. Botox, ******, implants, anti aging medicine with many of the same substances that are banned.

Your money or your soul, look around you many of your neighbors and coworkers make choices they are not happy about to continue recieving a paycheck.

And if it's not specifcally forbidden and the risks are "Acceptable" its all good.


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2008)

Realgains said:


> Yeah, the world, and thus our dear sport at the pro level, is all about money and sex, but money trumps sex. Win in pro cycling and you have both money and sex....ask Cipo
> 
> This is what the riders are working ...copy and paste..a picture says a million words.
> 
> http://www.grahamwatson.com/gw/imagedocs.nsf/images/05cipo2/$file/9.jpg


Only fitting that Cipo winds up in this thread...He's DOPE!

http://grahamwatson.com/gw/imagedocs.nsf/updateframesetcall?openform&05cipo2

BTW, it's not a crime if you don't get caught.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

I can't believe this thread. People are actually looking at the idea of doping from both sides of the fence. My .02 is that the banned list should be eased up a bit. Use the tests for rider safety/health more than catching illegal substances.
-------------------------
I noticed LA was brought up. I have defended LA in previous threads, not beacause he didn't dope, but beacause he was just the fastest doper in a group of dopers. He is retired......forget trying to have him come out about his doping, never going to happen. Now I don't want to go down that LA arguement road again, we all have our opinions on him. Let's dislike LA beacause he is a douchbag, and not beacause he doped. Thanks Realgains for helping some look at both sides of doping or not doping.
Bryan


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

stevesbike said:


> despite trying to stir things up, none of your points are particularly new and some reveal basic misunderstandings. Obviously, merely taking something beyond food and water that may enhance performance is not a sufficient condition for doping. Nor is living at altitude, investing in light bike equipment, etc. All these are in principle governed by 'unfair advantage' rules, which attempt to limit the amount of advantage select riders can obtain by utilizing equipment, supplements, and practices whose access is especially limited and that result in 'non-human physiological' performance. The UCI has been debating altitude tents for a long time based on these considerations, and their equipment rules, such as geometry and weight constraints, are supposed to limit the advantages due to limited access technology.
> 
> In terms of PEDs, the point is also unfair advantage and 'non-human physiological' performance. The latter is obviously a normative notion that is difficult to quantify, but then most normative notions are, particularly those that relate to what constitutes human performance. The 50% hematocrit ceiling is supposed to reflect that, but is imperfect. Informally, if a rider is genuinely concerned about whether a substance constitutes a PED even if it is not on a banned list, one condition would be to ask whether it would result in "non-human physiological performance," that is a level of physiological performance that could not reasonably be otherwise obtained by a human. What are the parameters of human physiological performance? Those are again vague and subject to debate, but could be inferred from a better basic science of exercise physiology (which is admittedly a pretty dismal science in its current state).


Interesting and thanx for the good reply...

As you alluded to it is very difficult to put a strict definition on what constitutes doping but this is not true of cheating. I honestly think that most people are more concerned about cheating than doping. Most people don't like either but they get more pissed about cheating. 

*TDF example of cheating.....*
ie: Postal and Disco had over twice as many registered "medical products" than any other team. They even had actovegin on board and admitted to that but said that it was to treat abrasions and to help a diabetic rider only. They had a much better "doping program" than the other team and in this regard they were not only doped but cheating.
Very clear proof of this is seen in the performance of their leader, who was not that genetically gifted as evidenced by his 82 VO2 max, which is good but certainly not great, and fell far short of MANY riders VO2 max.(of course this is his VO2 max pre-Ferrari).
...and for those that will say that he had a huge power output at threshold I will say this>>>the VO2 max ceiling limits your FTP power big time.
So the team had a huge advantage with their doping program and their leader had even more advantage because he was under the tuteladge of a doping guru, Dr. Ferarri.(Thanx to Eddy Mercyx asking Ferrari to see him otherwise it would never have happened).
Not only that but not everyone responds to drugs and hormones with the same increase in sustainable power...a few have much greater response. This combined with the fact that not all the teams jacked to well past 50% (after morning controls) to 55%-60% with blood doping(because not all the teams were able to blood dope) made for a big unfair advantage. Heck not all teams had enough IV saline and simple volume expanders like Hespan and Pentaspan to dilute their crits for morning controls so their is no way they could push their crits to 55-60% and get away with it.
*This is one reason why I am for total body hemaglobin testing at the start lines....so no rider jacks above 50% and then dilutes for the start line.... and also for safety reasons because a crit of 60% is not safe at night and not all the teams would use IV saline and volume expanders to drop their crits for sleeping.
*
Cheating is encompassed within the unfair advantage rule plain and simple. ANYTHING that gives you an unfair advantage is cheating...anything, and that includes stuff like using a hypoxic tent, or yes, even taking the mild stimulant and glycogen sparing caffeine when the rest don't(but many do). Now making sure you train well, rest well, get enough crabs soduim ,potassium and fluid into your body in a competition, while others do not, would not be considered cheating because everyone can do that.

Regarding hypoxic(altitude) tents....if they could, on their own, jack your crit to 50% form the very typical aerobic athletes diluted 40-43% crit then WADA and UCI and the like would ban them FOR SURE.* The ONLY reason they are not banned is because they don't work very well and they don't work very well because you only spend 8 or maybe 10 hours a day in them.* However, they can be used in conjunction with "the herb" I mentioned to reach that very unrealistic 50%......the combo of the tent and the herb raises your crit by stimulating increased epo release from your kidneys, and it is ethically no different than jacking to that same level with exogenous epo. This is doping AND cheating.

As far as living at altitude....well it takes living at a VERY high altitude to make any significant difference in red cell count...and also those fellows living at altitude cannot train that effectively unless they "come down" daily to train. Recovery is also compromised big time at high altitude. So you may get a 50 or even 55% crit but all your others ducks are not in a row. This is, by the way, why you don't see pro's doing this....but they will say they are doing it as a "cover" for their high crits.





Cheers


----------



## mikeman (Sep 17, 2005)

MG537 said:


> IMO the best way to beat guys like LA or Johann "the hog" Bruyneel is to ignore them. Don't buy their books, don't listen to them speak if they're in town, turn your back on them. A few years ago my LBS tried to peddle the little yellow "LiveStrong" wristband on me telling me it's for cancer research. It had been a while since my last donation to the Canadian Cancer Society so after getting back home I sent a cheque to them instead.
> I told my LBS owner that I would never put that on, not because it is not genuine, meaning the money goes for cancer research but because at the same time it helps promote the L.A. brand. The "truth" as you said is between them and whatever god they believe in.
> I also agree with Realgains' perspective. Last year I started a thread on this forum titled: "Doping an alternate point of view". Like Realgains I got flamed by some and others agreed with me. It made for an interesting discussion.


Not to be picky, but LA's Foundation does not support cancer research, but rather supports families dealing with cancer. LA thought there were enough doing the research thing and not enough working with families and all of the other things in dealing with this incidious disease.


----------



## mikeman (Sep 17, 2005)

Realgains said:


> There is much talk on this forum about "cheating" and "doping". But do we all really understand what cheating and doping truly is? Remember the "principals and ethics" are the same for minor "cheating and doping" as they are for major cheating and doping.
> 
> *
> "There is doping and then there is doping" Twice busted Eddy Mercyx*
> ...


Spot on. This is the reason until recently, you almost never heard any pro road racer complain that so and so who got caught cheated me out of a podium position etc. They know better, they dope too and were giving professional courtesy to their comrade in the trade. Hence omerta.

Nicely put. 

It seems to me its like the arms race in destructive weapons. Take for example our insistence in countries seeking nuclear weapons to cease and desist, while we have the largest stockpile in the entire world. Very hypocritical position our leaders are in when they make these arguments.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

RealGains,
I agree with what you say about USPS/Disco except the cheating part.
Why is it cheating, by your definition? Because they did it better? Because they had a bigger budget?
If we accept that definition then are the following two example also cheating?
1) Ferrari in Formula 1 racing. They had the biggest budget, they could afford an awesome racer in Michael Schumacher. Their engineers were the best. They had their own test track. Were they cheating? Would Michael Schumacher retire as a legend if he was signed to race under Eddy Jordan's team?
2) Manchester United in English Premiere League Football. Compare their budget to their crosstown rivals Manchester City. Is United cheating?

After having read both "L.A. Confidentiel" and "From Lance to Landis" I've come to this conclusion. Lance and his teamates couldn't even come close to the rest of the European peloton in the early pre-Ferrari, pre-USPS years. When Lance started playing their game he did it better. He basically beat them at their own game. And if anyone has read any of these two books closely I'm pretty sure they'd come to the same conclusion. One could call Lance and Johann bullsh!tters all they want and they'd be right. But cheaters?


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

MG537 said:


> RealGains,
> I agree with what you say about USPS/Disco except the cheating part.
> Why is it cheating, by your definition? Because they did it better? Because they had a bigger budget?
> If we accept that definition then are the following two example also cheating?
> ...



I see your point and good perspective too.

Yeah..they beat them at their own game...everyone was playing the game.

As far as Man United soccer, and Ferrari Formula 1 racing is concerned. I see you point too. Few things are really "fair".

Damn it....why wasn't that nice Amish fellow the leader for at least a few of those tours.


Cheers


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

mikeman said:


> Not to be picky, but LA's Foundation does not support cancer research, but rather supports families dealing with cancer. LA thought there were enough doing the research thing and not enough working with families and all of the other things in dealing with this incidious disease.


My error!
It really is a worthy cause and I'm not questioning that at all.
But my assesment that this indirectly boosts the image of LA Inc. still stands.


----------



## mikeman (Sep 17, 2005)

MG537 said:


> My error!
> It really is a worthy cause and I'm not questioning that at all.
> But my assesment that this indirectly boosts the image of LA Inc. still stands.


Agreed. 

I have done the Ride for the Roses twice ('00 and '01) and met LA. While back then I was a naive fan, I have come to loathe his arrogant denials and sniff of superiority. While he was an outstanding cyclist and I assume his competition doped, the vaneer has been exposed for what it is. I just wish he had the balls to come clean. Or should I say ball? (Sorry that was a cheap shot).


----------



## jim392 (May 30, 2007)

LOL good one, i agree, he was a great cyclist on the dope but off it? his arrogance will be his downfall. why do u think Indurain has been so humble all these years...


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

iliveonnitro said:


> Doping is only what's included on the WADA banned substance list, unfortunately.
> 
> I'll leave it at that.


You fall into the same trap as the OP. The only things banned are what are covered under the UCI list, but that list covers substances and methods. So while EPO is a named banned substance, other un-named drugs with the same effect are still prohibited under M1 Enhancement of Oxygen Transfer. Similarly any masking agent is banned under S5 whether or not it is explicitly named in the list.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

I think you need to amend your notion of 'cheating' to make it workable since the way you have it right now is too permissive (counts things as cheating that most people would regard as not cheating).

Cheating is an act that violates a rule or a norm. In the case of organized sports, cheating can be narrowly defined as violating a rule. Hence, many people's reply that if an act doesn't violate a specific rule it's not cheating. On this account Ricco might not have been cheating since I don't believe there was an explicit rule against the form of EPO he took (I might be wrong about that) but taking an as-yet-unidentified drug wouldn't be cheating unless there's an explicit rule against it. 

Norms are tougher, since they are often informal. One norm in cycling (and most other sports) is that it is OK to push the rules as far as possible so long as others have at least in principle the same opportunity. Every team in principle has the same opportunity to invest in aerodynamic equipment that pushes UCI rules to the limit (like space between seattube and rear tire-the credit card rule, etc). 

I'd say the right norm is the ability to use whatever practices, processes, and substances are in principle available to the general community that don't result in non-human physiological performance and that don't pose significant harm to health/welfare. The community should be allowed to push forward on the art of training, performance, and recovery under reasonable constraints.

The latter condition is needed to rule out practices/substances that require the assumption of unreasonable risk. This is a reason why many substances remain on the banned list even though they probably don't produce significant performance gains. 

The practical problem lies in what constitutes in principle availability. A team should be allowed to research things like thermal regulation the way Lim had Garmin riders warm up in ice vests, sleep with thermal coolers etc. Another team could in principle do the same. It's trickier when financial resources are the limiting factor. Lance for example could travel to and from races in a private plane, descend from a mountain top finish in a helicopter etc. There's no doubt that helps recovery. It's not cheating since other teams could in principle do the same, but it's pushing what's practically available to them.


----------



## B15serv (Apr 27, 2008)

I think the idea of illigal doping is or should be that taking things that are a danger to your health are and/or should be banned. Because if not people will have to risk their health and lives just to compete. not to mention that the kids looking up to these guys should never have that sort of influence. I get what youre saying though. For instance why can baseball players take cytomax or creatine or protein shakes yet they cant take steroids? Its because steroids are dangerous and the other players shouldnt have to harm themselves just to be on par with the rest of the league.


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

B15serv said:


> I think the idea of illigal doping is or should be that taking things that are a danger to your health are and/or should be banned. Because if not people will have to risk their health and lives just to compete. not to mention that the kids looking up to these guys should never have that sort of influence. I get what youre saying though. For instance why can baseball players take cytomax or creatine or protein shakes yet they cant take steroids? Its because steroids are dangerous and the other players shouldnt have to harm themselves just to be on par with the rest of the league.



Good point....

Yet what Dr Ferarri said is actually true. EPO is no more dangerous than 10 glasses of orange juice....and I will add>>>IF you know what you are doing.
You have to accept epo because it's not going away and especially with human identical dynepo and the many many forms of biosimilar epo's out there. 
Blood doping with your own blood isn't going away either.

But their total body hemaglobin should be limited...and tested on the starting line.

Cheers


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

Alot of things we put in out body are dangerous if abused. Eat 5 BigMac's and tell me how your stomach feels. We only hear about the bad cases with streoid use. Recently Terry Bradshaw admitted he used steroids in the 70's to speed recovery. The probs occur when these guys stack mulitple different steroids = abuse. While we dont know the long term effects of some of the newer stuff like HGH, there are benefits. i recently read a story about men taking HGH over 50, and really improving their quality of life. Allowing them to continue many of the activities they did when they were younger. Did you see the latest "Rocky" movie? Sly is 60+, If HGH will allow me to be in his shape in my 60's, sign me up!!!!(I think his assistant was busted with HGH at an airport) If there is some side effects thes shorten lifespan, its still something to think about. Do you want to live 70 really good years, or 85 years with the last 15 suffering? 

I think this is the argument that Realgains is making about the pro cyclists. Just getting by clean....Or being a wealthy superstar using EPO. Had Ricco not threw a pos test, could he have won the tour?? His hero was Pantani, he was going to try to break his record up alp'dhuez. There was no loosing him in the mountains. He could have had 3-5 min lead going into the last TT.


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

Guys..it all boils down to this>>>

As long as millions are to be made in sport doping simply cannot stop, it's as simple as that, and we delude ourselves to think otherwise.
The best we can do is to try to keep athletes safe.

In regards to pro cycling...if you could somehow take the money out of the sport(big contracts, endorsement money etc etc) and just give everyone a living wage then guys would gladly ride clean and do it for the fun and experience of it all and then get an education or go back to their degrees and careers that they had before.

Pro sport is a creation of our society and so is the doping that goes along with it....society is not about to change just because WADA and UCI have a "bee in their bonnet"


The world is unfortunately all about money, and sex, but money trumps sex. Glory and power are surely in the mix too.

Again ....in the link below you will see all these things and that is what the riders are wanting.....but mostly they want to retire financially secure. Damn maybe some could even look at buying Lance's house in Barcelona or Fignon's hotel in Spain.

“It’s like when you’re driving. The law says there’s a speed limit of 100 km/h, but everyone is driving at 120 km/h. Why should I be the one who obeys the speed limit? So I had two options: either fit in and go along with the others or go back to being a house painter.” Alex Zulle

copy and paste if you need to....it's worth it 

Cipo the rock start...money, sex, fame  Yeah...I'll be honest...I envy the dude.
http://www.grahamwatson.com/gw/imagedocs.nsf/images/05cipo2/$file/9.jpg

Cheers


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

Jonathon Vaughters had some very (typically) level-headed comments when his former teammate Javier Pascual Llorente tested positive for EPO during the TdF (maybe in '03 or so?). In short, he said that Llorente was a husband, a father and a guy who had taken a young Vaughters in to his home when the latter's team went belly-up suddenly (Santa Clara team?). Vaughters asked readers (of Cycle Sport) to consider that Llorente had a family and that his job as a cyclist provided for them. Did Llorente use EPO? Vaughters said that he didn't know but what he *did* know was that Llorente was a good man. Furthermore, Vaughters asked us to consider just how concerned a pro using EPO might be about *possible* health risks in later life when they train and race in, basically, "their underwear and descend at 60mph, not cause they want to but because if they don't they won't have a job" not to mention battling cars on a daily basis (the Versus adverts were the same vibe). I think Vaughters put doping in the context of just what a pro faced (faces) if he wanted to be competive and, here's the real issue, if he simply wanted to be employed...


----------



## cocoboots (Apr 13, 2006)

serbski said:


> Jonathon Vaughters had some very (typically) level-headed comments when his former teammate Javier Pascual Llorente tested positive for EPO during the TdF (maybe in '03 or so?). In short, he said that Llorente was a husband, a father and a guy who had taken a young Vaughters in to his home when the latter's team went belly-up suddenly (Santa Clara team?). Vaughters asked readers (of Cycle Sport) to consider that Llorente had a family and that his job as a cyclist provided for them. Did Llorente use EPO? Vaughters said that he didn't know but what he *did* know was that Llorente was a good man. Furthermore, Vaughters asked us to consider just how concerned a pro using EPO might be about *possible* health risks in later life when they train and race in, basically, "their underwear and descend at 60mph, not cause they want to but because if they don't they won't have a job" not to mention battling cars on a daily basis (the Versus adverts were the same vibe). I think Vaughters put doping in the context of just what a pro faced (faces) if he wanted to be competive and, here's the real issue, if he simply wanted to be employed...


poor doper, can't feed his family without EPO.... :cryin: 

no one forces them to become pro cyclists. they choose the profession and they choose to lie, cheat, steal and dope.


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

cocoboots said:


> poor doper, can't feed his family without EPO.... :cryin:
> 
> no one forces them to become pro cyclists. they choose the profession and they choose to lie, cheat, steal and dope.


I don't know where you got "steal" .

Have you ever cheated?
Have you ever lied? How many times have you lied this year? 

It isn't "cheating" when you are racing against a doped up Peloton anyway. But you say, most are clean and there are only a handful of dopers....you have no clue because you have never raced pro.

Put in their spot you probably would do eactly the same as they...but maybe you are better than these men.

Think about it.

“It’s like when you’re driving. The law says there’s a speed limit of 100 km/h, but everyone is driving at 120 km/h. Why should I be the one who obeys the speed limit? So I had two options: either fit in and go along with the others or go back to being a house painter.” Alex Zulle


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

cocoboots said:


> poor doper, can't feed his family without EPO.... :cryin:
> 
> no one forces them to become pro cyclists. they choose the profession and they choose to lie, cheat, steal and dope.


I think Prentice Stephan, Ex USPS Team doctor, current Slipstream doctor. said it best. 

"Everybody dopes. Good guys, like Tyler, dope... and bad guys, Like Lance, dope" there are plenty of good people who dope


----------



## Don Duende (Sep 13, 2007)

Realgains said:


> Guys..it all boils down to this>>>
> 
> As long as millions are to be made in sport doping simply cannot stop, it's as simple as that, and we delude ourselves to think otherwise.
> The best we can do is to try to keep athletes safe.
> ...


Realgains,

Herein is the dilemma in your post. Do we collectivize cycling or even all sports to eliminate "cheating". You are right, big money is an irresistible inducement to "cheating"in any manner and any sport. 

If we we eliminate the big purses and endorsements, what follows? Less scandal? Less colorful characters? Less in-depth media coverage? Less colorful jerseys plastered with so many bumper stickers calling out for their corporate sponsors? Will the different teams of the peloton wear different shades of gray?

Will it become the rebirth of the Soviet style of sports ( some of the grossest atrocities in the the history of doping,BTW), only to be co-opted by totalitarian and fascist regimes, proclaiming they have created the superior H. sapiens? How many of us will be willing to watch that kind of sport/ propaganda? And in the end will it ever eliminate cheating? I think not.

Maybe, it is better to level the playing field and close the loopholes, as you have recommended in previous posts. As long as there is competition between two athletes, it is human nature to look for some advantage over our adversary. After all, we are only human. Catching dopers only makes the sport of cycling "more human". The lengths some will go to win, sometimes ending in tragedy. The Greeks could have written a classic tragic play based on cycling, if they only had bicycles back in the day.


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> I think Prentice Stephan, Ex USPS Team doctor, current Slipstream doctor. said it best.
> 
> "Everybody dopes. Good guys, like Tyler, dope... and bad guys, Like Lance, dope" there are plenty of good people who dope



Yup....that pretty much says it all.

Cheers


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Consider cheating as a game theorist would, in something like the prisoner's dilemma. The reason people don't cooperate is because there are no ways to enforce cooperation in others, so the 'rational' thing to do is to defect, rat, cheat (dope whatever). The pessimistic conclusions though can go away in repeated versions of the game, given strong enough norms and enforcement. Cheating isn't inevitable - in fact, like in the prisoner's dilemma people end up cheating only because of the structure of the problem. Change the structure and the incentive goes away. 

The irony of the whole inevitability argument, lax enforcement, a culture whereby riders accept cheating etc., is that cheating no longer become effective, since relative performance gains go away. What's different between having the top 20% of riders (say) on PEDs vs. not on them? 

In a sport where there's absolute measures of performance like world records, it's a different incentive, but cycling is all about relative performance. Personally, I think the culture is changing, riders are starting to enforce internal norms in pro riding etc., which is where the really effective sanctions come from.


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

stevesbike said:


> Consider cheating as a game theorist would, in something like the prisoner's dilemma. The reason people don't cooperate is because there are no ways to enforce cooperation in others, so the 'rational' thing to do is to defect, rat, cheat (dope whatever). The pessimistic conclusions though can go away in repeated versions of the game, given strong enough norms and enforcement. Cheating isn't inevitable - in fact, like in the prisoner's dilemma people end up cheating only because of the structure of the problem. Change the structure and the incentive goes away.
> 
> The irony of the whole inevitability argument, lax enforcement, a culture whereby riders accept cheating etc., is that cheating no longer become effective, since relative performance gains go away. What's different between having the top 20% of riders (say) on PEDs vs. not on them?
> 
> In a sport where there's absolute measures of performance like world records, it's a different incentive, but cycling is all about relative performance. Personally, I think the culture is changing, riders are starting to enforce internal norms in pro riding etc., which is where the really effective sanctions come from.



Thanx for your input and I admire faith in humankind, but I would have to disagree with you.

I agree with your statement here...
"Cheating isn't inevitable - in fact, like in the prisoner's dilemma people end up cheating only because of the structure of the problem. Change the structure and the incentive goes away."

BUT.....you cannot chance the structure of the problem in pro sport. It is a creation of our corrupt money centered world and this world is not going to change. *You would have to change the structure and nature of the world, and of human nature, for doping to go away and this is not going to happen... Thus is "human nature". As long as millions are held out as "carrots" doping simply cannot ever stop, and to think otherwise is to delude ourselves.
When a talented athlete is faced with the choice of doping to get that edge and maybe, just maybe, make millions...the temptation is usually just too great.*

You have to honestly ask yourself this question Steve....if YOU were a very talented rider and your KNEW that if you jacked you would probably become very rich....what would you do? Maybe you are a better man then me or the typical guy and you could say that you would not dope....*but your choice would not be the typical choice.
*
Even guys like Landis, who was raised with the highest ethical standards, succumed. 

Also I would like to add...
*Relative performance gains do not go away* for two reasons...one>>>not all talented riders respond to doping with the same gains, and two>>> not all riders and teams CAN dope to the extreme because it takes knowhow, backing and money.

A very very clear example of this is seem in the performance of Armstrong and Postal/Disco. Armstrong was not that talented as evidenced by his early results and his relatively modest VO2 max(for a pro) of 82(pre Ferrari). He responded greater to doping and especially a high crit than the rest. You just don't go from a good but not great classic rider with a VO2 max of 82, to a TDF machine by loosing 10-12 pounds and training harder. 
Armstrong had the backing of Dr. Ferrari(thanx to Eddy Mercyx asking Ferrari) and Postal/Disco as a whole had much of this info(not all secrets from Ferarri were given up by Armstrong though).
Postal/Disco had a very very good doping program with loads of money on hand.

Here is what you see in pro cycling...
Jacking ones crit from the typical 39-43% seen in highly trained aerobic athletes to the 50% limit will give most men a 12% increase in sustainable power. This will then make your 5 minute VO2 max repeat interval power your 60 minute functional threshold power. In other words you can then hold your 5 minute repeat power for 60 bloody minutes(pun intended More notably your repeatabilty goes through the roof.
Jack to 55% crit and many get a 15% boost! Jack to 60% and many get a 20% boost!!!

Not all guys can jack to 55-60% after morning controls. Most come in at 49-50% and are stuck with that. Also, as mentioned, not all guys get the same power increases at any given crit too.

You think Evans and the top 20 GC were not jacked to at least 50%? If they were not jacked they would NEVER in a million years be able to ride in the mountains anywhere near Ricco Beltran, etc etc who were climbing specialists that were jacked higher...he would have been dropped within 20 minutes...trust me ...I know.


The best we can do is to limit and control doping for safety sake and to try to make things "more fair". That's why I think that all the top 50 GC need to be tested right on the line before the start of the stage. The test needed is a total bod hemaglobin. You cannot dilute total body hemaglobin like you can hematocrit. Any rider that has a total hemaglobin greater than a 50% crit should not be allow to start the race.
The other ways of doping don't make that much difference as most of these PEDS are simply recovery PEDS like HGH, testosterone and IGF-1. Some guys get better response than others even with these but it doesn't affect performance like jacking red cells does.



Every year new and improved dope is available.
...and now there is gene doping!!!




Cheers


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

Cheating. It is illegal. If all the "products" were ever made legal, then it wouldn't be cheating. Holding onto a car to pace up to the peloton is illegal too. There is no moral dilemma here. Just because it's almost impossibly complicated to catch a doper does not mean we should change our definition of a cheater.


----------



## cocoboots (Apr 13, 2006)

Realgains said:


> It isn't "cheating" when you are racing against a doped up Peloton anyway. But you say, most are clean and there are only a handful of dopers....you have no clue because you have never raced pro.
> 
> Put in their spot you probably would do eactly the same as they...but maybe you are better than these men.


as a collegiate runner and as a cyclist I was offered PEDs, but I have never used ped or recreational drugs. Several of my friends are still pro cyclists or triathletes and most of them have admitted to using something at one point. I walked away from bike racing as a clean racer and I have no regrets.

it is cheating, two wrongs (or a peloton of wrongs) don't make a right.


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

cocoboots said:


> as a collegiate runner and as a cyclist I was offered PEDs, but I have never used ped or recreational drugs. Several of my friends are still pro cyclists or triathletes and most of them have admitted to using something at one point. I walked away from bike racing as a clean racer and I have no regrets.
> 
> it is cheating, two wrongs (or a peloton of wrongs) don't make a right.



It's not cheating if you are racing against other dopers....you used the incorrect word friend.
The right word is "wrong" or "unethical"....and you are right two wrongs don't make a right.

It certainly is wrong to dope. Yet perhaps there are things that we all do every week that are just as bad....maybe worse.

But friend...you better not take that caffeine for a race......the principals and ethics remain the same. But I don't know you....maybe you race totally clean.



Cheers


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

It IS cheating. And wrong. And unethical. The quantity of cheaters does not change the definition of the word. And, I do believe that "we all" do NOT do things just as bad.

My tea has caffeine. If I were in a race whose rules banned caffeine, I wouldn't have tea, not even with an with an extra bag of blood on the side.


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

cyclesport45 said:


> It IS cheating. And wrong. And unethical. The quantity of cheaters does not change the definition of the word. And, I do believe that "we all" do NOT do things just as bad.
> 
> My tea has caffeine. If I were in a race whose rules banned caffeine, I wouldn't have tea, not even with an with an extra bag of blood on the side.




It's not cheating when you race against other dopers just because you break rules that NOBODY follows...and trust me I know that the entire peloton is doped in the big UCI races.


If you understood human nature and the things you do on fairly frequent basis you would not be so quick to say that you don not do things just as bad in your life. But alas I won't go there on this board.

Cheers


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

I have had this conversation with my 15 y.o. daughter, as I'm sure many parents have. "Just because "everyone else" does it, makes it right?" "No, dad".

I agree, most likely the whole peloton is doped. Because of natural selection, those who don't sucumb to temptation (CHEATING!!) aren't in the peloton. I'm sure there is a silent majority who never make it to the peloton because they won't cheat. I wouldn't.

Yes. please don't go there on this board. I understand human nature, but I do not comprehend why someone would suggest that a stranger on a message board would do things "just as bad".

We may not all be doped in life. Of course, I can not speak for you...


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

cyclesport45 said:


> I have had this conversation with my 15 y.o. daughter, as I'm sure many parents have. "Just because "everyone else" does it, makes it right?" "No, dad".
> 
> I agree, most likely the whole peloton is doped. Because of natural selection, those who don't sucumb to temptation (CHEATING!!) aren't in the peloton. I'm sure there is a silent majority who never make it to the peloton because they won't cheat. I wouldn't.
> 
> ...



Bro ....if you understood human nature, like you say you do, then you would know that no man is 'good" and that's why I can say what I did. I am not saying that you or anyone else is truly a "bad man'.....

Just don't demonize doping or the riders that dope and especially when it is all a creation of our corrupt money focused world
... and here is an example of human nature>>>.jacking off to porn on the internet is just as bad and maybe worse (and especially when the entire peloton is already doped)...and how many of us have done that.

...a*nd funny thing......the very organization(UCI) that tells the riders that they are cheating dopers that are unethical and bad guys is CORRUPT. Do you have any aide how many bribes they have taken?*



Cheers


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

Please, I'm not your "bro". And I tire of your stereotyping. Enough of this thread.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

Realgains started an interesting thread, I'm so glad some who have been so onesided have listened to what he has to say and try to understand both sides of doping. I thank you all for that. Others try to continue to crucify the dopers without looking at it from their(the dopers) point of view. I feel sorry for them. Usually those(I'm not accusing anyone, usually isn't always) who scream the loudest have their own skeletons. (Larry Craig and Eliot Spitzer most recently)


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

cyclesport45 said:


> Please, I'm not your "bro". And I tire of your stereotyping. Enough of this thread.


Chill out Bro

Have you ever driven over the speed limit?


----------



## cocoboots (Apr 13, 2006)

again, I feel sorry for the dopers. They can't make it as a pro cyclist, so they have to dope to put food on the table for their families. It's a shame that there aren't any other jobs out there for them where they wouldn't have to dope to provide for their families.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

cocoboots said:


> again, I feel sorry for the dopers. They can't make it as a pro cyclist, so they have to dope to put food on the table for their families. It's a shame that there aren't any other jobs out there for them where they wouldn't have to dope to provide for their families.


---------------------
I don't, nor do I think anyone was trying to make ya feel sorry for the doper. Try to understand their reasons for doing it. As far as jobs are concerned, if a cyclist spends his teen years working to make it to pro level, what skills does he have other than cycling?? Wonder why Floyd fought so hard? What else can he do? I don't think he could support a family on min wage.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

There are plenty of riders that dope because they do not want to go work in a coal mine and others who want have no trouble putting food on the table and want to get their contract from $500,000 per year to $1,000,000. 

I have plenty of friends who are dopers, Many of them are great guys, many others are not. It is a cross section of society as a whole. I am not sure what you guys do for a living but at the top of any sector of society, business, Politics, and you will have the same conduct. Festina = Enron. 

You can test all you want but real change will only come with a complete change in the cultural of the sport....and society as a whole.


----------



## steel515 (Sep 6, 2004)

*doping*



bigpinkt said:


> There are plenty of riders that dope because they do not want to go work in a coal mine and others who want have no trouble putting food on the table and want to get their contract from $500,000 per year to $1,000,000.
> 
> I have plenty of friends who are dopers, Many of them are great guys, many others are not. It is a cross section of society as a whole. I am not sure what you guys do for a living but at the top of any sector of society, business, Politics, and you will have the same conduct. Festina = Enron.
> 
> You can test all you want but real change will only come with a complete change in the cultural of the sport....and society as a whole.


so are the current riders doping or not? I read the speeds dropped slightly. 
has everyone seen this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjhunVVh5cE


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

steel515 said:


> so are the current riders doping or not? I read the speeds dropped slightly.
> has everyone seen this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjhunVVh5cE


I think it is down. 

In 1997 60 riders broke 45 minutes on Alp d'huez. This year perhaps 10 did. Certainly this years course was much harder but hard to ignore the difference.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

cocoboots said:


> again, I feel sorry for the dopers. They can't make it as a pro cyclist, so they have to dope to put food on the table for their families. It's a shame that there aren't any other jobs out there for them where they wouldn't have to dope to provide for their families.


If make a living in the mafia then you have to commit crimes.

If you make a living as a politician then you have to lie.

If you make a living as a pro cyclist then you have to dope.

There have been very few significant cycling wins in europe by non-dopers since EPO came onto the scene.


----------

