• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Did you ever dope?

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 11, 2009
117
0
0
Visit site
Berzin said:
And the fact of the matter is, there are many cyclists who don't dope only because they cannot access the drugs, not out of some contrived sporting element of fair play that only exists in some people's minds.




Laughable to you but true. By the way, you'd have a better chance of finding Bigfoot than knowing which one of your riding buddies is riding with a testosterone patch on his arm. The veil of secrecy can only be revealed if you are one of the insiders, and that is a hermetically sealed group for sure, for a variety of reasons.

Let me be clear.

I've raced on teams with doped riders and I know that there were people who doped even for provincial road races. My point is that people now just assume that if it's an organized race then it's not just a complete loser that would dope.

I raced on teams where most riders were thinking at 20 y/o that they still had a chance to make a career in cycling but my view was that if you were doping for races than what chance did you have for a career? And these were all top juniors elite 1 riders.


If people I ride with now are doping for club/training rides -- then they've got bigger problems than trying to keep up.

Oh one more thing. In my late 30s I started riding regularly again just for fitness and did some licensed races. Visited a friend who still raced as a cat 1 and did the state championships with him. If what I read here is even remotely accurate then that means some of the riders were doped with much more than stimulants. Honestly, it did not seem any harder compared to late eighties/early 90s racing.

The whole thing is mind boggling.
 
Aug 6, 2011
738
0
0
Visit site
compete_clean said:
The whole thing is mind boggling.

Even placebo-effects are effects. There are probably a whole bunch of guys (and girls) out there that need something just to be convinced they can turn the pedals at all. A large part of 'amateur'-dopers are very likely using the stuff wrong, inducing only mild effects. I am sure, however, that it gets their confidence up and they'll ride better on than off. (Even if that 'on'-performance is the performance they would reach when they would've never taken anything, once they get hooked, they believe they can only reach it while taking things.)

Personally, I don't know why on earth I would dope and put my health at risk. I just ride the occasional cyclo-sportif and 'personal performance rides' (like the Boogie's Extreme) or training rides with friends. But I know some do. Why? Insecurity? Vanity? I don't know. I should ask some of my psychology friends to write me a profile.
 
Feb 4, 2010
547
0
0
Visit site
I once did a mtn bike race while doing mushrooms. I don't think I was any faster but I sure smiled the most of anyone out there.

Other than that I might have taken something for cold/whatever in an OTC medication that might has caused me to test positive but my racing "career" was pretty unimpressive and I don't think I was ever the target of any testers suspicion.

There did come a point when I was racing a lot that I realized that I didn't have the talent, drive, or discipline to be an employed pro racer and the thought crossed my mind. I never went there; for one, I didn't want it bad enough, I had a life outside of bike racing. Second, I couldn't afford it and third, I was leery of health side effects. The whole aspect of sportsmanship, fair play played a part also but to be honest it wasn't at the top of the list.

If I did have the gifts to compete at an elite level and make real money at bike racing I'm not sure if I would have gotten sucked into PEDs or not. It's easy for me to sit here and type and say I would not have violated the holy sport of cycling, but if I was in that position, where my livelihood depended on my ability to perform at he highest level possible, if I had that ultra competitive drive, would I resist? I don't know. I'd like to think I would have (and probably not been able to compete because of it) but I can't honestly say so for sure.

That's why I don't get wrapped up in the righteous indignation that so many who post here do. The old saying "but by the grace of god, go I" rings true in my ears.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Some interesting (and amusing) posts here.

9000ft said:
I once did a mtn bike race while doing mushrooms. I don't think I was any faster but I sure smiled the most of anyone out there.

Other than that I might have taken something for cold/whatever in an OTC medication that might has caused me to test positive but my racing "career" was pretty unimpressive and I don't think I was ever the target of any testers suspicion.
I am going to quote this excellent post though - as it brings up a lot of earlier points and raises some very interesting and pertinent hypotheticals.

Firstly, like a lot of others - you admit that you may have taken something to treat a medical condition that was on a banned list during an event.
I think that has happened all of us at some point - but of course our intention was to relieve a cold, not 'enhance performance'.
I certainly don't believe that is against the principles of the rule (and indeed, if we were Pro's we could get a TUE).

9000ft said:
There did come a point when I was racing a lot that I realized that I didn't have the talent, drive, or discipline to be an employed pro racer and the thought crossed my mind. I never went there; for one, I didn't want it bad enough, I had a life outside of bike racing. Second, I couldn't afford it and third, I was leery of health side effects. The whole aspect of sportsmanship, fair play played a part also but to be honest it wasn't at the top of the list.
This is good - you looked at doping objectively and weighed up the cost/risk of doing it and ultimately decided it wasn't worth it.
But it leaves open the possibility that if things had been stacked differently there may have been a different outcome.

9000ft said:
If I did have the gifts to compete at an elite level and make real money at bike racing I'm not sure if I would have gotten sucked into PEDs or not. It's easy for me to sit here and type and say I would not have violated the holy sport of cycling, but if I was in that position, where my livelihood depended on my ability to perform at he highest level possible, if I had that ultra competitive drive, would I resist? I don't know. I'd like to think I would have (and probably not been able to compete because of it) but I can't honestly say so for sure.

That's why I don't get wrapped up in the righteous indignation that so many who post here do. The old saying "but by the grace of god, go I" rings true in my ears.
That is an excellent honest assessment.

I believe unless someone is adhering to a strict religous or moral code - that most people would do as you have done and simply revert to weighing up the cost/benefits of PEDs - and as the system does not rigourously enforce those rules then that puts a lot of people at risk of making poor decisions.
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,035
0
0
Visit site
RedheadDane said:
I know it's completely irrelevant as I don't actually get tested. But recently I've been taken some herbal medicine to try fighting my cold. And I actually caught myself wondering if that would cause problems with anti-doping. :rolleyes:

Sadly enough it is entirely possible. There are a number of herbal remedies that not only contain things on the banned list but even contain things banned in some countries...

Its a conversation I have with my wife frequently - plant based medecines are not as far removed from synthetic tablets as people think and combining them in the wrong ways can be just as harmful as mixing 'normal' perscriptions...
 
Since I was completely average while racing and basically ended up being the preferred guinea pig (no, not coi) for various studies, I can say that I didn't dope. May have inhaled once or twice though. Where I would have tested positive:

1 - test of caffeine on performance. Don't have a clue how much they gave me, but my stomach basically went into knots and I couldn't double pole (note for test design - roller skiing has far too much variabilty to use in controlled testing)
2 - test of CO2 level on performance. Was actually really neat - felt great with slightly enriched oxygen, then when the CO2 went too high I started to see stars, eyes closed and the lab rats caught me pretty good at the back end of the treadmill while running full out.

Still remember the skier who always raced better when hungover. Whenever he didn't go for a bender, he would be way back in the pack instead of winning.
 
rickshaw said:
There's a bottle of HCTZ on the desk in front of me, which I have started taking daily. Its a diuretic for treating high blood pressure. Also used as a masking agent and a banned substance ( so I've read). If I was 35 years younger, AND a licensed bike racer I could be in trouble.

I'm in the same boat, and still race. Not like I'm going to any high-level races.
 
Aug 17, 2009
125
0
0
Visit site
I tried my dad's asthma inhaler once for a race - felt foolish about it all.

I was in a salbutamol (sp?) study later and found out I was non-responsive. I knew I was not on the placebo when I was in the study, it was kind of obvious.
 
Sep 23, 2009
409
0
0
Visit site
Random Direction said:
Since I was completely average while racing and basically ended up being the preferred guinea pig (no, not coi) for various studies, I can say that I didn't dope. May have inhaled once or twice though. Where I would have tested positive:

1 - test of caffeine on performance. Don't have a clue how much they gave me, but my stomach basically went into knots and I couldn't double pole (note for test design - roller skiing has far too much variabilty to use in controlled testing)
2 - test of CO2 level on performance. Was actually really neat - felt great with slightly enriched oxygen, then when the CO2 went too high I started to see stars, eyes closed and the lab rats caught me pretty good at the back end of the treadmill while running full out.

Still remember the skier who always raced better when hungover. Whenever he didn't go for a bender, he would be way back in the pack instead of winning.


The hang over dulls the brain and presents fearlessness temporarily!!
 
Aug 6, 2011
738
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Post about 9999ft

Excellent analysis. I was thinking the same thing. The last paragraph of 9999ft reminds me of my students when discussing some controversial psychological experiments, like Milgram's. In that experiment, participants inflicted a fatal shock to another participant, or so they believed, in the name of science. There's a good documentary about a replication of that experiment by the BBC (it can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcvSNg0HZwk). Most students declare they would never do that, but the statistics tell us a big part of them actually would. It always easy to say you won't do something, when you're not in a particular situation.

It's easy saying you won't dope when you're sitting in front of your computer.
 
Mar 9, 2010
551
0
0
Visit site
if marijuana can be considered a ped, then yes.

what about lsd and mushrooms? are these banned in pro sports?

in my courier days i would smoke weed several times a day. i needed this to help me manage my anger issues in city traffic.

for racing i never did. unless you count drinking beer during a fixie alley cat.

also, there were many days when heavy doses of nsaids were required if i had to ride after a long night.
 
WillemS said:
...The last paragraph of 9999ft reminds me of my students when discussing some controversial psychological experiments, like Milgram's. In that experiment, participants inflicted a fatal shock to another participant, or so they believed...


Milgram's 'teacher' participants were supplying (what they believed were) shocks to the level of unresponsiveness of their 'learner' counterparts. Not to some presumption or informed conclusion of fatal dosage.

In fact, the proctor was directed to assure them, if they questioned the (increasing) voltage level, that in no case could "permanent tissue damage" result.

Whether the 'learner' was to be thought of as simply unconscious from the pain, or incapacitated, or indeed dead, was left entirely to the imagination of the 'teacher'/subject. That was part of the experimental conditions and, therefore, part of the point.

It's all horrible -- and horribly telling -- that the vast majority of subjects continued past the point of unresponsiveness of their correlate. But let's not misrepresent the factual terms of that seminal experiment; it was plenty eye-opening as-is, and doesn't need a whit of sensationalizing.
 
Not the world.

It has a very strange tone to Brit ears. We think "drugs" as in... drugs when we hear that.

In the UK, they are called "Chemists"

In Europe, various formations of the terms "Pharmacy" or "Apothecary" are used.
 
Animal said:
Not the world.

It has a very strange tone to Brit ears. We think "drugs" as in... drugs when we hear that.

In the UK, they are called "Chemists"

In Europe, various formations of the terms "Pharmacy" or "Apothecary" are used.
do they sell drugs or chemicals? i do like the other descriptions,more poetic.
but you know what i mean.as in 'we got pills for that"...