Any clinic members ever doped?

[carton]

In a spelling test, the proctor will give you an F for cheating. Not so with the UCI. So put yourself in a room full of students cheating on a test and the proctor knows it, is okay with it, actually condones it and did it himself as a student. .

I've been in that room and I didn't cheat. But yeah, it was beyond depressing just how many people did.

There is always the choice. A few centuries ago most of the situations in (non-magical) Game of Thrones were far closer to fact than fiction. Change has happened because good people have done the hard thing instead of the easy thing, often against the grain of society and their own self-interest.

I'm not perfect, nor particularly worthy of your respect, very far from. I used to regard speeding in highways as not all that bad, and I still have to fight the urge to gun it when I see a stretch of open freeway. But I think cheating, as in winning rewards by denying those unwilling to break the rules the opportunity, is wrong. Some rules, like not being able to cross the road at a stop sign without zebras, are so stupid that I cannot help but consider disobedience is a legitimate option. But with other, many times even more arbitrary, rules I see compliance as the only option to ensure fairness.

So yeah, I think I'd never dope in competition, not even for 6 or 7 figure paychecks. But I agree, talk is cheap. Pixels are even cheaper.

 

[King Boonen]

I haven't doped but I was offered the chance to take part in a study into EPO doping which would have involved micro-dosing. I declined.

 

[Irondan]

In a spelling test, the proctor will give you an F for cheating. Not so with the UCI. So put yourself in a room full of students cheating on a test and the proctor knows it, is okay with it, actually condones it and did it himself as a student. .

I've been in that room and I didn't cheat. But yeah, it was beyond depressing just how many people did.

There is always the choice. A few centuries ago most of the situations in (non-magical) Game of Thrones were far closer to fact than fiction. Change has happened because good people have done the hard thing instead of the easy thing, often against the grain of society and their own self-interest.

I'm not perfect, nor particularly worthy of your respect, very far from. I used to regard speeding in highways as not all that bad, and I still have to fight the urge to gun it when I see a stretch of open freeway. But I think cheating, as in winning rewards by denying those unwilling to break the rules the opportunity, is wrong. Some rules, like not being able to cross the road at a stop sign without zebras, are so stupid that I cannot help but consider disobedience is a legitimate option. But with other, many times even more arbitrary, rules I see compliance as the only option to ensure fairness.

So yeah, I think I'd never dope in competition, not even for 6 or 7 figure paychecks. But I agree, talk is cheap. Pixels are even cheaper.

People do funny things when confronted with large sums of money. As you point out, talk is cheap. Especially when you don't have large sums of money being offered to you.

 

[King Boonen]

I think you need to also consider the reality many sports people most likely find themselves in, this is all supposition but I wouldn't think it's that far fetched.

They have trained all their lives to be the best at what they do, foregoing many things including a social life and education just try and be in that elite less than 1% of athletes who get to do their chosen sport professionally. They very possibly have no other prospects, they don't have an education to fall back on or if they do it could be limited. There are even less top level coaching roles than athletes so the chances of making money there are very limited. They also have a very limited window in which to make their money. The chances of their sporting career lasting past 40 years old is tiny, giving most of them 15 years tops earning a decent wage to possibly sustain them and their family into old age. When they are retiring the rest of us are just hitting our stride.

They are then faced with a choice. Dope and earn that 6-7 figure salary, sponsorship deals and an increased likelihood or TV work, coaching, paid events invites etc. once they retire. Or don't dope, and risk earning considerably less than someone else of their age and leaving the sport they have worked all they life for with nothing to show for it except a lack of prospects.

Then tell them the chances of getting caught are about 1%.


Honestly, I think it's a miracle that people don't dope.

 

[jens_attacks]

i like to believe that i would go full pascal herve but most likely my anxiety will made me quit after a few days.
but i could not become a pro rider anyway, too much work involved.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Re:

I think you need to also consider the reality many sports people most likely find themselves in, this is all supposition but I wouldn't think it's that far fetched.

They have trained all their lives to be the best at what they do, foregoing many things including a social life and education just try and be in that elite less than 1% of athletes who get to do their chosen sport professionally. They very possibly have no other prospects, they don't have an education to fall back on or if they do it could be limited. There are even less top level coaching roles than athletes so the chances of making money there are very limited. They also have a very limited window in which to make their money. The chances of their sporting career lasting past 40 years old is tiny, giving most of them 15 years tops earning a decent wage to possibly sustain them and their family into old age. When they are retiring the rest of us are just hitting our stride.

They are then faced with a choice. Dope and earn that 6-7 figure salary, sponsorship deals and an increased likelihood or TV work, coaching, paid events invites etc. once they retire. Or don't dope, and risk earning considerably less than someone else of their age and leaving the sport they have worked all they life for with nothing to show for it except a lack of prospects.

Then tell them the chances of getting caught are about 1%.


Honestly, I think it's a miracle that people don't dope.

I started writing one way, then I remembered something I've always had to bring up: "The question isn't would you dope. The important question is could you be convinced to dope."

I think your hypothetical situation is not realistic, but more importantly, it's the wrong question. You describe a moment. A tipping point after a build up of events, and that narrative is unrealistic. Of all the stories about cycling, or other team sport doping we've heard, it isn't a Morpheus red pill/blue pill moment. There's not open suitcase with cash making the young, naive, athlete's jaw drops. Everything we've heard, it starts small. The multi vitamin in the morning turns into the familiar multi-vitamin and another pill. Or the new guy gets normalized to packets of pills everywhere, and cavalier conversations about regimens going on in the team dinner. Or the team leader is tasked with showing the new guys how to inject EPO, like it's another thing on the agenda for team camp.

If someone hasn't made up their mind not to dope, then they can succumb to the renormalization that happens in a doping environment. And then, it is much easier to be convinced to dope. Money, continuing the career, fame, are obviously influences, but be real. You know people aren't that rational, and that's not the way actions are taken. People submit to the environment if they are not prepared with an active resolve against it.

And it is now easier to be prepared with that resolve. I don't subscribe to the "new generation" tawk, but let's be real. It is now much easier for a young athlete to be prepared to not dope. Very, very few will come into cycling totally unaware, like the case has been in the past (Other mainstream sports that ignore/media ignores the doping issue will continue on; athletes won't be ready to face the environment).

(This is the original post, less relevent to what I restarted with, but I didn't want to delete it. And like, 80% thought out...)

A few ways to break it down. Olympic sports, or otherwise fringe sports (Track, cycling, ping pong, Kayaking, Volleyball), and mainstream sports (Soccer (olympic sport, but, you know...), Rugby, Cricket, NBA).

To start, anything in the Olympic Sport word will not be thinking about a six-figure salary. Talk about your Sagans and your Contadors and Valverdes, and... you run out of examples pretty fast. 192 riders start a GT, and most, of them are 5 figures. Maybe several to a few thousand bike riders can call them selves professional, and most of them are probably 4 digits, and on the edge of 5.

And there is money in cycling. Tae kwon do, Pole Vault, Gymnastics will be much worse off.

So be careful when you say most.

Next point: for most, everything you said that an athlete gives up is what in fact supports them as an athlete. The NCAA is the obvious example as the best talent development program, and hey, kids end up with an education. It is the same in other national university athletic systems. Or, their social life is their sport. They live with teammates, hang out with competitors from other teams, call up friends to stay at their house when traveling to competitions.

But we are being careful about how we use most, so the above is obviously not universal. But the case you describe, the young-20 something world-level-elite talent without a coach, sponsor, or support network? Yeah, that person could see doping as the way out, but how many are actually in that situation?

Moreover, "the choice" is not binary. For me and my friends, we all made different choices about how to compete professionally, semi-pro, amateur, or whatever, and as far as I know, no one I know personally has doped.

[Skip if you're not interested in an anecdote:] Myself and some chose to work a career that could fully fund my athletic pursuits, at the expense of the professional lifestyle. Others chose the professional lifestyle, at the expense of full (or adequate, or even just a little bit of) funding. Some moved from one camp into the other, and some did the same in the other direction. The path. After that, self coaching, personal coaching, training group or full on live-together-eat-together team. Sponsors or no. None of these options are dependent on performance: I can point to Under Armour ads featuring a friend who, to be polite, is still trying to find his groove. Another who could dominate me any day of the week had few options and wound up with an "upstart" coach. Again, being poilte.

My point is, nothing about the situation you describe has anything to do with last resort doping. Everyone feels pressure, but very few think doping is the only way out. Everyone gets shut down or rejected, but very few are so illogical to not even consider the options available (you know, those things that make up a sport: training, tactics, coaching/mentoring, team, nutrition, wtc.)

So, why does doping happen the way it does? Those olympic sports I described are generally individual. Those mainstream sports aren't. They can be dominated by a personality, taken over by a culture, and generally operate above any athletes' ideas. Ethical fading as the owner starts to think business instead of sport, or the strength coach thinks about numbers/data instead of sport. Teams also have the capital to invest in doping at an effective scale.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Sorry for the long and rambling post. I'll edit this with a more succinct thought as soon as the words come.

 

[Catwhoorg]

To 16 year old promising rugby player.

You need to add some muscle mass
Here is a workout program
--- Struggles with it but applies self

Here is a supplement to help you recover

--- better but still not big enough

Here is a protein powder, and creatine and XXX

- helps but more needed

Here is Jacked-XXX, that will give you the energy

And now the kid is a doper.

 

[blackcat]

You have told us that you have a British passport, my friend,
so obviously you would not be a cheater/doper. That goes
without saying.

That's the first time I've laughed here in a long time.

i basically express the same sentinment, but like HelmutRoole suggests, how would this work within a determinism framework, p'raps you grew up in a culture of cycling, and a culture of cycling and doping, p'raps Eddy Merckx is your father, now... this is the Milgram dillema you are now handed. Is your autonomy of such rigour in these circumstances. I would like to think i could also turn my back, but... this perception would deluded too

 

[HelmutRoole]

The path to dope is robust and varied. A key point is, doped riders mostly filter up, clean riders down. By the time you get to the top there aren't many clean riders left. The ones who do make it mostly don't last more than a season.

I think the evolution of the conversation is this:

Would you stand in front of the world press, family and friends, and proclaim your cleanliness if it meant you could win the Tour de France (I think it goes without saying but FYI: you doped)?

 

[matter]

Would you dope yourself? is a hard question. You also have to ask the question in a correct way.

It's easy for us to say no, as most of us have a decent life, decent career etc.
Consider the follwing situation. You worked your entire life to come as far as a pro as to almost winning races and achieving a high salary. Now you get the choice to dope or not to dope to make that final jump into succes, there is no doubt in my mind that I would chose to dope. Also considering a cyclist normally has never been in a normal job, hasn't had an education past high school and hardly has a network/attachment to any other context but the cycling in-group. The choice has already been made years ago without realising it. Cycling is your life, so you will dope. This is one extreme.

The other extreme is imagining yourself at a crossroads earlier in your life. Here you have a choice between a career/education/etc outside of professional cycling and the choice for cycling but with the knowledge you need to dope to further advance, not knowing how far you can go. In this situation I will not make the choice to pursue a professional career in cycling.

So different context, different choice, same person/ethics.
If you're sure or not so sure if you would dope or not consider in what position you imagine yourself to be in. Is it in one of the above extreme situations or something in between?

 

[malakassis]

i doped with my brother. and many other overambitios/narcissists do.

off season: 6 weeks testosterone-enantat 500mg/week to provide muscle gain rather than fat while hard legworkout. high % of musclemass is useful to quickly burn fat for season.

in season: 4 weeks adractim (DHT-gel) cycle in may. and morning before races.straight on the scrutum,to hit most # of androgen-receptors. great to establish lean muscle mass and get rid of water retention. it cant convert to estrogen. huge impact on aggression and endurance. not longer than 4 weeks because it increases LDL and lowers HDL.

 

[The Carrot]

This thread's morphed largely into why people dope so I'll throw another scenario in.

Actively recruit very young, uneducated and not very bright people into a national programme. Dope them without knowing, they'll probably think they are being well looked after when the team doctor gives them those vitamin injections.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

I started writing one way, then I remembered something I've always had to bring up: "The question isn't would you dope. The important question is could you be convinced to dope."

I think your hypothetical situation is not realistic, but more importantly, it's the wrong question. You describe a moment. A tipping point after a build up of events, and that narrative is unrealistic. Of all the stories about cycling, or other team sport doping we've heard, it isn't a Morpheus red pill/blue pill moment. There's not open suitcase with cash making the young, naive, athlete's jaw drops. Everything we've heard, it starts small. The multi vitamin in the morning turns into the familiar multi-vitamin and another pill. Or the new guy gets normalized to packets of pills everywhere, and cavalier conversations about regimens going on in the team dinner. Or the team leader is tasked with showing the new guys how to inject EPO, like it's another thing on the agenda for team camp.

No I have not described a moment any less than you have. I describe the pressures athletes are under as they progress through their career, I have not set any timeline or implied this all happens at a single point, I have merely pointed out that there is one point where they choose to start doping.

Your supposition is that everyone needs to be convinced to dope and this completely goes against what we know about the human character. Humans are mean, greedy, selfish, arrogant, vain etc. Many people do not need convinced to dope in the same way they do not need to be convinced to break laws. Some will obviously be convinced, but to imply that it is all due to pressure from others is a very dangerous way to view doping. It removes personal responsibility and falls in line with the usual "It's all the last generations fault" we hear trotted out constantly.

If someone hasn't made up their mind not to dope, then they can succumb to the renormalization that happens in a doping environment. And then, it is much easier to be convinced to dope. Money, continuing the career, fame, are obviously influences, but be real. You know people aren't that rational, and that's not the way actions are taken. People submit to the environment if they are not prepared with an active resolve against it.

And it is now easier to be prepared with that resolve. I don't subscribe to the "new generation" tawk, but let's be real. It is now much easier for a young athlete to be prepared to not dope. Very, very few will come into cycling totally unaware, like the case has been in the past (Other mainstream sports that ignore/media ignores the doping issue will continue on; athletes won't be ready to face the environment).

Recent studies in South Africa have shown that school children are willing to take steroids for reasons of vanity and I think a similar trend has been shown in Australia and no doubt any other developed country when access to these things is available. If kids will take steroids to look good it's hardly a leap to think they might also do it to perform well in sport. And yes, people are that rational, it happens in all walks of life where people lie, cheat and do shitty things, even when legal, to further themselves, their careers and their livelihoods. Just look at the guy who bought the rights to pyrimethamine recently and whacked up the costs by 5000%.

There are of course always people who do not want to dope but it is not easier for young athletes to be prepared not to dope. If anything I would say it's harder. The base level in professional sports is constantly rising. Just look at the mens 100m. Getting under 10s used to be a rarity, now it's pretty much required to even make a semi-final in a major championship.

(This is the original post, less relevent to what I restarted with, but I didn't want to delete it. And like, 80% thought out...)

A few ways to break it down. Olympic sports, or otherwise fringe sports (Track, cycling, ping pong, Kayaking, Volleyball), and mainstream sports (Soccer (olympic sport, but, you know...), Rugby, Cricket, NBA).

To start, anything in the Olympic Sport word will not be thinking about a six-figure salary. Talk about your Sagans and your Contadors and Valverdes, and... you run out of examples pretty fast. 192 riders start a GT, and most, of them are 5 figures. Maybe several to a few thousand bike riders can call them selves professional, and most of them are probably 4 digits, and on the edge of 5.

And there is money in cycling. Tae kwon do, Pole Vault, Gymnastics will be much worse off.

So be careful when you say most.

We are talking about the elite athletes here, I very clearly stated that in my original post.

But, if you want me to cite examples of lower level doping you only need to go look at the doping in rugby thread and the UKAD website to see who leads the current sanctions list and where these players come from.

Next point: for most, everything you said that an athlete gives up is what in fact supports them as an athlete. The NCAA is the obvious example as the best talent development program, and hey, kids end up with an education. It is the same in other national university athletic systems. Or, their social life is their sport. They live with teammates, hang out with competitors from other teams, call up friends to stay at their house when traveling to competitions.

A) The NCAA is very, very different to many other national university athletic systems. US university teams fill the role that lower leagues (and to some extent even the upper leagues) do in other countries. To take the US collegiate sports system as an example is ridiculous.

B) We constantly see articles about elite athletes being allowed to skip classes, given grades they don't deserve and pretty much only participating in their sports while in the US system (usually relating to football and basketball players). They end up with a piece of paper. Whether that equates to an education is HIGHLY debatable.

But we are being careful about how we use most, so the above is obviously not universal. But the case you describe, the young-20 something world-level-elite talent without a coach, sponsor, or support network? Yeah, that person could see doping as the way out, but how many are actually in that situation?

Nowhere did I state this, do not make things up.

Moreover, "the choice" is not binary. For me and my friends, we all made different choices about how to compete professionally, semi-pro, amateur, or whatever, and as far as I know, no one I know personally has doped.

I'm afraid the choice to dope is binary. You dope or you don't. The extent to which you dope, how, with what, for how long etc. obviously isn't binary, but the choice to use illegal, performance enhancing drugs is. I am purely talking about banned substances, there are no grey areas here.

[Skip if you're not interested in an anecdote:] Myself and some chose to work a career that could fully fund my athletic pursuits, at the expense of the professional lifestyle. Others chose the professional lifestyle, at the expense of full (or adequate, or even just a little bit of) funding. Some moved from one camp into the other, and some did the same in the other direction. The path. After that, self coaching, personal coaching, training group or full on live-together-eat-together team. Sponsors or no. None of these options are dependent on performance: I can point to Under Armour ads featuring a friend who, to be polite, is still trying to find his groove. Another who could dominate me any day of the week had few options and wound up with an "upstart" coach. Again, being poilte.

Completely unsure of the relevance of this. Which of you is one of the less than 1% again?

My point is, nothing about the situation you describe has anything to do with last resort doping. Everyone feels pressure, but very few think doping is the only way out. Everyone gets shut down or rejected, but very few are so illogical to not even consider the options available (you know, those things that make up a sport: training, tactics, coaching/mentoring, team, nutrition, wtc.)

Complete supposition, which is fine, and I didn't mean to imply it was last resort. To the bolded part, no where have I suggested people don't do this, yet you wish to imply earlier that people are not rational about considering their futures but are now very rational/ logical about considering doping. You can't have it both ways.

So, why does doping happen the way it does? Those olympic sports I described are generally individual. Those mainstream sports aren't. They can be dominated by a personality, taken over by a culture, and generally operate above any athletes' ideas. Ethical fading as the owner starts to think business instead of sport, or the strength coach thinks about numbers/data instead of sport. Teams also have the capital to invest in doping at an effective scale.

Not sure what you are saying here? Doping in team sports seems to be at the same level as in individual sports. What is your point?

 

[doperhopper]

Re:

This thread's morphed largely into why people dope so I'll throw another scenario in.

Actively recruit very young, uneducated and not very bright people into a national programme. Dope them without knowing, they'll probably think they are being well looked after when the team doctor gives them those vitamin injections.

And what's the problem? This is how it went on for decades in the soviet bloc, all those east Germans, etc. Most of them got it quickly and knew very well what was going on.

 

[Rob27172]

Re:

To 16 year old promising rugby player.

You need to add some muscle mass
Here is a workout program
--- Struggles with it but applies self

Here is a supplement to help you recover

--- better but still not big enough

Here is a protein powder, and creatine and XXX

- helps but more needed

Here is Jacked-XXX, that will give you the energy

And now the kid is a doper.

I agree this is a pretty reasonable scenario

A friend of mine in the USA has a son who is 17 and 6ft 4 and 280 lbs of muscle - he was told by three colleges that to get into their college on a football program he needed to add at least 40 lbs
His parents have got him a nutritionist and a personal trainer as well as his high school set up
Why - because if he makes it at college he will get an education and have a good football career and potentially he could end up on 20 + million dollars a year at the age of 22

There are also numerous stories of cyclists turning up at teams and being told a percentage of heir salary would be taken from them to pay for their MEDICAL bills.

On top of that with the internet now and the dark net especially you can get whatever you want simply easily and cheaply so joe blogs average can now become a superstar if they really want to \

It is a wide ranging and very complex subject.

 

[Digger]

Re: Re:

didn't dope obviously but took prednisone this year and anyone who says, like froome did, that he didn't get a gain from it, is taking BS...it's brilliant I loved it and almost wished my chest infection didn't clear....train longer, less fatigue, mental lift, more power and clears the lungs - like the monty python sketch 'but other than all that what have the romans ever done for us.'
I

also, I raise the question to you Digger, you are so anti-doping and anti PEDs, you admit you received a performance benefit from the cortisone like drug, did you choose to sit out of competition when you knew you were receiving a boost?

and if you did not sit out, why did you not sit out?

no I didn't sit out as I felt it would be more fun to come on here and tell you

 

[harryh]

Great posts by HelmutRoole. *** the hypocrisy!

 

[HelmutRoole]

Back on topic:

i doped with my brother. and many other overambitios/narcissists do.

off season: 6 weeks testosterone-enantat 500mg/week to provide muscle gain rather than fat while hard legworkout. high % of musclemass is useful to quickly burn fat for season.

in season: 4 weeks adractim (DHT-gel) cycle in may. and morning before races.straight on the scrutum,to hit most # of androgen-receptors. great to establish lean muscle mass and get rid of water retention. it cant convert to estrogen. huge impact on aggression and endurance. not longer than 4 weeks because it increases LDL and lowers HDL.

Mala, I'd like to explore the topic of testosterone use with you a bit. If you don't mind, and be as general or specific as you feel comfortable:

What region did you race?

What was your age at the time?

What was your specialty?

How did you procure your drugs?

Edit: I'd like to get an idea of the timeframe to better understand the cultural implications as well.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Re: Re:

No I have not described a moment any less than you have. I describe the pressures athletes are under as they progress through their career, I have not set any timeline or implied this all happens at a single point, I have merely pointed out that there is one point where they choose to start doping.

This is what I saw:

They are then faced with a choice. Dope and earn ... Or don't dope...

I took this to mean a moment of choice. If that's not what you meant, then I misread it.

Your supposition is that everyone needs to be convinced to dope and this completely goes against what we know about the human character. Humans are mean, greedy, selfish, arrogant, vain etc. Many people do not need convinced to dope in the same way they do not need to be convinced to break laws. Some will obviously be convinced, but to imply that it is all due to pressure from others is a very dangerous way to view doping. It removes personal responsibility and falls in line with the usual "It's all the last generations fault" we hear trotted out constantly.

Maybe I was unclear now. (I know, I was definitely unclear)

My whole point was that the comments suggesting that doping happens in the same way across sports, abilities, and personalities. Not what you said specifically, but a collection of comments. The tone of these posts was "If you were in that situation, you would too".

I take issue with the idea that there is a that situation. Your post also alluded to a specific situation that most sports people face. But that's not the way a sporting life goes.

I'm not trying to say that no one has ever made an active, independent decision to dope, or that the individual doesn't assume all the responsibility for their actions. I am trying to say that a variety of factors matter: who influences the athlete, what that influence is, the naiveté/awareness of that athlete of doping, their maturity to face those facts, the economic expectations for a career, the expectations on and within that individual, and a bunch more. It is different from person to person, sport to sport.

The rest of my post were examples of the nuance. To say that this

They have trained all their lives to be the best at what they do, foregoing many things including a social life and education just try and be in that elite less than 1% of athletes who get to do their chosen sport professionally. They very possibly have no other prospects,

...ignores the diverse group of people that are athletes. The Gold Medalist Javelin thrower is in different circumstances than the 100m sprinter, who is different from the World Cup Champion striker, who is different from the Gold medal High Bar gymnast. Not only because they are in different sports, but because they are 4 different people, who had their individual paths through life, education, family, employment, sponsorship, training, nutrition supplements, medicine, treatments, dope ect.

To say that there is a they, ignores the reality. A bigger problem is when that un-reality is imposed on others, as the tone of many posts (again, not necessarily yours) began to take.

I hope I'm clearer now.

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

Recent studies in South Africa have shown that school children are willing to take steroids for reasons of vanity and I think a similar trend has been shown in Australia and no doubt any other developed country when access to these things is available. If kids will take steroids to look good it's hardly a leap to think they might also do it to perform well in sport. And yes, people are that rational, it happens in all walks of life where people lie, cheat and do shitty things, even when legal, to further themselves, their careers and their livelihoods. Just look at the guy who bought the rights to pyrimethamine recently and whacked up the costs by 5000%.

This is becoming very true here in Australia. The pressure to "get huge" amongst guys in their lates teens/early 20's is pretty big and it doesn't help when there's girls around who are superficial enough to put up with, and even excuse, the associated behaviour that goes along with steroids. You go out in places like Kings Cross in Sydney or Fortitude Valley in Brisbane and Friday/Saturday night is fight night. Brunswick Street Mall in Fortitude Valley has police vans waiting at each end from around 9pm on Saturdays and Sundays

It's crazy, go into any gym here in the spring and there's guys working hard to turn themselves into tanks just so they can take off their shirts at music festivals over the summer. None of them play any kind of sport, it's entirely for their own egos. Bizarre, narcissistic behaviour

 

[malakassis]

Back on topic:

i doped with my brother. and many other overambitios/narcissists do.

off season: 6 weeks testosterone-enantat 500mg/week to provide muscle gain rather than fat while hard legworkout. high % of musclemass is useful to quickly burn fat for season.

in season: 4 weeks adractim (DHT-gel) cycle in may. and morning before races.straight on the scrutum,to hit most # of androgen-receptors. great to establish lean muscle mass and get rid of water retention. it cant convert to estrogen. huge impact on aggression and endurance. not longer than 4 weeks because it increases LDL and lowers HDL.

Mala, I'd like to explore the topic of testosterone use with you a bit. If you don't mind, and be as general or specific as you feel comfortable:

What region did you race? italy,austria,slovenija

What was your age at the time? early 20ies

What was your specialty? mountainous one day races

How did you procure your drugs? via internet

Edit: I'd like to get an idea of the timeframe to better understand the cultural implications as well.

i was just an ambitious amateur rider during my studies. i did never win a race. my brother was riding more (12-15k/year) and did win. also i was always a bit scared of androgens. i already have high hematocrite (ciao damiano!) and i didnt want to risk any cardiovaskular issues as androgens even increase red blood cells.

still sometimes today i use a bit of andractim-gel for tough days. but only like once/month.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I personally really appreciate your openness and honesty, malakassis.

 

[HelmutRoole]

Back on topic:

i doped with my brother. and many other overambitios/narcissists do.

off season: 6 weeks testosterone-enantat 500mg/week to provide muscle gain rather than fat while hard legworkout. high % of musclemass is useful to quickly burn fat for season.

in season: 4 weeks adractim (DHT-gel) cycle in may. and morning before races.straight on the scrutum,to hit most # of androgen-receptors. great to establish lean muscle mass and get rid of water retention. it cant convert to estrogen. huge impact on aggression and endurance. not longer than 4 weeks because it increases LDL and lowers HDL.

Mala, I'd like to explore the topic of testosterone use with you a bit. If you don't mind, and be as general or specific as you feel comfortable:

What region did you race? italy,austria,slovenija

What was your age at the time? early 20ies

What was your specialty? mountainous one day races

How did you procure your drugs? via internet

Edit: I'd like to get an idea of the timeframe to better understand the cultural implications as well.

i was just an ambitious amateur rider during my studies. i did never win a race. my brother was riding more (12-15k/year) and did win. also i was always a bit scared of androgens. i already have high hematocrite (ciao damiano!) and i didnt want to risk any cardiovaskular issues as androgens even increase red blood cells.

still sometimes today i use a bit of andractim-gel for tough days. but only like once/month.

Agree with DW.

What was the timeframe?

Can you describe the decision-making process and the forces that shape it?

 

[May0maniac]

How high is you hematocrite malakassis? I also really appreciate your openness and honesty.