Doping gives a 40% advantage according to cyclists

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Darryl Webster said:
Peeps often comment that cycling gets a rough ride ( no pun intented!) re doping and is doing more than almost any other sport to clean up.
There may or may not be truth in that statement. However it realy isnt a "defence" is it?...its more a cry of "its not fair".
And perhaps it`s not, but then neither is doping and the extreeme cardiouvasculer nature of endurance cycling "benifts" more than possibly any other sport from the use of EPO.
Due to extreem high risks associated with EPO and a substantial number of deaths of young riders in circumstances that indicated EPO use this sport had to "be seen" to act.
Via the Biological Passport it has "appeared" to do so buts its become apparent that theres been cover ups and the passport has been used as doping regulater rather than a preventer.
How other sports bare up to scrutiny realy isnt our concern is it?. Should we allter integrity standards to the lowest tollerable standard?
I recently asked a pal of mine who`s realy into football what he thought of doping in football...he replied it didnt bother him and he didnt know any fan who was bothered. The perception seemed to be that doping cant give ya the skill to be a footballer..and I guess he`s right.
Cycling`s drug issue is cyclings drug issue. Whatever other sports do or dont two wrongs do not make a right.
while it cant give the skill it readily gives the muscle tone and the ability to sprint for 90+ minutes which is a big part of the modern game of football. the pace of the game has got very fast.

i do agree with what you stated about doping in cycling being cycling's problem.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Benotti69 said:
while it cant give the skill it readily gives the muscle tone and the ability to sprint for 90+ minutes which is a big part of the modern game of football. the pace of the game has got very fast.

i do agree with what you stated about doping in cycling being cycling's problem.


Thats why I said the "perception"..your average football fan isnt aware of the improvements EPO might bring and frankly doest much care because I guess they see no matter how fast or for how long you can run if you havnt got ball skills it`s of no consequence.
Conversly...most cycling actualy doesnt require a great deal of skill ,more a fair bit of courage and cardivasculour improving PEDS effect the very essence of the athletic persuit.
 
Darryl Webster said:
Cycling`s drug issue is cyclings drug issue. Whatever other sports do or dont two wrongs do not make a right
:confused:

I never said other sports doping excuses cycling. I said nothing of the sort. The poster said that doping isnt responsible for the gap between 50's and today. His argument was that we see similar gaps in other sports.

The implication being that other sports dont dope and they have had similar improvements.

I made the point that this argument doesnt work, becaue other sports do dope. So dope might be responsible for the improvement of Alpe times.

I recently asked a pal of mine who`s realy into football what he thought of doping in football...he replied it didnt bother him and he didnt know any fan who was bothered. The perception seemed to be that doping cant give ya the skill to be a footballer..and I guess he`s right.
.
Weve been over this.

1 Drugs would be helpful in football. For speed, For power and for recovery. These things are more important than skill.

2 on the few occasions that people have looked for drugs in football, theyve found drugs in football

3 Many say that the greatest benefit of peds would be in injury recovery. Footballers get injured more than other sports. Teams have million dollar facilities just for rapid injury rehabilitation. Some even use some dodgy red blood cell extrapolation machines.

4 Most fans dont care about it because the media doesnt care about it. Theres absolutely no doping stories, and if there was the authors would get sued. Outside cn forums the perception is that doping is undertaken by a very small % of bad guys in cycling and running who want to cheat. Everyone is innocent untill proven guilty and in most cases, seen as innocent regardless.

5 There is more money in football. Take the salary of the average cyclist. Double it, then multiply it by 52. Now you have the average salary of a mediocre footballer. For a top earning footballer, take a cyclists salary, multiply it by 200 then add £20 million a year in sponsorship.

In this kind of enviroment, with this money on the line, I wouldnt be surprised if guys were spraying themselves with pixie dust because they heard it gives you a 1% advantage.

EPO and steroids are a given.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Hitch, I never said YOU were saying other sports doping excuses cycling..I said " Some peeps..."

Re the football. Im not giving MY opinion..im speeking of average football fans perspective...or at least the ones I know.
And despite the increase in speed , skills remain at the core of being a good player.
Look at the spanish and south american football coaching systems and the emphasis is on skills and team work.

Thats not say doping isnt widespread in football,I believe it is and in conjuction with great skills "works".
Any way..its a bit of an asside...like I said,cyclings doping issues are cyclings doping problem.
 
The Hitch said:
You seem to have unknowingly made a case against your stance.

The differences in marathon and other sports are very different between 1950 and 2000.

Exactly:)

Other sports dope too. As much as cycling if not more. No wonder their times have improved vastly with the advent of epo and other drugs.
You really think the only gain you make in times is because of doping?
 
Darryl Webster said:
Hitch, I never said YOU were saying other sports doping excuses cycling..I said " Some peeps..."
Woops. In that case sorry.

Any way..its a bit of an asside...like I said,cyclings doping issues are cyclings doping problem.
I agree. But nevertheless, i enjoy occasionaly looking at the idea that other sports who claim themselves holier than thou, are just as dirty.

Arnout said:
You really think the only gain you make in times is because of doping?
No I dont. But 11 minutes improvements in time leaves a lot of space. Sure a lot of that is taken up by better equipment. A lot of that is taken up by shorter stages. A lot of that is taken up by better nutrition.

But theres still a lot of unexplained time left. Id say that unexplained time = doping.

And time improvements in marathon, where its always the same distance, and same equipment (with the exception of that etheopian who won the olympics bare foot) can be put down mostly to doping i would say.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
The Hitch said:
Woops. In that case sorry.



I agree. But nevertheless, i enjoy occasionaly looking at the idea that other sports who claim themselves holier than thou, are just as dirty.



No I dont. But 11 minutes improvements in time leaves a lot of space. Sure a lot of that is taken up by better equipment. A lot of that is taken up by shorter stages. A lot of that is taken up by better nutrition.

But theres still a lot of unexplained time left. Id say that unexplained time = doping.

And time improvements in marathon, where its always the same distance, and same equipment (with the exception of that etheopian who won the olympics bare foot) can be put down mostly to doping i would say.
myth see post #48
 
Good post about the money, Hitch. Very true in American sports as well. The MLB took a huge bust to only stop the worst cheating, but no one really thinks there are zero steroids in baseball anymore. The NFL seems to only want to stop the worst, most obvious steroid users as well, and offers what we would think of as minimal suspensions (4-6 games usually). The NBA, don't get me started, though that league is somewhat rigged by officiating and other issues anyway - all of it slanted for the purposes of one thing: Money.

I've been too busy to remember, and am still too busy to look it up, but someone did a study about equipment advantage between about 1980 and today, and found that it amounted to about 5 watts, that's it.

Anyone who doesn't think the main reason cycling is so much faster in the last 20 years is because of superior drugs is living with blinders on.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Jun 16, 2009
19,657
1
0
Mambo95 said:
All sportsmen, including cyclists, say they give 110% (sometimes more) when they compete. They're not exactly reliable mathematicians.
I seriously hate when people say 110%
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Good post about the money, Hitch. Very true in American sports as well. The MLB took a huge bust to only stop the worst cheating, but no one really thinks there are zero steroids in baseball anymore. The NFL seems to only want to stop the worst, most obvious steroid users as well, and offers what we would think of as minimal suspensions (4-6 games usually). The NBA, don't get me started, though that league is somewhat rigged by officiating and other issues anyway - all of it slanted for the purposes of one thing: Money.

I've been too busy to remember, and am still too busy to look it up, but someone did a study about equipment advantage between about 1980 and today, and found that it amounted to about 5 watts, that's it.

Anyone who doesn't think the main reason cycling is so much faster in the last 20 years is because of superior drugs is living with blinders on.
Yeah... I'm going to have to look into the protocols of that study, because it certainly seems questionable.

Not only lighter bikes (UCI had to create a 'light bike' limit, remember), but aerodynamics as well. Something like a minute in a 40km TT for a bit of aero gear you can get at the local shop?

Who can imagine climbing like a monster on an '80s rig (10kg) versus something from today (8kg if they're sticking to the rules). That's two kg of lead hanging from your *ss.

How hard are riders trying to lose weight for the big races? A couple of kilos is a lot of weight.

As I said, I'm gonna have to look at the protocol. It sounds a little appologetic...
 
The Hitch said:
Woops. In that case sorry.



I agree. But nevertheless, i enjoy occasionaly looking at the idea that other sports who claim themselves holier than thou, are just as dirty.



No I dont. But 11 minutes improvements in time leaves a lot of space. Sure a lot of that is taken up by better equipment. A lot of that is taken up by shorter stages. A lot of that is taken up by better nutrition.

But theres still a lot of unexplained time left. Id say that unexplained time = doping.

And time improvements in marathon, where its always the same distance, and same equipment (with the exception of that etheopian who won the olympics bare foot) can be put down mostly to doping i would say.
Oke, I checked the average times for the Tour in the last 25 years or so (which is of course a very unreliable method of checking times and performances, but its easy), and what I notice is a sudden increase in average speed in the 90s, as you would expect, with a peak at I believe 41 km/h, but since 1998 the average speeds were relatively stable with a decrease in the last years (in fact, the 2010 Tour was the first Tour since a long time in which average speed dropped below 40 again).

Now, indeed the times have been increasing. But I think there is a very important factor that is often overlooked (apart from the obvious ones such as shorter stages etc) and that is the defensive riding of the last years. The more defensive people ride, the higher the average speed will be, just because more riders will make the effort at the front. There is no way Eddy Merckx could have pulled out the trick he did once by jumping away at the start and basically winning solo with everyone chasing. The combined speed of the current peloton is simply too high for that nowadays.
 
Aug 4, 2009
1,056
0
0
After trying everything over past 50 years i cant find anything that works that wont kill you

I know heaps of old cyclist who diede young.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
I've been too busy to remember, and am still too busy to look it up, but someone did a study about equipment advantage between about 1980 and today, and found that it amounted to about 5 watts, that's it. Ah, snap, that aero Cervelo with the ZIPP808 wheels was for naught!
 
brianf7 said:
After trying everything over past 50 years i cant find anything that works that wont kill you

I know heaps of old cyclist who diede young.
I also know lots of old cyclists that died old. Fact is that pro cycling in itself is unhealthy, as cyclists tend too eat heaps of food. After their career that can become a problem very quickly.
 
Jul 29, 2010
431
0
0
Arnout said:
..what I notice is a sudden increase in average speed in the 90s, as you would expect, with a peak at I believe 41 km/h, but since 1998 the average speeds were relatively stable with a decrease in the last years...

There is no way Eddy Merckx could have pulled out the trick he did once by jumping away at the start and basically winning solo with everyone chasing. The combined speed of the current peloton is simply too high for that nowadays.
Arnout, not sure exactly what your point is. Sounds like you're saying the INCREASES in speed peaked at '98, but then held steady until just recently. That does not speak well for the argument that doping was "the prior generation".

Merckx...perhaps he could stay away if not for the EARPIECES used nowadays. Also, as for cyclists getting fat post-retirement b/c they are accostumed to eating lots of food? I'd argue that. If anything it seems most cyclists have internalized a lifestyle where they are hyper-sensitive about weight gain. Many retired cyclists I see are still very lean.
 
blackcat said:
dubious premise in italics, implying a current status.
We have to assume that doping programmes are customised to some extent. It's highly unlikely that a doping doctor would have a sprinter and a climber on the same cocktail.

Even if a top sprinter is in fact on a doping programme, he wouldn't be using dope to maximise his climbing potential. He'd be adding strength for top speed and acceleration reasons for starters, so even if he was on a blood doping programme to get him over the mountains, the stuff taken for strength would be screwing with GC potential.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 12
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 9

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS