How much do PEDs really account for a cyclists?

Jul 22, 2009
754
0
0
The reason I ask this is because every successful sportsman who, off the record, admit to doping tries to minimize the benefits of PEDs as "icing on the cake" or "makes you ride a little faster, that's all", et cetera. And in reality, there's no way to tell.

Then I stumbled upon a recent photograph of a former bodybuilder, Tom Prince, someone who was "juiced to the guills" as they say and then quit juicing due to health problems:



Bodybuilding is the perfect sports when it comes to seeing the advantages of PED cycles precisely because you can literally see the advantages. And they are obvious. I know, I know, bodybuilding is not cycling. But, surprisingly enough, bodybuilder's cycles are eerily similar to those of the cyclists: testosterone or derivatives, GH, clenbuterol, et cetera.

Do you think cyclists are BSing all of us when they say the advantage gained by taking PEDs is minimal?

Who's kidding who?
 
Jul 22, 2009
754
0
0
Believe me, even though I knew the effects of PEDs are great (I actually took a little deca (nandrolone) here and there in the late 80s-very, very, very small cycle) I used to believe their stories about it providing a minimal advantage.

THEN I went to see the first L'anglirú stage in 1999, knowing full well how mindboggingly difficult the climb was and... let's just say I was take aback Big Time at the pace these guys were going at, even where I was standing, which was right before the Cueña les Cabres.

THEN I knew some cyclists were full of hot air.
 
Oct 8, 2010
450
0
0
Señor_Contador said:
The reason I ask this is because every successful sportsman who, off the record, admit to doping tries to minimize the benefits of PEDs as "icing on the cake" or "makes you ride a little faster, that's all", et cetera. And in reality, there's no way to tell.

Do you think cyclists are BSing all of us when they say the advantage gained by taking PEDs is minimal?

Who's kidding who?
The effects of PEDs are HUGE. Without PEDs these cyclists would be packfill. One merely has to look at the case of Genevieve Jeanson. While taking EPO, she could ride away from women's World Cup fields (i.e. Montreal). Without EPO she was just pack-fill.

The effect of EPO with Jeanson shows you just how effective doping techniques are. The women's field is a great control group because everyone is sure that 99% of them are on nothing. And when one rider decides to cheat, she can blow their doors off in a way that made Merckx's breakaways look candyass.

Without EPO and blood doping, Lance would be just like Jeanson without EPO.
 
Aug 4, 2009
1,056
0
0
PEDS wont turn Donkeys into Race Horses you still need to have the genetic build to be able to ride your **** off and have some real base form before you add PEDS then the boost is noted when you drop the bunch.
 
brianf7 said:
PEDS wont turn Donkeys into Race Horses you still need to have the genetic build to be able to ride your **** off and have some real base form before you add PEDS then the boost is noted when you drop the bunch.
Yes, but there are several thousands pro-level cyclists whom with a good mix of PED's and methods, and be turned into protour final contenders, GC contenders. Hundreds already ARE doing all the can in terms of doping (trying to not get caught), they might have been amateurs without it. The ones who can be pro clean, can be world class winners with PEDs. Donky is a relative term.
Me, I am a donky untrained and undoped. Trained, I suppose I was near pro level (was too lazy to train enough though). That was without taking proteins or anything. Now that later in life I notice how much basic nutricion can do, let alone a full on doping program, I suppose I could indeed have been an Olympian, as I've been told by various people. The perception though always was "if only he trained more, ate better". But reality would have been, that I'd have had to dope to reach that top level. This pretty much comforts me, as just being a pro among thousands, would not have really made me feel as special as I would have been looking for. I quit racing due to asthma and salbutamol being on the list, so doping to go faster doesn't really tempt me.
 
brianf7 said:
PEDS wont turn Donkeys into Race Horses you still need to have the genetic build to be able to ride your **** off and have some real base form before you add PEDS then the boost is noted when you drop the bunch.
First of all, there are no donkeys in the pro field. We're talking about turning race horses into Secretariats. Please stop repeating that silly analogy.
 
Oct 11, 2010
777
0
0
Moose McKnuckles said:
First of all, there are no donkeys in the pro field. We're talking about turning race horses into Secretariats. Please stop repeating that silly analogy.
Yeah, that was his point. You need to be a race horse to be a pro, PED's or not.
 
brianf7 said:
PEDS wont turn Donkeys into Race Horses you still need to have the genetic build to be able to ride your **** off and have some real base form before you add PEDS then the boost is noted when you drop the bunch.
This is a bogus assumption that has been parroted ad nauseum for I don't know how long. And it's wrong on many levels.

PED's have turned all types of donkeys into racehorses over the last 30 years. We've seen this happen not just in cycling but in all sports.

Everything is relative. While someone is sitting home on their behinds drinking beer and eating chips, this doesn't mean you give him 'roids and he becomes a pro rider.

But among pro riders, who are usually better than the best amateurs, there are donkeys that have won major races due to steroid use. And when I say donkey, it is not in relation to the guy at home eating chips but in comparison to other riders in his peer group.

Once this distinction becomes clarified then we can have a more pragmatic conversation about this topic.

Just the fact that steroids gives you better results and lets an athlete train harder and longer is enough to indicate that once the workload increases at an exponential rate, so will the results.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
0
0
brianf7 said:
PEDS wont turn Donkeys into Race Horses you still need to have the genetic build to be able to ride your **** off and have some real base form before you add PEDS then the boost is noted when you drop the bunch.
PEDs do indeed turn donkeys into thoroughbreds. I have it on confirmation from a guy on a Tour winning team.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
0
0
Moose McKnuckles said:
First of all, there are no donkeys in the pro field. We're talking about turning race horses into Secretariats. Please stop repeating that silly analogy.
donkeys as euphemism for pack fodder or nackery, thoroughbreds as euphemism for champions.
 
Jul 6, 2009
795
0
0
Cloxxki said:
Yes, but there are several thousands pro-level cyclists whom with a good mix of PED's and methods, and be turned into protour final contenders, GC contenders. Hundreds already ARE doing all the can in terms of doping (trying to not get caught), they might have been amateurs without it. The ones who can be pro clean, can be world class winners with PEDs. Donky is a relative term.
Me, I am a donky untrained and undoped. Trained, I suppose I was near pro level (was too lazy to train enough though). That was without taking proteins or anything. Now that later in life I notice how much basic nutricion can do, let alone a full on doping program, I suppose I could indeed have been an Olympian, as I've been told by various people. The perception though always was "if only he trained more, ate better". But reality would have been, that I'd have had to dope to reach that top level. This pretty much comforts me, as just being a pro among thousands, would not have really made me feel as special as I would have been looking for. I quit racing due to asthma and salbutamol being on the list, so doping to go faster doesn't really tempt me.
this is a perfect example of why the clinic is so messed up delusional people who think they would have been top level pro if they took a bunch of ped's
this delusion makes them bitter and go crazy when athletes dope. basically by telling yourself this you protect yourself mentally and do not have to accept that others are simply better natural athletes which they are. if any rider could dope and kick *** there would be a lot of pro tour riders pouring out of the socal racing circuit lol. of course peds help but they are not the end all be all if that were true anyone could go pro in most any sport.
 
Jul 6, 2009
795
0
0
brianf7 said:
PEDS wont turn Donkeys into Race Horses you still need to have the genetic build to be able to ride your **** off and have some real base form before you add PEDS then the boost is noted when you drop the bunch.
yeah exactly agree. good luck with that viewpoint around here though exhausting.
 
forty four said:
this is a perfect example of why the clinic is so messed up delusional people who think they would have been top level pro if they took a bunch of ped's
this delusion makes them bitter and go crazy when athletes dope. basically by telling yourself this you protect yourself mentally and do not have to accept that others are simply better natural athletes which they are. if any rider could dope and kick *** there would be a lot of pro tour riders pouring out of the socal racing circuit lol. of course peds help but they are not the end all be all if that were true anyone could go pro in most any sport.
You would certainly think such, I can see that.
But it's daily reality. Decent amateurs dope to make it to the big league, only to end up national level donkies once there. Some may dope (and train) really well and become a fixed value in the pro peloton.
My humble self, I put out 506W in a VO2max test, in my off-season when I was way lazy. I know I have been stronger after, and could have lived much more dedicated. Dope on top of that (or even just in stead) would if I had wanted it, surely pushed me up one level. Not saying I'd win GC's, even if I like the idea. There are many thousands like me. And there are thousands who doped and did get their contract.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
blackcat said:
donkeys as euphemism for pack fodder or nackery, thoroughbreds as euphemism for champions.
Thanks for the clarification. For a moment I thought that the new generation of gene doping was ACTUALLY turning donkeys into cyclists.

That would suck. Unless they could gene-cross with gorillas... Now that would be cool.

Forget throwing a bottle (and a hissy-fit) when you get illegally stuffed in a sprint, how about a full-on throw down where riders' arms get torn off? Followed up with an enlivened colour commentary about the loser jumping up and down and the winner's chest?

That's what I'd like to see. Plus, some riders throwing their own sh*t wouldn't hurt either. I'd pay for that.
 
forty four said:
this is a perfect example of why the clinic is so messed up delusional people who think they would have been top level pro if they took a bunch of ped's
this delusion makes them bitter and go crazy when athletes dope. basically by telling yourself this you protect yourself mentally and do not have to accept that others are simply better natural athletes which they are. if any rider could dope and kick *** there would be a lot of pro tour riders pouring out of the socal racing circuit lol. of course peds help but they are not the end all be all if that were true anyone could go pro in most any sport.
This is a perfect example of why The Clinic is so messed up: Delusional people who apologize for dopers by making up strawmen arguments to support their morally bankrupt cause. This delusion makes them bitter and go crazy when people point out that athletes dope. Basically, by telling themselves this they protect themselves mentally and do not have to accept that their idols are cheaters who would never have achieved anything near what they did without the use of drugs. Many athletes are simply not better natural athletes; their advantage was the willingness to take more dope than the competition. If any rider could ride clean and kick *** there would be a lot of clean racing Pro Rour riders and GT winners. LOL. Of course PEDs help but the willingness to take more dope helps even more. Why cannot you just leave Lance alone? Wah. Wah. Wah. Screw you guys. I'm going home for a week.

I think I got the gist of it.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
BroDeal said:
This is a perfect example of why The Clinic is so messed up: Delusional people who apologize for dopers by making up strawmen arguments to support their morally bankrupt cause. This delusion makes them bitter and go crazy when people point out that athletes dope. Basically, by telling themselves this they protect themselves mentally and do not have to accept that their idols are cheaters who would never have achieved anything near what they did without the use of drugs. Many athletes are simply not better natural athletes; their advantage was the willingness to take more dope than the competition. If any rider could ride clean and kick *** there would be a lot of clean racing Pro Rour riders and GT winners. LOL. Of course PEDs help but the willingness to take more dope helps even more. Why cannot you just leave Lance alone? Wah. Wah. Wah. Screw you guys. I'm going home for a week.

I think I got the gist of it.
My basic arguement is and always has been and forever shall be, is that there are many factors aside from 'freaks o' nature,' or 'dopers' that factor into champions in cycling. For instance, it has been explained to me that Coppi used Peds and Bartoli did not. Why were they competitive? In this case they both had the almighty lazer-like focus, incredible VO2 max, mental toughness, etc. I would say the difference between those two was moral and spiritual, nothing to do with PEDs just differing personalities. Both champions.
 
flicker said:
My basic arguement is and always has been and forever shall be, is that there are many factors aside from 'freaks o' nature,' or 'dopers' that factor into champions in cycling. For instance, it has been explained to me that Coppi used Peds and Bartoli did not. Why were they competitive? In this case they both had the almighty lazer-like focus, incredible VO2 max, mental toughness, etc. I would say the difference between those two was moral and spiritual, nothing to do with PEDs just differing personalities. Both champions.
Typical apologist misdirection that equates all PEDs. Popping an amphetamine or two is vastly different than doctor assisted use of transfustions, EPO, and a grundle of other drugs. Dr. Fuentes had Jesus Manzano on more drugs than the stocking list of a Walmart pharmacy. This is the latest excuse from those who still cling to their idol, trying to convice people that it does not matter how much he cheated, he is still a champion.
 
BroDeal said:
Nope. EPO would be of limited use for me. My hematocrit is already at 50+%, and I still suck.
You need to embrace a positive attitude with a killer instinct and train harder. Focus, focus, focus. When David Millar calls you on Christmas Day, you need to be on your bicycle.

This is what it takes to make a real cycling champion.

HCT is meaningless.

Dave.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
BroDeal said:
Typical apologist misdirection that equates all PEDs. Popping an amphetamine or two is vastly different than doctor assisted use of transfustions, EPO, and a grundle of other drugs. Dr. Fuentes had Jesus Manzano on more drugs than the stocking list of a Walmart pharmacy. This is the latest excuse from those who still cling to their idol, trying to convice people that it does not matter how much he cheated, he is still a champion.
For the sake of arguement, let us take Poulidor, Coppi and Bartoli. If Poulidor, Coppi and Bartoli were on the full medical program, and raced against Sella, Ricco and Pantani what would the results be.
What percentage of Poulidor, Coppi and Bartolis' winning capabilities be enhanced? It is an interesting question, don't you think. I always saw Coppi Pulidor and Bartoli at the top of their game. Would Poulidors long career have been shortened or lengthened. Would Poulidor have beaten Anquentil or Merckx in the GTs if he had had the magic elixers?
 
flicker said:
For the sake of arguement, let us take Poulidor, Coppi and Bartoli. If Poulidor, Coppi and Bartoli were on the full medical program, and raced against Sella, Ricco and Pantani what would the results be.
What percentage of Poulidor, Coppi and Bartolis' winning capabilities be enhanced? It is an interesting question, don't you think. I always saw Coppi Pulidor and Bartoli at the top of their game. Would Poulidors long career have been shortened or lengthened. Would Poulidor have beaten Anquentil or Merckx in the GTs if he had had the magic elixers?
No, because the current group are from subsequent generations with superior and improved genetics. And, those guys never believed in miracles either. ;)

Dave.

(Yes, this is sarcastic as I am not even suggesting gene doping but rather echoing the proposition that somehow, one and a half generations later, the genetic makeup of the peloton is markedly superior to the days of Coppi. Of course, if that were the case Axel would also have an hour record to his name.)
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
D-Queued said:
No, because the current group are from subsequent generations with superior and improved genetics. And, those guys never believed in miracles either. ;)

Dave.

(Yes, this is sarcastic as I am not even suggesting gene doping but rather echoing the proposition that somehow, one and a half generations later, the genetic makeup of the peloton is markedly superior to the days of Coppi. Of course, if that were the case Axel would also have an hour record to his name.)
I am just interested in the percentage of improvement with the PEDs with the already off the chart champions. The improvement would be remarkable, or not so much. Lets say Poulidor had doped, how would he compare with Basso if he had doped. To me it is interesting.
Once gene splicing for sports becomes commonplace there will no longer be a reason to watch sports, in my opinion.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY