Is doping already more important than talent?

[Ninety5rpm]

This observation/explanation from Hitch is so brilliant I though it deserved it's own thread:

Doping like all things in science is improving. Gadgets are improving, healthcare is improving, transport is improving and so is doping.

So starting from the first Tour de france in 1903 doping has been improving gradually up to now and will continue to improve for another 100 years (for the sake of argument)

So if you look at this 200 year period at some point doping will reach a point where it becomes so advanced that it becomes more important than talent. Where the advantage it gives is SO big that simple talent and passion and all that, just isnt a sufficient substitute.

Maybe the cocaine and amphetamines of the 70's werent enough. Maybe the epo of the 90's is not enough. Or the Cera of the 00's. But then surely the gene doping of the future when they can alter your body make up will be.

Surely you wont deny this fact?
That just like technology eventually reached the point where you can talk to people thousands of miles away, and astronomers eventually reached the point where they can send people into space, doping has to eventually reach the point where it easily overtakes talent as the defining characteristic of a champion.

And many of us believed that this point in time, x has occured at some point in the last 20 years, and we have evidence we point to for believing this. And if this point in time has been reached then the unfortunate reality is that being one of the great gt riders of a time where everyone else was doping heavily, is very suspicious.

2
Also you should consider that the talented guys with the " physical advantages over most of their competitors" do dope. Maybe if only the cat 2 racers of this world took epo and the top gc guys were all clean you could argue that Sastre and co have superior physical advantages which allow them to compete with dopers. But the fact is we know that the super talented guys, the best of the best do dope too.

So what kind of ubermench do you envision Sastre or others to be if you think they are SOOOOO superior to the best of the best, that they can compete with people who are BOTH very very very very talented, and doped to the gills?

forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=397792&postcount=27

So, are we at that point where doping has become more important than talent, or is talent still more important?

 

[flicker]

talent is always more important among the pros. In amatuer junior and amatuer pro masters doping is more important.

In order to become a top pro one needs discipline, determination. hard work skill genetics. Among pros doping is no more than an edge, in US masters and juniors out and out cheating.

 

[bianchigirl]

flicker, the most intelligent thing I've seen you post

 

[brianf7]

There is always the need to controle drugs if only for health reasons there is life after cycling that must be considered but with new science it is much better than it was 40 years ago.
It was the great french stars who said if you need a pill then take it and now it is the french anti doping agents that are parinoid over drug cheats.

I know a lot of old cyclists who used steroids in the 60's they got them from a vet horse steroids and many of them are dead now they died young so was it worth it?

These days we have much better medical and scientific drug dealers the drugs are much better and the vet is out of business . But it hasnt stoped doping .
is it dangerous now and will it effect your life later on them are the questions we have to ask.

 

[flicker]

There is always the need to controle drugs if only for health reasons there is life after cycling that must be considered but with new science it is much better than it was 40 years ago.
It was the great french stars who said if you need a pill then take it and now it is the french anti doping agents that are parinoid over drug cheats.

I know a lot of old cyclists who used steroids in the 60's they got them from a vet horse steroids and many of them are dead now they died young so was it worth it?

These days we have much better medical and scientific drug dealers the drugs are much better and the vet is out of business . But it hasnt stoped doping .
is it dangerous now and will it effect your life later on them are the questions we have to ask.

I am of the opinion that under proper supervision EPO, testasterone and auto blood doping are definitely helpful for a variety of pro sport applications.

It seems to me they would not be harmful if monitored by specialists.

I may be totally wrong.

What seems crazy in cycling are the insulin, steroids, hormones, speed.

Seems like they would shorten career and lifespan. I always think of Marc DEmeyer and Lyle Azevedo as examples.

 

[hrotha]

I disagree with the premise of this thread because I don't think the evolution of doping in sports is linear. I believe doping was more effective in the mid 90s and early 00s. Of course, current doctors would work wonders if they could do their thing under the conditions present 15 years ago, but there are other factors invovled.

 

[Merckx index]

I find the premise "doping is superior to talent" to be poorly defined. Do you mean by that, anyone with dope can beat anyone without? Then the answer is obviously no. Do you mean that, say half the population could, by doping, be as good as or better than the elite without dope? Still the answer is no. There is some %, maybe 10, or 5, or 1, or even less, but I don't think what that percentage is is very important.

I think one of the facts of life that muddles this question is that talent exists on a spectrum. There is the elite in any sport, but there are also highly talented athletes who are much better than the mean of the population, less talented who are somewhat above the mean, and so on. In contrast, the effects of doping are likely not on a spectrum. Given a particular program, the increase in performance is much less variable. Yes, there may be high and low responders, and perhaps dope provides less of a % increase in performance the more highly talented naturally one is. But at the end of the day, the amount of performance enhancement possible from the best doping practices of any given era exists within a relatively narrow range, whereas there is an enormous range of natural talent, extending from those far below average to those far above.

So doping is only going to allow an athlete to jump part way through this range. If he's at the bottom of the talent pile, it might not even make him mediocre. If he's average, it will make him somewhat above average. I think one has to be well above average (using current doping technology) to challenge the elite. Others may argue over where we draw lines here, but the general point should be clear. Doping provides a boost; how far that boost takes you depends in large part where you start from, and the starting range is so vast that talent at the top will always be well above the possibilities of doping for most.

But none of this is really very relevant, IMO. The point is that within the elite, doping makes a major difference (see, e.g., Science of Sport discussions on EPO). Whether you call this "better than talent" or "not as good as talent" doesn't matter. Beginning at a certain talent level, dopers are definitely going to outstrip all challengers who are not doping.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Talent rules! Average or above average Joe, or even pretty dam*ed good Joe can't win against Super Joe, even if Super is clean and all the other Joe's are doped to the gills... IMO

You might say 2 supermen against each other, one clean one not, is another story. True, but they are still two supermen with TALENT.

 

[simo1733]

Talent rules! Average or above average Joe, or even pretty dam*ed good Joe can't win against Super Joe, even if Super is clean and all the other Joe's are doped to the gills... IMO

You might say 2 supermen against each other, one clean one not, is another story. True, but they are still two supermen with TALENT.

quite right.I could not be competitve in GTs or the classics no matter what drugs you gave me. Because i am just not tough enough.Unless of course there is a drug for that as well?

 

[brianf7]

I been trying for 50 years to find something that realy works so I realy got to say its all in the brain (empty) because nothing works like hard real training.

And your brain needs to be empty to be able to do that.
Drugs may help suppliments may help but if you aint fit nothing will work.

There is no easy way. them long base training rides are realy the only way to win.
We managed for years without WADA we can manage a lot longer unfortunatly we cant manage without the UCI its our Trade Union so why are they not helping . are they selling us out.

 

[The Hitch]

This observation/explanation from Hitch is so brilliant I though it deserved it's own thread:
[/URL]

Thank you

Talent rules! Average or above average Joe, or even pretty dam*ed good Joe can't win against Super Joe, even if Super is clean and all the other Joe's are doped to the gills... IMO
.

But this isnt about your gc rider vs your wannabee pro. Its about the creme de la creme. To say that a gc rider will beat a doped average joe is totally besides the point.
Average joe isnt the one whos going to be spending 50 + grand a year on a doping proggrame.

Forget the average jo. the question is, can a second tier gc rider (still top 0.001% overall) beat a first tier gc rider with dope.

 

[python]

yes there is

there are things that work better or as well as doping, some are classic and well known.

however, for a reasonable comparison one needs to draw an envelope as there are different types of dope benefiting different types of competition.

before anyone goes ballistic, they need to read this disclaimer: the following is based on strictly personal multi-year training and competition experience with power meters.


here goes…if you’re already blessed with the out of ordinary aerobic engine (vo2max in 70s and/or efficiency above 25%)- losing unnecessary body weight, even if 2-3 kgs, grows wings.

within certain weight limit my experimentation yielded about 1.5% improvement in w/kg for each ~1% loss of bw. i speculate it could be due to both proportional drop of dead weight and some dynamic additional improvement released due to fewer living cells to be supported.

when i would have reached an excessive low weight i almost always had difficulty to recover from intervals and then fell sick. with age that minimum limit went slightly up and curiously required higher % body fat.

 

[forty four]

I am of the opinion that under proper supervision EPO, testasterone and auto blood doping are definitely helpful for a variety of pro sport applications.

It seems to me they would not be harmful if monitored by specialists.

I may be totally wrong.

What seems crazy in cycling are the insulin, steroids, hormones, speed.

Seems like they would shorten career and lifespan. I always think of Marc DEmeyer and Lyle Azevedo as examples.

actually of doping products including amphetamines epo is easily the most dangerous in medical circles in the us even for legitimate health problems they dont like using it because of all the risks and side effects it causes bone marrow issues stroke etc... insulin and epo if used wrong will kill you real fast the rest when abused are quite bad as well but not as immediately deadly it takes time. of course if your stupid about things you could overdose on amphetamines look at tom simpson a combination of amphetamines dehydration and hyperthermia killed him. his motto was 9 pills win the race 10 pills kills you thats not the attitude of someone concerned with longevity. i would say proper blood doping under controlled conditions with your own blood is least dangerous along with hormone use keep in mind testosterone is a steroid/hormone just like epo growth hormone cortisol etc... amphetamines are useful when controlled just like anything else air force pilots are doped on amphetamines and l-tyrosine for long missions this is done legally. i know 1 locale pro by name who races on amphetamines and who knows what else this guy is a real loser and still cant climb if he were to drop dead i would not lose sleep lol. doping is much more common than people think at the lower levels.

 

[forty four]

Talent rules! Average or above average Joe, or even pretty dam*ed good Joe can't win against Super Joe, even if Super is clean and all the other Joe's are doped to the gills... IMO

You might say 2 supermen against each other, one clean one not, is another story. True, but they are still two supermen with TALENT.

agree entirely just like on a low level group ride there are always guys who will never ever ever beat certain other guys not a damn thing they can do about it just a matter of genetics.

 

[The Hitch]

agree entirely just like on a low level group ride there are always guys who will never ever ever beat certain other guys not a damn thing they can do about it just a matter of genetics.

And as i said, this is TOTALY besides the point, because the debate isnt about whether my neighbour next door can win the tour given the right ammount of epo.

The debate is about whether people like Ricco, Sella, Contador, Kohl, who are ALREADY in the top 0.00001% talent wise, can be beaten while on drugs, by a fellow 0.000001%er (eg Carlos Sastre) who isnt on drugs.

 

[flicker]

Answer Contador is unbeatable if he is on fuel.Absolutly.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

So, are we at that point where doping has become more important than talent, or is talent still more important?

You might say 2 supermen against each other, one clean one not, is another story. True, but they are still two supermen with TALENT.

The debate is about whether people like Ricco, Sella, Contador, Kohl, who are ALREADY in the top 0.00001% talent wise, can be beaten while on drugs, by a fellow 0.000001%er (eg Carlos Sastre) who isnt on drugs.

First, to echo one poster, this IS one of the better threads I've seen on topics involving doping because this is a little bit like evaluating a chess match... the match being rider vs rider and what might happen depending on what the riders might do (dope vs not dope), what their physiology and training is like, what the teams might be structured like (weak for GT vs strong for GT etc.), how the teams cooperate during race... and on and on.
There are a multitude of factors to consider. Two or more good thinking men will be hard pressed to adequately cover all the variables in one volley on this forum, so I commend Hitch for pressing aspect this forward. That said, I expect this will be an interesting discussion.

First, the original question was about which is more important, doping or talent. My first response could be explained thusly, that you have to have talent to even be considered as a contender. Now we have more clarity on what the original question was all about... not merely which is more important, but who could win in a race against two nearly equally talented riders, one doped and one not.

That's going to be a tough question to answer, and I'm not sure there is an absolute answer because of all the variables involved leading up to the race (including off season, training) and the variables of the race itself. But I'm going to try and simplify this if nothing else for my own sake because my brain is hurting right now. Let's assume all things between the riders are equal, like:
- equal health (illness, injuries) during race and prior to race
- comperable talent
- equally strong teams for the race
- equal cooperation amoungst rival teams during the race
- weather is not a factor
- neither rider has an advantage related to weather (cold vs hot weather
guy)
On a given day I still think the clean guy can win, but everything has to be perfect in the way his team executes the day (protecting their leader, etc) and the way Mr. Clean executes (like no chain mishaps ). But I think for Mr. Clean to win is a long shot, and that Mr. Dope' has the advantage. And that's just one reason why IMO cleaning up the sport is the right thing to do (no one would agrue that).

 

[la.margna]

while it is impossible for a highly talented rider to have a chance to win without doping, it is also impossible for a guy with mediocre talent to dope to win.

it's still hard work, training, technique, discipline, tactics, luck, that play a major role. but all this is worthless without doping as you won't make it to the top 25. so doping is a major edge, necessary for the talented guys to ride at the highest level.

thereofore, there is no appropriate answer that i could select from the poll.

what is sometimes pretty annoying is that some coach potatoes imagine that with a few pills, transfusions and injections you could compete at top level. dream on... without hard work and talent, your'e not going anywhere not even in cycling... but sadly, the same is true for a clean rider...

 

[Berzin]

"Dope can get you through times of no talent better than talent can get you through times of no dope*".

(*Paraphrased from the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers)

 

[The Hitch]

I notice when looking at the poll that a large plurality and near majority have voted for an option titled "No, and talent will always be more important"

Look at it again

"No, and talent will always be more important. "

So almost half the forum knows for a fact that doping advancement will NEVER ever ever ever ever, EVVVEEEERRR, be able to give an athlete more than a gentle push.

I would like to ask these people how they have come about to such a conclusion?

We see in the field of anatomy doctors do insane, incredible, jaw dropping things to humans and animals. They can perform very complex operations on the brain without damaging it. They can increase the ammount of red blood cells make muscles stonger temporarily put to sleep certain nerves.

They have cloned sheep


But somehow, 45% of the people here know that in the field of doping, they just wont be able to go any further? Know that there will be no gene doping, no new inventions no stronger drugs?

Time will just stand still?

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Answer Contador is unbeatable if he is on fuel.Absolutly.

Now THAT'S a truism on the same level as gravity... it's there and ain't nothing you can do about it.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

while it is impossible for a highly talented rider to have a chance to win without doping, it is also impossible for a guy with mediocre talent to dope to win.

it's still hard work, training, technique, discipline, tactics, luck, that play a major role. but all this is worthless without doping as you won't make it to the top 25. so doping is a major edge, necessary for the talented guys to ride at the highest level.

thereofore, there is no appropriate answer that i could select from the poll.

what is sometimes pretty annoying is that some coach potatoes imagine that with a few pills, transfusions and injections you could compete at top level. dream on... without hard work and talent, your'e not going anywhere not even in cycling... but sadly, the same is true for a clean rider...

Hmm... i thought the poll was pretty comprehensive, especially given the choice "other" was available to cast a vote for if you could not agree with any of the other selections.

 

[VeloFidelis]

Now THAT'S a truism on the same level as gravity... it's there and ain't nothing you can do about it.

You do know that gravity is theory... right?

 

[VeloFidelis]

I notice when looking at the poll that a large plurality and near majority have voted for an option titled "No, and talent will always be more important"

Look at it again

"No, and talent will always be more important. "

So almost half the forum knows for a fact that doping advancement will NEVER ever ever ever ever, EVVVEEEERRR, be able to give an athlete more than a gentle push.

I would like to ask these people how they have come about to such a conclusion?

We see in the field of anatomy doctors do insane, incredible, jaw dropping things to humans and animals. They can perform very complex operations on the brain without damaging it. They can increase the ammount of red blood cells make muscles stonger temporarily put to sleep certain nerves.

They have cloned sheep


But somehow, 45% of the people here know that in the field of doping, they just wont be able to go any further? Know that there will be no gene doping, no new inventions no stronger drugs?

Time will just stand still?

What I feel I know for sure, is that whether it is gene therapy or the innovation of some uber PED. It will somehow make itself available to all the most talented riders.

The poll does not delineate availability.

 

[red_flanders]

You do know that gravity is theory... right?

You do know that "scientific theory" means something very different than "theory" in normal use...right?

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.