Returning Dopers racing at their doped level..

[JMBeaushrimp]

Riders who dope don't push their bodies to higher limits. The drug is what allows them to ride to higher limits. Thus, when they stop doping, 100% of the advantage of doping is also gone.

For you to say there is some type of long-term benefit is laughable. There is absolutely no long-term benefit once the doping stops. Steroid users...EPO...blood transfusions....once you stop any or all of those things you lose the benefit immediately.

Apart from what it feels like to kick a**. Unfortunately that's a feeling that is not forgotten. Hence the question floating around the so-called 'repentant'...

 

[hrotha]

And you know Vino is not doping how?

After re-reading my post several times, I honestly have no idea what prompted you to post that.

 

[D-Queued]

Any cyclist who comes back from a doping ban cannot and will not achieve the same performance as before and they never do. Most dopers come back and continue to dope. Valverde, DiLuca, Ricco, Frank Vandenbroucke....they all continue to dope.

And you know Vino is not doping how?

"...You do not yet realize your importance. You have only begun to discover your power. Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy. If you only knew the power of the Dark Side."

Dave.

 

[veganrob]

Riders who dope don't push their bodies to higher limits. The drug is what allows them to ride to higher limits. Thus, when they stop doping, 100% of the advantage of doping is also gone.

For you to say there is some type of long-term benefit is laughable. There is absolutely no long-term benefit once the doping stops. Steroid users...EPO...blood transfusions....once you stop any or all of those things you lose the benefit immediately.

So at what point do they lose 100% of the benefits from doping? What is the timeline?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

"...You do not yet realize your importance. You have only begun to discover your power. Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy. If you only knew the power of the Dark Side."

Dave.

Flatery will get you everywhere in cycling...

 

[Benotti69]

There's exactly three possible answers to that question.

1. Doping does not improve performance, not even a placebo effect

- or -

2. They were never doping to begin with but a meshugga anti-doping system found them guilty anyway

- or -

3. The methods of avoiding detection are so effective, you only get caught if you deviate from "the Pharmstrong method", so they've gone back to doping but will take precautions to not repeat the previous error

except Di Luca's been caught 3 times

 

[ElChingon]

Mancebo would be an interesting subject had he returned to race in the ProTour. Since the dope pushers gave him placebo's he'd of returned to his previous levels, then if he doped he'd of blown them out of the water.

 

[Oldman]

except Di Luca's been caught 3 times

He got caught with CERA in his system. That's not exactly subtle. Based on everyone's performance today at Tirreno not much has changed for the well-tuned guys. Either that or they are all clean and can sprint up an 18 percent grade for a full kilometer at the end of an early season stage race and following two days of 150+miles....

 

[roundabout]

Mancebo would be an interesting subject had he returned to race in the ProTour. Since the dope pushers gave him placebo's he'd of returned to his previous levels, then if he doped he'd of blown them out of the water.

Sorry, but that's a fairy tale. Mancebo was certainly blood doping.

 

[hrotha]

Sorry, but that's a fairy tale. Mancebo was certainly blood doping.

Yeah, even if all the PEDs they gave him were placebos, he still did transfusions.

On the other hand, the placebos story is most likely bull.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Any cyclist who comes back from a doping ban cannot and will not achieve the same performance as before and they never do. Most dopers come back and continue to dope. Valverde, DiLuca, Ricco, Frank Vandenbroucke....they all continue to dope.

Question: Why is Valverde on this list?

You can have your suspicions, but there is no actual evidence beside "I looked at his performances and they seemed kinda doped since we know he did it before", that he was doping since Puerto. Is it likely that he's done something since? Yes, probably. But unlike di Luca and Riccò he hasn't been caught. Valverde's greatest crime was resisting arrest for so long that actually finally nailing him for his first offence felt like a second.

Maybe some of these guys are more naturally talented people who can ride on at the same kind of level with less, or no, dope. Maybe some of them were not actually especially good reactors to the dope so it didn't have as much of an effect on them, hence able to ride better post-suspension than, say, Kashechkin. Years of testosterone and HGH will alter your physical makeup in a way that does give you a natural advantage.

Did Lionel Messi shrink back to his predicted size and be as frail as they thought once they stopped spoonfeeding him HGH? No. If there were no long term effects then they'd never prescribe it for eg people born prematurely cos you'd have people on it for life.

 

[Merckx index]

On the idea that doping makes permanent changes. With respect to steroids and muscles, maybe, but very dubious for changing blood parameters, which of course is the major goal of doping in cycling. If you stop taking EPO or blood transfusions, your HT will fall to its former levels, that is very well established. There is no permanent physical change there that I'm aware of.

As for a rider being psychologically changed, because he's had experience going beyond his former limits, seems to me that could work either way. He could also be somewhat devastated at not being able to perform at the level he could while doping. I believe several riders who came back after doping mentioned that, and it surely is a major reason why they return to dope.

Think of the early 90s, when riders who were not on EPO suddenly found themselves dropped by guys they had easily stayed with if not beaten before. A former doper must feel a lot like that when he returns to the peloton clean. It's very much an addiction.

 

[alpine_chav]

He got caught with CERA in his system. That's not exactly subtle. Based on everyone's performance today at Tirreno not much has changed for the well-tuned guys. Either that or they are all clean and can sprint up an 18 percent grade for a full kilometer at the end of an early season stage race and following two days of 150+miles....

exactly my thoughts too .. just watched the highlights... ridiculous.. where is the Evans is clean brigade?.. go watch that haha

 

[Zweistein]

This thread is such a joke. Of course people are still doping and up to the limit. Most of these people have no other ready career path and many don't even have a high school education. The game is get in and get your f'ing money before you are through. A two year ban isn't even really a penalty from a financial stand point. The odds of getting caught are low and if you can get away with it for one year, you are already ahead. A doped rider can make several times a worker rider can make in one year. If you want cycling to be clean, either let the sport burn to the ground and chase off all of the sponsors or setup a system were from financial perspective it is too risky (flat wages across the board, an escrow system, huge team fines, ect ect ect)

 

[D-Queued]

On the idea that doping makes permanent changes. With respect to steroids and muscles, maybe, but very dubious for changing blood parameters, which of course is the major goal of doping in cycling. If you stop taking EPO or blood transfusions, your HT will fall to its former levels, that is very well established. There is no permanent physical change there that I'm aware of.

As for a rider being psychologically changed, because he's had experience going beyond his former limits, seems to me that could work either way. He could also be somewhat devastated at not being able to perform at the level he could while doping. I believe several riders who came back after doping mentioned that, and it surely is a major reason why they return to dope.

Think of the early 90s, when riders who were not on EPO suddenly found themselves dropped by guys they had easily stayed with if not beaten before. A former doper must feel a lot like that when he returns to the peloton clean. It's very much an addiction.

How much research have you done?

On such popular drugs as:
- Testosterone & other AAS
- IGF-1
- HGH

Could any of these impact capillary density, for example? Will that simply disappear?

Your blood supply may replenish itself after 120 days, but will your muscles, bones and organs all disappear? Please bear in mind that there is little doping, these days, during the competition. Thus, gains other than blood supply and composition, are of a more permanent nature.

(anything like increased heart size... changed body composition... ?)

Diverse physiological effects of growth hormone are described for a wide spectrum of different target tissueshttp://www.doping-prevention.de/fileadmin/files/Doping_prevention/en/buchbseod_alt.pdf

Enlargement of
o Hands and feet
o Nose, chin, tongue and ears (remember Pantani?)
o Organs: heart, liver, bowel

What about Gene doping?

(Research on this post yielded an interesting study linking AAS' to testicular cancer: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10526287
"high dose doping with androgenic anabolic steroids could have played a cocarcinogenic role in the development of the tumor in this case")

- Know any athlete to have had testicular cancer?
- Alternately, know any prematurely bald cyclists?
- Know any female cyclists with excessive hair growth or reduced breast size?
- Anyone with Necrosis ("rotting") of Femoral head (hip joint)?

Sure, these last points are non-beneficial, but they are definitely long-term.

Are there no possibilities of long-term beneficial impacts of doping?

Dave.

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/MACAU_Effects_of_Doping.pdf

 

[flicker]

Or, some gains from doping can persist. Perhaps not all gains, and obviously not gains from all doping techniques.

This is known.

Knowlingly or not (i.e. more observation than accusation), it also helps explain why new 'clean' teams might favor old 'cleaned-up' riders rather than all new riders.

Dave.

Actually I think that the DNA has a memory for drugs be it EPO, THC, OPIATES, ROIDS what have you. Once a person has trained and performed at the extreme method allowed by PEDs an individual knows their capabilities. Roids have to have a lifetime strengthening effect.

 

[Willy_Voet]

With respect to steroids and muscles, maybe...

Testosterone & other AAS

I think he had it covered there.

 

[Dave_1]

why do we assume doping is only impacting form during races? These ex dopers have bodies, capacity, margins of improvment that are entirely the result of decades of drug fueled training that has let them develop higher limits of endurance, strength, ability... way way beyond what nature would have let them develop doping free as they'd have been too tired to do the mileage, intensities that have given them the bodies they now have to work with clean. This is why 4 year bans would be good and why we are seeing the unfair advantage of the banked benefits of a decade of drugged training regimens. Di luca might have been rubbish but now has an amazing base level of strength and endurance to work with. The UCI totally misses this point by only requiring riders to be available for testing within 6 months of their first race start. Retired or banned riders should be tested weekly if there is hint of a return

 

[Rip:30]

On the idea that doping makes permanent changes. With respect to steroids and muscles, maybe, but very dubious for changing blood parameters, which of course is the major goal of doping in cycling. If you stop taking EPO or blood transfusions, your HT will fall to its former levels, that is very well established. There is no permanent physical change there that I'm aware of.

As for a rider being psychologically changed, because he's had experience going beyond his former limits, seems to me that could work either way. He could also be somewhat devastated at not being able to perform at the level he could while doping. I believe several riders who came back after doping mentioned that, and it surely is a major reason why they return to dope.

Think of the early 90s, when riders who were not on EPO suddenly found themselves dropped by guys they had easily stayed with if not beaten before. A former doper must feel a lot like that when he returns to the peloton clean. It's very much an addiction.

What about peripheral stuff that was a consequence of the previous blood boost?

Capillary density? Mitochondrial density?

Who knows, could have changed any number of things for the long run. Perhaps especially if they keep training.

 

[Ferminal]

Di Luca was tired yesterday so he obviously isn't doping...

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/7777/Tirreno-Adriatico-Di-Luca-admits-hes-tiring.aspx

 

[D-Queued]

I think he had it covered there.

Not completely, HGH, IGF-1 =/= AAS

What about peripheral stuff that was a consequence of the previous blood boost?

Capillary density? Mitochondrial density?

Who knows, could have changed any number of things for the long run. Perhaps especially if they keep training.

Blood boost???

What about hormones? HGH? IGF-1?

http://www.annals.org/content/152/9/568.abstract

Know any good sprinters with unusually big chins, ears, hands or feet?

Dave.

 

[Merckx index]

WRG steroids, here’s an interesting link:

http://www.mesomorphosis.com/blog/a...-permanent-performance-enhancing-effects/488/

The main findings were that: a) Muscle fiber hypertrophy by strength training is further increased by anabolic steroids. b) The number of nuclei per muscle fiber is higher in power lifters using anabolic steroids compared to non-steroids using lifters. c) Among power lifters who have withdrawn from anabolic steroid usage and training for several years, the number of myonuclei, both subsarcolemmal and internal, remains high. d) In active power lifters, anabolic steroids have no further effect on the number of satellite cells per fiber. e) Power lifters have a high proportion of split fibers.

Charles Yesalis, a former strength coach and professor emeritus of health policy and administration at Pennsylvania State University, says athletes who continue to train can retain as much as 85% of their gains from using drugs. This isn’t based on muscle biopsies or peer-reviewed research, he says, but on 30 years of experience with athletes. He says he has talked privately with hundreds of dopers, some of them champions, and has seen the permanent benefits of performance-enhancing drugs. “These things are like rocket fuel,” he says.

If this is true, of course, it means that all these Olympic sprinters and others getting nailed for steroids are taking a largely unnecessary risk. They could withdraw from the sport for a while, take drugs without being tested, then come back and perform nearly as well as those doping regularly. Is this for real? Dunno, but if it is, I would assume athletes will catch on. I think of all those boxers who retire for a year or two in the height of their careers, then come back, though of course there are other reasons for quitting.

What about peripheral stuff that was a consequence of the previous blood boost?

Capillary density? Mitochondrial density?

Who knows, could have changed any number of things for the long run. Perhaps especially if they keep training.

Sure, possible. But no evidence that I’m aware of. The most suggestive evidence I know is that training is known to increase the levels of certain enzymes involved in energy metabolism, and some of that change, though probably not most, may persist in athletes after they stop training. One could theorize that EPO or blood transfusion, by increasing oxygen transport to cells, has a similar enhancing effect on these or other enzymes, some of which persists. But I would be surprised if the effect is very large. If it is, what is Millar doing wrong?

 

[D-Queued]

WRG steroids, here’s an interesting link:

http://www.mesomorphosis.com/blog/a...-permanent-performance-enhancing-effects/488/

If this is true, of course, it means that all these Olympic sprinters and others getting nailed for steroids are taking a largely unnecessary risk. They could withdraw from the sport for a while, take drugs without being tested, then come back and perform nearly as well as those doping regularly. Is this for real? Dunno, but if it is, I would assume athletes will catch on. I think of all those boxers who retire for a year or two in the height of their careers, then come back, though of course there are other reasons for quitting.

Sure, possible. But no evidence that I’m aware of. The most suggestive evidence I know is that training is known to increase the levels of certain enzymes involved in energy metabolism, and some of that change, though probably not most, may persist in athletes after they stop training. One could theorize that EPO or blood transfusion, by increasing oxygen transport to cells, has a similar enhancing effect on these or other enzymes, some of which persists. But I would be surprised if the effect is very large. If it is, what is Millar doing wrong?

Good data.

But, 85% of a good thing is only 85%. These guys/gals live in a no risk, no reward scenario.

In terms of retiring and returning, WADA has thought of this. Unless your name is Lance Armstrong (this is not a troll, as he did get away with it thanks to the UCI) you are supposed to be tested for a year after retirement and ~1 year (or 6 months???) before returning to competition.

Dave.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Know any good sprinters with unusually big chins, ears, hands or feet?

Dave.

But to be fair, naturally occurring high levels of HGH would be an advantage. We've seen Cadel's dad and his childhood photos and the evidence is there that there is certainly reason to argue the HGH-esque features that he has are natural; which would then suggest a natural high level of HGH, which is then beneficial. It's the same as people saying Giorgia Bronzini must have been doping with testo because she looks quite butch... or maybe she just has a naturally higher level than many of the other women and therefore has a natural advantage because of that.

 

[D-Queued]

But to be fair, naturally occurring high levels of HGH would be an advantage. We've seen Cadel's dad and his childhood photos and the evidence is there that there is certainly reason to argue the HGH-esque features that he has are natural; which would then suggest a natural high level of HGH, which is then beneficial. It's the same as people saying Giorgia Bronzini must have been doping with testo because she looks quite butch... or maybe she just has a naturally higher level than many of the other women and therefore has a natural advantage because of that.

But he isn't a known doper returning to previous form. Is he?

Here is a guy that seemed to have put it all together... big ears... bald...

Dave.