Needles, Pills And Potions: Can Cycling's Culture Of Chemical Assistance Ever Be Overcome?

[Tricycle Rider]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S-t45AGIpc&ab_channel=smokieVEVO

 

[Parker]

That's exactly what Armstrong and co said about the French...

He did. He was probably right.

French cycling has been in the toilet for 30 years now. They were having doping scandals half way into that. They've had the same teams run by the same people since 1997 (pre Festina & Cofidis). French cycling is bloated, complacent, entitled and indulged. Demare's team has been lead by Madiot for 25 seasons. If he was a football manager, he'd have been sacked in 17 of them. They are stuck in the 80s, thinking foreigners can teach them nothing.

In case you think I'm being xenophobic, I would draw parallels to English football. That's why I can seem the same failures.

 

[BlueRoads]

He did. He was probably right.

French cycling has been in the toilet for 30 years now. They were having doping scandals half way into that. They've had the same teams run by the same people since 1997 (pre Festina & Cofidis). French cycling is bloated, complacent, entitled and indulged. Demare's team has been lead by Madiot for 25 seasons. If he was a football manager, he'd have been sacked in 17 of them. They are stuck in the 80s, thinking foreigners can teach them nothing.

In case you think I'm being xenophobic, I would draw parallels to English football. That's why I can seem the same failures.

Men like Madiot come across as hypocrites, yes, but French cycling is not in the toilet right now. With Alaphilippe (who's on a Belgian team, okay, but still French), Gaudu, Pinot, Cosnefroy, a lot of guys like Démare, Madouas, Turgis, Rolland who can hold their own and prospects like Champoussin, and in the younger groups Grégoire or Lenny Martinez, they aren't too bad off. I think Total is a total failure, Cofidis is boring, but FDJ and AG2R are very decent teams, and FDJ has some good prospects coming through their ranks.

Well there are some contemporary quotes. The most recent retiree of those is Fignon and he's been dead for a decade.

Have you actually ever played sport? Go and play in you local Sunday football league. Loads of people use caffeine and painkillers. It's lot the great crisis you think it is.

Sadly cycling is now burdened with pearl clutching 'fans' who desparately need a doping scandal, so now look at an asthma inhaler as though it's a kilo of heroin. They need to grow up

Yeah sure, we "need" a doping scandal, there's nothing we love better than seeing guys we cheer for being exposed as cheaters and liers and the sport we love to watch drawn in the mud... And of course the worst that is going on is an asthma inhaler, that's how Froome got from pack fodder to serial winner (and no, I'm not a Froome hater, but let's be real).

As for "These products are legal", yeah, well so was the holocaust (ok extreme example)

That comparison really doesn't work...

I don’t think it’s a strawman at all. It’s a very good example of another situation where that argument was made, it’s was false by any measure, and the start of that slippery slope is now fast becoming legal. Unless you can show evidence that people taking legal drugs and supplements has been the cause for a large amount of doping in sport I don’t think it’s a good argument to impose additional restrictions on people trying to do their job.

your second point seems to imply the worry is they’ll somehow dope with what’s legal, is that correct?

Well it's not false to think that most people who use cannabis are starting with nikotin smoking, and that for some (either over the step cannabis or directly) that is a stepstone to things like coke. People who are raised without any (legal) drugs in their households at all, like cigarettes and alcohol, are less likely to start using illegal drugs. I'm not advocating to forbid legal supplements, but I think this aspect still needs to be mentioned and seen as it is.

 

[King Boonen]

Well it's not false to think that most people who use cannabis are starting with nikotin smoking, and that for some (either over the step cannabis or directly) that is a stepstone to things like coke. People who are raised without any (legal) drugs in their households at all, like cigarettes and alcohol, are less likely to start using illegal drugs. I'm not advocating to forbid legal supplements, but I think this aspect still needs to be mentioned and seen as it is.

This is a lot of statements without anything to back them up. Anecdotally, I know lots of people who don't smoke tobacco but do smoke weed (or only smoke tobacco with weed) and unless you can show people going on to other drugs only wanted to do that because of weed that's not a link you can draw. I also know quite a few people who were raised in more conservative homes who hit illegal drugs harder.

The fact that the "slippery slope' is more commonly discussed as a type of fallacy is a good indication that these types of arguments need to be well supported if they are going to be made.

 

[BlueRoads]

This is a lot of statements without anything to back them up. Anecdotally, I know lots of people who don't smoke tobacco but do smoke weed (or only smoke tobacco with weed) and unless you can show people going on to other drugs only wanted to do that because of weed that's not a link you can draw. I also know quite a few people who were raised in more conservative homes who hit illegal drugs harder.

The fact that the "slippery slope' is more commonly discussed as a type of fallacy is a good indication that these types of arguments need to be well supported if they are going to be made.

So, basically, I have to come back with studies that prove my statements scientifically whereas you only need anecdotal evidence because...? It might be used as evidence against the current stance??

I have anecdotal evidence from the other side, many people I know first smoked, then put weed in, then went over to coke (yeah, students and artists...) Usually in an environment where this is accepted or even the norm. I don't know anyone who hasn't been a smoker and/ or at least not rarely alcohol drinker and started to take coke out of the blue, although I'm sure there are people, probably a bit older and with more money then...
However I am not claiming that is the way it has to go in all cases, it can also be discussed whether it happens because of the habituation or only because of the neurophysiological effects, but that it is more likely you will at one point turn to hard drugs if you have started to take nicotine and alcohol in your youth is taken from a bunch of drug prevention surveys and sheets. If I have to offer the scientific studies now to be allowed to take part in this discussion, I'll pass. Unless you I think, I'm not a doctor.

 

[King Boonen]

So, basically, I have to come back with studies that prove my statements scientifically whereas you only need anecdotal evidence because...? It might be used as evidence against the current stance??

Not really, I can't prove there isn't a link, that's not possible. The premise seems to be that the use of supplements, vitamins and legal (lets define this as over the counter as well so this doesn't include Tramadol) drugs act as a gateway to using illicit substances. A "slippery slope" argument. This is almost always a fallacy because it ignores both the intermediate steps that may be many and cannot take into account access when someone starts along this path. Neo-pros are unlikely to be given a load of EPO these days and told to get on with it. Just because they don't have access, doesn't mean they wouldn't use it.

I have anecdotal evidence from the other side, many people I know first smoked, then put weed in, then went over to coke (yeah, students and artists...) Usually in an environment where this is accepted or even the norm. I don't know anyone who hasn't been a smoker and/ or at least not rarely alcohol drinker and started to take coke out of the blue, although I'm sure there are people, probably a bit older and with more money then...
However I am not claiming that is the way it has to go in all cases, it can also be discussed whether it happens because of the habituation or only because of the neurophysiological effects, but that it is more likely you will at one point turn to hard drugs if you have started to take nicotine and alcohol in your youth is taken from a bunch of drug prevention surveys and sheets. If I have to offer the scientific studies now to be allowed to take part in this discussion, I'll pass. Unless you I think, I'm not a doctor.

Again, you've touched on the issue here. Separating the intent from the access is hard. Would these people have taken the "harder" drugs if they had access to them? Did it matter that they smoked first or is this just a consequence of their personality?

You don't have to present studies but we are talking about, essentially, applying restrictions to food here (among other things). Expensive food yes, concentrated food, but it's still food, and the suggestion is that using this normalises/medicalises things so much that the step to illicit substances is more easy than if they are just eating steak for breakfast. I do think that if we're going to discuss restricting such things, it's reasonable to ask people to show that this argument holds water.

 

[King Boonen]

To continue the discussion, I think it's worth separating things out here. Prescription drugs on one hand and over the counter drugs and supplements on the other.

One of these seems easier for cycling to deal with as a stand alone sport, that's the prescription drugs. The use of these is intrinsically tied to the team medical staff, namely the prescribing doctors. Without wishing to drag that other thread in here, I think one solution that I've mentioned before is having a pool of doctors funded by the teams who rotate between them based on race/training location (possibly even staying with the teams for the year if logistics allow) who then move on to a different team the year after. This removes the doctors from the team hierarchy, stops their job being tied to team performance, and tries to remove the "homerism" that might exist in prescribing for riders doctors feel actively connected to.

I think that's the simplest solution. Another would be having all prescription requests assessed like TUEs (although I think this is unlikely to be feasible).

 

[BlueRoads]

Not really, I can't prove there isn't a link, that's not possible. The premise seems to be that the use of supplements, vitamins and legal (lets define this as over the counter as well so this doesn't include Tramadol) drugs act as a gateway to using illicit substances. A "slippery slope" argument. This is almost always a fallacy because it ignores both the intermediate steps that may be many and cannot take into account access when someone starts along this path. Neo-pros are unlikely to be given a load of EPO these days and told to get on with it. Just because they don't have access, doesn't mean they wouldn't use it.



Again, you've touched on the issue here. Separating the intent from the access is hard. Would these people have taken the "harder" drugs if they had access to them? Did it matter that they smoked first or is this just a consequence of their personality?

You don't have to present studies but we are talking about, essentially, applying restrictions to food here (among other things). Expensive food yes, concentrated food, but it's still food, and the suggestion is that using this normalises/medicalises things so much that the step to illicit substances is more easy than if they are just eating steak for breakfast. I do think that if we're going to discuss restricting such things, it's reasonable to ask people to show that this argument holds water.

Okay, fair enough, but personally, I'm not even arguing for that.
However, if you want some links to give some substance to the discussion about substances:

A Molecular Basis for Nicotine as a Gateway Drug | NEJM

Special Article from The New England Journal of Medicine — A Molecular Basis for Nicotine as a Gateway Drug

www.nejm.org

Is Alcohol a Gateway Drug? Theory vs. Scientific Research - Springboard Recovery

Experts disagree whether the Alcohol Gateway Drug Theory is applicable. Forget theories and conflicting science – learn the real truth.

www.springboardrecovery.com

(So, nobody knows exactly why, how much habituation, neurobiological changes, peer-groups and genes play into this, the causal chain is unclear, but there is a clear correlation between using legal drugs in youth and taking harder stuff later on.)

 

[jmdirt]

The gateway slopes are making me !

 

[Pontiac]

I think it's safe to say that all of us who read this are serious fans of the sport, having either raced ourselves or been part of the sport in some way. I've spent years trying to understand the doping culture and why it is so prevalent.

I can find no clear cut answers on how to change the culture or whether the problem is the culture or the riders themselves. I do find myself lately going back the premise that the problem stems from the birth of the sport both in 6 day racing and the TDF. I think we often forget that both of these events were started as publicity extravaganzas, not as sporting events. Both events have been modified from their initial format, to make them less inhumane, but that premise of folks suffering to extremes are at the core.

I think it tough to shake those foundational aspects of the sport. But maybe the new wave of gravel racing, cross and even mtn biking will help to reshape the sport in some way.

 

[jmdirt]

I think it's safe to say that all of us who read this are serious fans of the sport, having either raced ourselves or been part of the sport in some way. I've spent years trying to understand the doping culture and why it is so prevalent.

I can find no clear cut answers on how to change the culture or whether the problem is the culture or the riders themselves. I do find myself lately going back the premise that the problem stems from the birth of the sport both in 6 day racing and the TDF. I think we often forget that both of these events were started as publicity extravaganzas, not as sporting events. Both events have been modified from their initial format, to make them less inhumane, but that premise of folks suffering to extremes are at the core.

I think it tough to shake those foundational aspects of the sport. But maybe the new wave of gravel racing, cross and even mtn biking will help to reshape the sport in some way.

You had me until that last line...

 

[Pontiac]

You had me until that last line...

Well being a fan means loving the sport whether rational or not, if there isn't a solution why bother?

 

[BlueRoads]

Well being a fan means loving the sport whether rational or not, if there isn't a solution why bother?

I suppose what jm means, at least what would be my major problem with your post, is that you think it's better in the gravel scene. Like only road cycling has this problem and other sports and other cycling disciplines are better off, but most sports are simply not doping less and certainly not other cycling disciplines. Why should they? They don't get tested more and the pure physical strength and endurance is just as important there. You will find doping in absolutely every sport, down to the higher amateur ranks. I suppose in the extremely technical sports it might be a bit better, compared, or it simply doesn't matter that much.

 

[Pontiac]

I suppose what jm means, at least what would be my major problem with your post, is that you think it's better in the gravel scene. Like only road cycling has this problem and other sports and other cycling disciplines are better off, but most sports are simply not doping less and certainly not other cycling disciplines. Why should they? They don't get tested more and the pure physical strength and endurance is just as important there. You will find doping in absolutely every sport, down to the higher amateur ranks. I suppose in the extremely technical sports it might be a bit better, compared, or it simply doesn't matter that much.

Yep, I see your point and can't disagree.....so if we take that to it's conclusion then sports in general are effed up.

Is it a question of enforcement and penalties? Look at other parts of our lives, I know for me as a business owner, as much as my motivation is to make money (no different than winning), I'm not going to do something stupid and end up in the crosshairs of the IRS or any of the state agencies I have to deal with from labor to revenue departments. Aside from being banned from the sport and shamed there isn't really much deterrence for the dopers. I guess France has some criminal penalties, but I'm not sure if they have even been enforced.

But then the flip side of that is if we do have severe penalties are we admitting that sports are so important in our lives that they need to be regulated like that? For something that is supposed to be a fun, healthy pursuit and entertainment on the professional level that seems over the top to me.

 

[jmdirt]

Well being a fan means loving the sport whether rational or not, if there isn't a solution why bother?

Blue roads interpreted my reply correctly. I'm not a rational person but I love the sport and while I know that there is a lot of 'stuff' going on I enjoy it for what it is (solution or not).
Cross-the same as road since it became more than winter training.
Dirt-early 90s clean, mid 90s almost clean, late 90s just like road, now cleaner.
Grav-likely cleaner than road, cross, or dirt, but I fear that given time and $$...

From a personal standpoint, I feel really fortunate that I raced dirt before it got dirty in the USA.
--The first obviously less than clean riders were roadies looking at the money to be made in dirt, and then other North Americans, that's not to say that all of the USAers stayed clean. Also, there are no poor me feelings from me: in my last national level year when it was obvious that there was something up I might have finished 20 instead of 27.

 

[Pontiac]

Just thinking abut the original post a bit more about the legal to illegal issue.....my own experience (and yep I know it was ages ago), started with vitamins. In the states that first year, folks would encourage me to take a multivitamin or vitamin C or vitamin E to help with breathing. This was all back in the '70's with the organic food craze and getting healthy.....it all seemed pretty innocuous and and hey if it would help me win some races, it was all good.

Going to Europe it changed from just taking vitamin pills to injecting them....it worked much better I was told, gets into your system faster. That was a big game changer for me, I was petrified sticking that needle into my butt, my side cramped up the first time cause I took so long getting the courage up. Then it was here, take this iron shot it will help you recover better.....all the while going from stage race to stage race. The physical demands of the sport for a 21 year old kid were nuts looking back on it....2 week stage races and lots of 5 to 8 day ones, sometimes just a day off between them. That first full year in Europe I had over 110 race days.

I know that once you go down that innocuous path with the vitamins it was pretty easy to start looking at all the other stuff and being able to justify taking it. Fortunately for me, I just couldn't get myself to take the speed and steroids that were so prevalent back then.

So in terms of solutions..... the no needle thing is a big deal. Beyond that it's tough to se how we can change things other than continue with the discussions and hope it helps folks change behaviors or keeps folks from starting down the wrong path. This might help change the lower levels of the sport, but how the heck are you going to change the pro end? The financial incentives to win, to get an edge.....how are you going to keep those teams from having doctors show up with hundreds of doses of legal things.

No easy solution, but hey to be expected with a 100 year problem I guess.

 

[Nick2413]

“Culture” is really not to blame, this ultimately comes down to money. As long as people are making a living off sport, whether barely getting by or getting ultra rich, they will have no other choice but to dope. I don’t think there is any real solution other than trying to keep it from getting outrageous. This is a problem that will never be fixed. Ultimately it isn’t too dangerous if you compare to other higher risk professions. Every profession has a lot of cons and other BS tied to it, cycling is no different, but making everything illegal will only complicate the current issues rather than removing them.

 

[King Boonen]

Okay, fair enough, but personally, I'm not even arguing for that.
However, if you want some links to give some substance to the discussion about substances:

A Molecular Basis for Nicotine as a Gateway Drug | NEJM

Special Article from The New England Journal of Medicine — A Molecular Basis for Nicotine as a Gateway Drug

www.nejm.org

Is Alcohol a Gateway Drug? Theory vs. Scientific Research - Springboard Recovery

Experts disagree whether the Alcohol Gateway Drug Theory is applicable. Forget theories and conflicting science – learn the real truth.

www.springboardrecovery.com

(So, nobody knows exactly why, how much habituation, neurobiological changes, peer-groups and genes play into this, the causal chain is unclear, but there is a clear correlation between using legal drugs in youth and taking harder stuff later on.)

As interesting as that NEJM paper is, and it is, it doesn't add any weight to a slippery slope/gateway argument. The vast majority of people who use legal drugs do not go on to use illegal drugs and the majority of marijuana users do not go on to use other illict drugs. We should probably end this discussion here, as it's starting to move off-topic.

 

[King Boonen]

“Culture” is really not to blame, this ultimately comes down to money. As long as people are making a living off sport, whether barely getting by or getting ultra rich, they will have no other choice but to dope. I don’t think there is any real solution other than trying to keep it from getting outrageous. This is a problem that will never be fixed. Ultimately it isn’t too dangerous if you compare to other higher risk professions. Every profession has a lot of cons and other BS tied to it, cycling is no different, but making everything illegal will only complicate the current issues rather than removing them.

Not sure I agree with this, doping goes on in the amateur ranks among people who, at best, are going to win back their entrance fee.



This all seems to be getting off-topic though, or at least swaying into the illegal end of the discussion. I still think it needs to be established that the current use of legal, non-prescription, drugs and supplements is both an issue and in some way drives the doping culture. Doping existed before supplements took off in the way they have now. I can't see any reason why it wouldn't exist after they are removed if that happens.

It's the legal drugs discussion that I think is most interesting here, and possibly even the line between legal and prescription drugs and how this line is managed.

 

[BlueRoads]

Not sure I agree with this, doping goes on in the amateur ranks among people who, at best, are going to win back their entrance fee.



This all seems to be getting off-topic though, or at least swaying into the illegal end of the discussion. I still think it needs to be established that the current use of legal, non-prescription, drugs and supplements is both an issue and in some way drives the doping culture. Doping existed before supplements took off in the way they have now. I can't see any reason why it wouldn't exist after they are removed if that happens.

It's the legal drugs discussion that I think is most interesting here, and possibly even the line between legal and prescription drugs and how this line is managed.

Could be because my English is not good enough: I don't get what exactly you mean. Drugs, for me, are usually substances that lead to an addiction (like German "Drogen"), but I assume you mean medicine in your last sentence?

 

[Pontiac]

Not sure I agree with this, doping goes on in the amateur ranks among people who, at best, are going to win back their entrance fee.



This all seems to be getting off-topic though, or at least swaying into the illegal end of the discussion. I still think it needs to be established that the current use of legal, non-prescription, drugs and supplements is both an issue and in some way drives the doping culture. Doping existed before supplements took off in the way they have now. I can't see any reason why it wouldn't exist after they are removed if that happens.

It's the legal drugs discussion that I think is most interesting here, and possibly even the line between legal and prescription drugs and how this line is managed.

Well in my case I can attest to that fine line, it has existed at least 50 yrs and probably was before that as well. So I don't think it has much to do with the onset of supplements, the sport is too damn hard and demanding not to try to do the legal stuff to help yourself keep in the race. If it were just one race every few weeks we wouldn't be having these discussions, but the training and racing demands of doing these kind of efforts day in and day out is what drives this in my opinion. Think back to the start and being a publicity event and not a sporting event.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Maybe a starting point is to designate what substances are truly performance enhancing in a substantive way (e.g. EPO) and designate what substances have a minimal or negligible performance enhancing effect (caffeine, a legit TUE etc.) This would create two categories of substances - Bad or Approved.

Within in each designation, the substances would be categorized as to level of Bad and level of Approved. A B list and an A list if you like. There will always be debate about which substance should be on the B list or the A list. The marker would always be "the extent of the performance enhancing effect." Today's scientists can easily categorize what is say a Bad or B1 or B2 or B75 drug. As new drugs are developed they are slotted into the B or A list according to their dilatorious level in each respective list.

The A list would be Approved A1, A2, A75 etc. categorized based again on the the designated level of performance enhancing effect. EPO might be an B-50 substance and caffeine might be an A-50 substance.

The only way this would work is if everybody, especially the athletes buy into this scheme of categorization for each specific susbstance and agree to abide by the decision of an independent medical panel not WADA, not the IOC about which substance fell into which category. If everyone including the cycling orgs, teams, national associations buys into this scheme then it becomes cut and dried as to whether a cyclist used an A (approved) or B (bad- not approved) substance.

It makes it simple for orgs to tailor the punishment according to the categorization level. There will always be substances that are on the fence as to whether is should be an A and B substances. BUT if an athlete says "I will abide by the decision of an independent panel of medical experts as to what is A and what is B" then it gets pretty simple. The penalty can be determined for B drugs according to the seriousness of the particular case.

This is not a panacea but given the constant refrain of "What should we do" I am suggesting a starting point framework. Just don't let the politicians get in the way - either the elected ones or the athletic association ones.

 

[King Boonen]

Could be because my English is not good enough: I don't get what exactly you mean. Drugs, for me, are usually substances that lead to an addiction (like German "Drogen"), but I assume you mean medicine in your last sentence?

Yeah, this is a language difference. Droge means a psychoactive in German if I remember correctly. Drug in English is a generic term for compounds that have either a physiological or psychological effect and covers anything from caffeine through medicinal products and on to LSD, MDMA and other (currently) purely recreational substances.

Medicine is also a difficult term to use, as this covers things that are freely available to the public like ibuprofen, paracetamol, etc. to prescription only drugs such as Tramadol and stronger steroids, on through things that are only ever likely to be used in hospital like EPO and diamorphine (which we still use during labour in Scotland although I think it's being phased out). As such, defining the line as prescription drugs seems sensible. These are drugs/medicines that can only be obtained with the say so, in writing, of someone else (usually a doctor but prescribing pharmacists do exist). While the use of over the counter drugs could well be a problem, this is harder to regulate, both logistically and ethically.

 

[King Boonen]

Maybe a starting point is to designate what substances are truly performance enhancing in a substantive way (e.g. EPO) and designate what substances have a minimal or negligible performance enhancing effect (caffeine, a legit TUE etc.) This would create two categories of substances - Bad or Approved.

Within in each designation, the substances would be categorized as to level of Bad and level of Approved. A B list and an A list if you like. There will always be debate about which substance should be on the B list or the A list. The marker would always be "the extent of the performance enhancing effect." Today's scientists can easily categorize what is say a Bad or B1 or B2 or B75 drug. As new drugs are developed they are slotted into the B or A list according to their dilatorious level in each respective list.

The A list would be Approved A1, A2, A75 etc. categorized based again on the the designated level of performance enhancing effect. EPO might be an B-50 substance and caffeine might be an A-50 substance.

The only way this would work is if everybody, especially the athletes buy into this scheme of categorization for each specific susbstance and agree to abide by the decision of an independent medical panel not WADA, not the IOC about which substance fell into which category. If everyone including the cycling orgs, teams, national associations buys into this scheme then it becomes cut and dried as to whether a cyclist used an A (approved) or B (bad- not approved) substance.

It makes it simple for orgs to tailor the punishment according to the categorization level. There will always be substances that are on the fence as to whether is should be an A and B substances. BUT if an athlete says "I will abide by the decision of an independent panel of medical experts as to what is A and what is B" then it gets pretty simple. The penalty can be determined for B drugs according to the seriousness of the particular case.

This is not a panacea but given the constant refrain of "What should we do" I am suggesting a starting point framework. Just don't let the politicians get in the way - either the elected ones or the athletic association ones.

I'm afraid this is a non-starter and has been discussed before, although it still comes up in interviews with athletes so rightfully needs more discussion. It assumes a timeline for drug development of discovery/invention, trial, approval, release and that all individual compounds are listed and categorised. Quite apart from the fact that this is not the case and there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of drug candidates around that have either been discarded or still get tested for activity against certain diseases, it would not cover compounds that are slight changes of known structures developed outside of this timeline. See "The Clear" as a very good example of this.

 

[King Boonen]

Well in my case I can attest to that fine line, it has existed at least 50 yrs and probably was before that as well. So I don't think it has much to do with the onset of supplements, the sport is too damn hard and demanding not to try to do the legal stuff to help yourself keep in the race. If it were just one race every few weeks we wouldn't be having these discussions, but the training and racing demands of doing these kind of efforts day in and day out is what drives this in my opinion. Think back to the start and being a publicity event and not a sporting event.

Do you mean the fine line between over the counter and prescription? Or the fine line between legal and "doping"?

Interesting that you say it's the amount of racing and training that drives it. Do you think that, for example, if riders were able to make a living out of just racing the TdF and only training/riding in a few smaller events more as an "appearance" (turning up rather than performing, like the post GT crits), that training loads would be significantly impacted? That area isn't really my wheelhouse, and I know it's a contentious point, but we could argue that the cancellation of lots of racers allowed riders to train better and that's why we've seen some very good performances over the last year or so. Dogmatically it's always been thought that you needed the racing schedule to perform at the Tour, but I've never really believed that. Would a cap on number of days racing per year, possibly even within a certain time period, help? And lets ignore whether the financials are in a state where this would be feasible for the moment.