Do long stages lead to doping?

Jul 9, 2010
127
0
0
This question has been on my mind for a long time, and I was reminded of it because of the comments on yesterday's T-A stage of 208km with that monstrous triple climb. Purportedly, those long and hard stages lead to (more) doping. Personally, I don't buy that, as the consequence would be that there'd be no doping if you were to turn every stage into, say, a 60km crit. Furthermore, the shorter the stage, the more riders do think they have a chance of winning, hence the higher the pressure on them, and the more incentive to dope. But maybe I'm wrong. What are the thoughts here in the Clinic?
 
No. Absolutely 100 % no.

U just go slower.

Doping is all about getting an advantage to win, do better than you would, or gain or keep a pro contract. Doping is results orientated. The length of races is one of if not the greatest red herring in the doping debate.
 
Jul 9, 2010
127
0
0
I believe the argument is that more would resort to doping for recovery after a long stage. Then again, I do remember the peleton taking it easy every now and then, riding a stage at an average of about 35km/h on a flattish stage. Must've been twenty years ago when that last happened in the TdF...
 
arjanh said:
I believe the argument is that more would resort to doping for recovery after a long stage. Then again, I do remember the peleton taking it easy every now and then, riding a stage at an average of about 35km/h on a flattish stage. Must've been twenty years ago when that last happened in the TdF...
recovery helps you to make a 100 kms stage too. It's an advantage anyway.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
If every stage had three walls like stage 6 of the T-A, then I could imagine doping occuring simply to allow recovery, and thus increasing doping.

But since modern GT stage races are nothing like as hard as that, you dope to win (or overperform in any case), no more no less.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
It's not the length of a stage that 'encourages' doping, it all starts with one guy/team looking for that extra advantage and that one guy/team starts the arms race.
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
1
0
Netserk said:
:confused:

If they dope for 100m, then it's clear that it isn't because of the distance, but because they want to win.
Exactly, so they also dope for 1000KM's, another yes.
 
Apr 3, 2011
2,301
0
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
Wanting to win bike races leads to doping...
then abandon this animalistic predatory unhuman pavlovian reflex called "winning"


here, job done, no dope, just riding for fun (and vodka/ganja/etc. producers sponsoring it)
 
Jul 9, 2010
127
0
0
OK, so the consensus is that it's BS. So then why do they perpetuate this lie? Then it occurred to me, maybe they _are_ right, but in a different kind of way. It's not that more riders dope, but that the dopers need more dope. So when the stages weren't that long and tough, you may not need that second BB in the third week. Less cumbersome BB-logistics, less BBs needed per year, less chance of failing the UCI IQ test, everybody's happy.

Anyways, I already distrusted anyone who said this, but even more so now.
 
arjanh said:
It's not that more riders dope, but that the dopers need more dope. So when the stages weren't that long and tough, you may not need that second BB in the third week. Less cumbersome BB-logistics, less BBs needed per year, less chance of failing the UCI IQ test, everybody's happy.
That doesn't make much more sense either. Any BB is useful. If you get 2 and your opponent 3, you're losing. No matter if tomorrow you'll have to ride 150 kms or 250 kms... your opponent will be fresher than you.
And as the distance get shorter you also need doping to increase your max power output rather than recovery.
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,642
0
0
If someone else is taking that second BB, you are at a disadvantage however long the stage is. The chance to win causes doping. I have no idea what causes race directors to put in so many short stages.
 
Jul 9, 2010
127
0
0
Caruut said:
If someone else is taking that second BB, you are at a disadvantage however long the stage is. The chance to win causes doping. I have no idea what causes race directors to put in so many short stages.
Fair point. I'm just wondering why they keep on saying this. There must be a reason for it, and these guys aren't dumb.
 
arjanh said:
Fair point. I'm just wondering why they keep on saying this. There must be a reason for it, and these guys aren't dumb.
Riders keep on saying it because they're a bunch of lazy ********
Many teams are happy because shorter stages are more controllable
Organizers don't care about it, plus that way they can jump on the bandwagon and show they care about the riders.
 
Oct 20, 2012
285
0
0
I think that a lot of riders dope in order to recover quicly and ride the next huge distance stage the next day. From this point of view I think that shorter stages would allow them to avoid at least extreme doping.

The problem with doping is not only the "cheating" but the fact that the substances that dopers use can be dangerous or fatal for them.

Anyway.. the ultimate and the best would be races with no prizes and no time counting. Someone who loves cycling rides for fun and not for fame or money.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 11
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY