How's this for unrepentant?

[stephens]

You know, I guess I've never really thought of cycling as an "endurance event," in the sense that Buckwheat seems to. I wonder if that plays in to our different view on the rules issue? To me, cycling is a racing event. It's a combination of man, machine, preparation, team tactics, skill, and all that. Whereas "endurance event," to me sounds like most triathalons or marathons these days where they just run until one by one they fall off the pace until one guy is left to cross the line first (though chicago this year was a real race!).

Perhaps because I care about all those other elements in cycling, I'm less bothered by whether some cyclists are giving themselves physical advantages that they shouldn't be. It doesn't harm the racing as far as I can tell. It's certainly a hell of a lot more exciting to watch/follow than marathons or triathalons.

But if one did view cycling as merely a competition to determine who has the best physical endurance, then surely they would indeed be much more bothered by any tweaking of the natural order of things. I think these folks could save themselves a lot of trouble and just test the athletes in the lab each spring and then hand out the awards right there, but...

 

[Maxiton]

You know, I guess I've never really thought of cycling as an "endurance event," in the sense that Buckwheat seems to. I wonder if that plays in to our different view on the rules issue? To me, cycling is a racing event. It's a combination of man, machine, preparation, team tactics, skill, and all that. Whereas "endurance event," to me sounds like most triathalons or marathons these days where they just run until one by one they fall off the pace until one guy is left to cross the line first (though chicago this year was a real race!).

Perhaps because I care about all those other elements in cycling, I'm less bothered by whether some cyclists are giving themselves physical advantages that they shouldn't be. It doesn't harm the racing as far as I can tell. It's certainly a hell of a lot more exciting to watch/follow than marathons or triathalons.

But if one did view cycling as merely a competition to determine who has the best physical endurance, then surely they would indeed be much more bothered by any tweaking of the natural order of things. I think these folks could save themselves a lot of trouble and just test the athletes in the lab each spring and then hand out the awards right there, but...

OK, stephens, I was with you up to this point, but grand tours are definitely endurance events. In fact, there is no other endurance event that requires more endurance. None that I can think of, anyway. Somebody likened it to running a marathon every day for three weeks. Which really begs the question of whether these grand tours are simply too tough.

Personally, I'd much prefer seeing them ridden without anything stronger than sports drink and coffee. But I don't think that's ever happened and I doubt it ever will. The alternative then is to control what can be controlled, and monitor what can't be.

 

[stephens]

Of course the grand tours require tremendous endurance. But I still see them as races. And the winners are not often those who had the best endurance. Heck, I think Armstrong won some of his years without spending more than a few minutes in the wind the whole time (other than time trials), so for him perhaps the team element was the key to victory. (or maybe he really did just dope more than everyone else.).

Even in the grand tours, the overall winner is not much interest to me. I just see it as a bunch of individual races to enjoy watching.

Anyway...what I meant to describe was the difference between seeing the sport as racing, versus seeing it as a pure test of physical ability. The more one leans to one side or the other, perhaps the more likely his view of what an athlete should be allowed to legally to do "prepare" or "repair" will change?

 

[Oldman]

Of course the grand tours require tremendous endurance. But I still see them as races.

And the winners are not often those who had the best endurance. Heck, I think Armstrong won some of his years without spending more than a few minutes in the wind the whole time (other than time trials), so for him perhaps the team element was the key to victory. (or maybe he really did just dope more than everyone else.).

Even in the grand tours, the overall winner is not much interest to me. I just see it as a bunch of individual races to enjoy watching.

Anyway...what I meant to describe was the difference between seeing the sport as racing, versus seeing it as a pure test of physical ability. The more one leans to one side or the other, perhaps the more likely his view of what an athlete should be allowed to legally to do "prepare" or "repair" will change?

Get your license, train and race a middling 3 day stage race. Endurance and recovery are the essence of bike racing, not a needle in the arm. This is pure Tool talk if I ever saw a line of reasoning.

 

[dbrower]

ChrisE, I don't think the discussion here is blood transfusions vs. food & rest, but rather blood transfusions vs. legal products and methods that help recovery or enhance your performance. That said, I'm willing to accept they're an unnecessary health risk and as such should be banned.

Some of this could lead to rational discussion of "risk". It's probably the case that more Pro Cyclists are killed/injured/hospitalized each year from accidents while training or racing than are killed/injured/hospitalized for complications from doping programs. In fact, among those doping, probably many more are hurt from accidents than as side effects of their doping programs.

At the bottom, what is prohibited really seems to me to be a compendium of things that seem 'icky' to a significant proportion of the people who could be put off it they were in the open. That includes sponsors, media, and folks on the street.

It's less clear when you start talking digestibles, particularly in the form of supplements. There's a lot of 'natural' over-the-counter or off-the-shelf stuff that contains things that are prohibited. It's not clear to me where the 'ick' factor is for those, or the health risk.

If one were to adopt the historic practice of eating bull's testicles to get testosterone, where does it change from 'careful natural nutrition' into 'prohibited and immoral doping'.

The lines seems arbitrarily drawn to me, but so is the UCI bike weight limit, and the rule that mandates a double-triangle frame, prohibiting the y-foil or a soft-ride.

I'm more comfortable just saying they are arbitrary rather than trying to wrap them up in moral, ethical, or spiritual wrappers.

-dB

 

[dbrower]

You want to rationalize it to being ok? The logistics of doping are pretty nauseating. Read Tyler Hamilton's doping calender.

I'd probably have found the riding and workout parts of his training calendar equally nauseating. As I sometimes find schedules at work. Just because something is involved doesn't make it inherently wrong.

What's wrong is that it is against the arbitrary rules.

-dB

 

[AussieGoddess]

It should NOT be called "doping" or a "PED".

Because it ISN'T doping or a PED, it is a Blood Transfusion.
An Illegal procedure under current rules.

But maybe someday own-blood transfusions will be allowed?
Gosh, imagine that!

1) Good for the riders health. Re-vitalizing. Your own blood only of course!
2) Could be banked and monitored by WADA etc. Strict Procedures.
3) Design tougher stages after the transfusion/rest days. "Assassins!" II.

It is impossible to RACE the TdF on Mineral Water alone.
Pure Water? No way.

I guess at least we could do more blood tests to test for actual PED's

 

[timmers]

You know, I guess I've never really thought of cycling as an "endurance event," in the sense that Buckwheat seems to. I wonder if that plays in to our different view on the rules issue? To me, cycling is a racing event. It's a combination of man, machine, preparation, team tactics, skill, and all that. Whereas "endurance event," to me sounds like most triathalons or marathons these days where they just run until one by one they fall off the pace until one guy is left to cross the line first (though chicago this year was a real race!).

This perhaps is the reason why you don't understand that cheating is against the rules. To me as a UCI licence holder cycling is a competition where I am able to compete against others under a set of rules. So I don't race against people on motorbikes but people on bicycles which are regulated. So you can't ride a recumbent which I understand are significantly quicker than a double diamond design bicycle. People who are cyclists recognise that track events fall into two categories: sprint (1km and less) and endurance ( Individual pursuit and greater).

If you are a "fan" then your interest in the sport may be unexplainable i.e. a "99er". However competitors expect regulation and a level playing field. Unfortunately due to the human failing of cheating we require someone to make the rules. Society appears to have supported the view that drug taking, blood doping, taking short cuts and recumbents are cheating in the sport of cycling and I support that view.,

 

[L'arriviste]

Organisation like this requires the collaboration of many individuals.

Unlike pro cyclists, who often lack advanced education and life experience when the proverbial hits the fan, many of the shadier characters are already well prepared and still have careers to go to afterwards.

Doctors Schmid and Heinrich of Telekom/T-Mobile may have been fired by the University of Freiburg for their 'work' but they were not (so far as I can see) disqualified from practising medicine.

Similarly Krzysztof Ficek, the Polish doctor who supplied Cofidis, appears today to be running his own sports medical centre and hosting European conferences on the subject. How's that for unrepentant?

 

[ChrisE]

Some of this could lead to rational discussion of "risk". It's probably the case that more Pro Cyclists are killed/injured/hospitalized each year from accidents while training or racing than are killed/injured/hospitalized for complications from doping programs. In fact, among those doping, probably many more are hurt from accidents than as side effects of their doping programs.

At the bottom, what is prohibited really seems to me to be a compendium of things that seem 'icky' to a significant proportion of the people who could be put off it they were in the open. That includes sponsors, media, and folks on the street.

It's less clear when you start talking digestibles, particularly in the form of supplements. There's a lot of 'natural' over-the-counter or off-the-shelf stuff that contains things that are prohibited. It's not clear to me where the 'ick' factor is for those, or the health risk.

If one were to adopt the historic practice of eating bull's testicles to get testosterone, where does it change from 'careful natural nutrition' into 'prohibited and immoral doping'.

The lines seems arbitrarily drawn to me, but so is the UCI bike weight limit, and the rule that mandates a double-triangle frame, prohibiting the y-foil or a soft-ride.

I'm more comfortable just saying they are arbitrary rather than trying to wrap them up in moral, ethical, or spiritual wrappers.

-dB

This is funny. Getting hit by a car is more likely than having ill effects from doping so doping is ok. I never thought of it that way, but somehow it doesn't sway my position much.

Somebody eating right and training right, you know food and stuff, has arbitrariliy been given an advantage over those that want to take PEDs.

Are you serious?

 

[galaxy1]

blood transfusions are not risk free, by any means. there are less side effects than some other notorious doping practices, but it is not "healthy" by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[2beacoup]

I'm strictly against legalizing procedures like blood transfusion, because it would officially force riders who want to stay clean to apply such procedures in order to be competitive. Today these wannabe clean riders may at least believe in their chances...

 

[hrotha]

Well, thank you guys for killing any rational discussion in this thread, and thanks dbrower for trying to put it back on track.

 

[Anonymous]

Maxiton has convinced me.

Make tranfusions legal. In fact, make them public. Nothing should attract sponsors more than seeing a bunch manorexic pro cyclists hooked up to blood bags on the rest days.

 

[Race Radio]

Maxiton has convinced me.

Make tranfusions legal. In fact, make them public. Nothing should attract sponsors more than seeing a bunch manorexic pro cyclists hooked up to blood bags on the rest days.

Yup, Blood doping is great. It is just like drinking a glass of water.

Sad to see that some want this to be the image of cycling.

 

[buckwheat]

You know, I guess I've never really thought of cycling as an "endurance event," in the sense that Buckwheat seems to. I wonder if that plays in to our different view on the rules issue? To me, cycling is a racing event. It's a combination of man, machine, preparation, team tactics, skill, and all that. Whereas "endurance event," to me sounds like most triathalons or marathons these days where they just run until one by one they fall off the pace until one guy is left to cross the line first (though chicago this year was a real race!).

Man, 95%

Machine .1% @ the pro level.

Preparation subcategory under man.

Team tactics 4.9%

Skill is filed under the "Man" category.

Funny how all the bs like machine and clothes and wind tunnels, and even age gained importance under Liestrong. I guess team under Liestrong would have to be about 25%. Putting Liestrong at 120%, the extra 20% being ascribed to factors the people like you advocate for.

This perhaps is the reason why you don't understand that cheating is against the rules. To me as a UCI licence holder cycling is a competition where I am able to compete against others under a set of rules. So I don't race against people on motorbikes but people on bicycles which are regulated. So you can't ride a recumbent which I understand are significantly quicker than a double diamond design bicycle. People who are cyclists recognise that track events fall into two categories: sprint (1km and less) and endurance ( Individual pursuit and greater).

If you are a "fan" then your interest in the sport may be unexplainable i.e. a "99er". However competitors expect regulation and a level playing field. Unfortunately due to the human failing of cheating we require someone to make the rules. Society appears to have supported the view that drug taking, blood doping, taking short cuts and recumbents are cheating in the sport of cycling and I support that view.,

Good post. Some just won't get it no matter what. I think he's into the "video game" aspect of sport.

 

[buckwheat]

Well, thank you guys for killing any rational discussion in this thread, and thanks dbrower for trying to put it back on track.

What track is that?

 

[buckwheat]

I'd probably have found the riding and workout parts of his training calendar equally nauseating. As I sometimes find schedules at work. Just because something is involved doesn't make it inherently wrong.

What's wrong is that it is against the arbitrary rules.

-dB

That's why training is somewhat of an artform. You have to get to the start fit and uninjured; that's part of the game. That's why you can't just go out and ride 1,000K a week with a lot of quality. You'll get sick as a dog. That's obviated by jacking with hormones and high octane blood. Then you're a freak the equivalent of a pro bodybuilder. That's where cycling is now.

 

[buckwheat]

I don't even know what Perico is. If you mean Delgado, that's pretty funny.

As for injecting, you do know that there are millions of people for whom injections are a fact of life no less necessary than eating/drinking, right? There is nothing inherently "unnatural" about that method of taking on chemicals into our body compared to using our mouths or the medicines we use by rubbing them on our skins (cyclists use lots of oils and creams for muscles). Nothing is "unnatural" about any of this to me. It may be dangerous, it may be unfair, but it isn't unnatural.

You said above "The test of cycling is to take everything into consideration, training, recovery, diet, and racing the race to see who gets to the line first. " Well, all we are trying to discuss here is what sorts of things qualify as "training," and what sorts of things fit under "diet." Currently the lines are drawn somewhere, but we are discussing whether that is the best spot to drawn them and what the reasoning is.

You so crazeee!

I guarantee, 99%(very conservatively) of people, like diabetics, who have to have medically necessary injections, would do just about anything, pay just about any price, to get their vital hormornes/nutrients, normally.

And most people DO understand what NORMALLY is.

 

[Rupert]

GTs too hard

Maybe the grand tours are just too hard? Or maybe cycling needs to do more to shift emphasis back to skills beyond just the legs and lungs. Banning race radios has been discussed. How about reducing team sizes? Or restructuring/increasing intermediate time bonuses? Is this totally crazy?

I don't think the GTs are too hard. If everyone was playing with the same deck (no illegal advantages) the speeds would be slower and performance would suffer toward the end. I think too hard" really means that PEDs confer a really big advantage so it's worth the risk. If it were possible to guarantee no PEDs, everyone would just go slower.

 

[Rupert]

Rules

What's wrong is that it is against the arbitrary rules.
-dB

I don't have a problem with the rules being called "arbitrary," although I don't think they are in one sense of the word. There is some kind of rationale behind them, whether we agree with it or not. But they could be called arbitrary in the sense that a black/white line has to be drawn somewhere in an area that is debatable (gray). But once the line is drawn the "why" debate becomes academic since there is a clear distinction between what is allowed and what isn't. Whether you call a transfusion a PED or not is unimportant as long it is understood to be against the rules.

 

[Escarabajo]

You know, I guess I've never really thought of cycling as an "endurance event," in the sense that Buckwheat seems to. ...

You completely lost me there.

 

[Escarabajo]

Isn't using IV more dangerous than taking drugs orally?

- Can you get an infection?

- Can you get a clot in an artery?
http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/index.cfm?id=2293

- What about if the blood get's too thick. You can put an abnormal burden on the cardiovascular system.

Some reading from Google:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18784496

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/bt/bt_risk.html


Although they refer to blood from other people, some of them apply to own blood transfusion.

 

[Polish]

You know, I guess I've never really thought of cycling as an "endurance event,"

stephens, I would think a Grand Tour is one the Ultimate Endurance Events.
That is why a blood infusion would be healthy and helpful. Hydration drips too.

Make tranfusions legal. In fact, make them public. Nothing should attract sponsors more than seeing a bunch manorexic pro cyclists hooked up to blood bags on the rest days.

How about manorexic pro cyclist's shaving their legs and putting creme in their underpants? Would that attract sponsors more?

Isn't using IV more dangerous than taking drugs orally?

- Can you get an infection?

- Can you get a clot in an artery?
http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/index.cfm?id=2293

- What about if the blood get's too thick. You can put an abnormal burden on the cardiovascular system.

Some reading from Google:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18784496

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/bt/bt_risk.html


Although they refer to blood from other people, some of them apply to own blood transfusion.

Doing transfusions on team busses and in backroom alleys "illegally" would be more dangerous than legal and approved rest day transfusions supervised by ASO Medical Professionals.

 

[Oldman]

stephens, I would think a Grand Tour is one the Ultimate Endurance Events.
That is why a blood infusion would be healthy and helpful. Hydration drips too.

How about manorexic pro cyclist's shaving their legs and putting creme in their underpants? Would that attract sponsors more?

Doing transfusions on team busses and in backroom alleys "illegally" would be more dangerous than legal and approved rest day transfusions supervised by ASO Medical Professionals.

Agree with most of your post (don't want to see anyone applying cremes of any sort) but do you think they should IV anything? I proposed a ban on TUEs as an extreme measure but IV's seem to be an obvious exclusion.