• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

start younger

This article has a little blurb that really illustrates one of the biggest issues in doping

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-to-hold-fast-to-protour-rules-excluding-continental-teams
"If the Tour of California becomes a ProTour race, it might motivate some of the team to go Professional Continental. At the moment a lot of the US Continental teams have the budgets of Pro Continental teams but there are no controls over them, neither the Biological Passport or anything, as there with the Pro Continental teams in Europe. They've got to progress as well."

The Biological Passport program and in general increased and better testing being done at the pro tour level is all good. But the problem is that these programs don't affect many younger, developing cyclists. The young cyclists who haven't yet made it to the pro tour level are certainly incentivised to dope to get there, especially knowing their current testing is minimal. I would guess that by the time many of them get to the protour level they have already been immersed into the culture of doping.

If we are going to change the doping culture we need to start testing younger. This is a very difficult situation because there are serious financial barriers to participating in these testing programs. I don't have a solution to make it happen, but I think focusing on testing younger is the best answer to help rid cycling of doping.
 
offbyone said:
This article has a little blurb that really illustrates one of the biggest issues in doping

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-to-hold-fast-to-protour-rules-excluding-continental-teams


The Biological Passport program and in general increased and better testing being done at the pro tour level is all good. But the problem is that these programs don't affect many younger, developing cyclists. The young cyclists who haven't yet made it to the pro tour level are certainly incentivised to dope to get there, especially knowing their current testing is minimal. I would guess that by the time many of them get to the protour level they have already been immersed into the culture of doping.

If we are going to change the doping culture we need to start testing younger. This is a very difficult situation because there are serious financial barriers to participating in these testing programs. I don't have a solution to make it happen, but I think focusing on testing younger is the best answer to help rid cycling of doping.

You are correct Sir. One can compete regularly at an amateur regional level in the USA even in the Pro/1/2 field and never see a single drug test. Ever. The only time you will get tested is at a few National level events.

This is certainly a big problem but apparently USA Cycling doesn't care.
 
BikeCentric said:
You are correct Sir. One can compete regularly at an amateur regional level in the USA even in the Pro/1/2 field and never see a single drug test. Ever. The only time you will get tested is at a few National level events.

This is certainly a big problem but apparently USA Cycling doesn't care.

Exactly and I don't believe this situation is limited to the united states.

Although I really have no idea what USA Cycling's view is on the subject. I am sure they would want more testing. But if all of our race registration fees have to double in order to accommodate for a real testing program, it would probably hurt cycling participation significantly. So it might be viewed as a lose-lose proposition.
 
Long term benefit of doping?

Somewhat related, I've been wondering about the long-term, as in several years, benefit of doping.

Cycling is a sport where the base capability is built over many years. And it takes many years to lose it again. I know that this is true on lower levels, since it is now years since I put in >10000km/year training, but I still ride well for a weekend warrier. I do not know how far up in elite and professional performance this is the case.

Doping (or at least some aspects of it) allow you to ride harder, train longer, recover, train more etc. This should allow to build a better base, which could stay several years after you stop doping. In particular, one could speculate that for a young developing rider, doping during that development period could be beneficial even if one were to stop doping once reaching the pro-level. Does this make sense to people with more insight?

If so, I consider it slightly less severe type of cheating. Doping to be able to train harder can probably to some extent be replaced by more commitment, determination and suffering. so a determined clean rider could train equally hard. conversely, on race day, doping adds to existing performance, and is much harder to replace by gritt by a clean rider. I am not saying that doping before reaching the top is not cheating, merely saying that it probably influences the results slightly less than doping during professional carreer.

If this idea that there are long-term benefits of training doped makes sense, one can then ask whether those benefits last longer than 2 years.
 
hmronnow said:
Somewhat related, I've been wondering about the long-term, as in several years, benefit of doping.

Cycling is a sport where the base capability is built over many years. And it takes many years to lose it again. I know that this is true on lower levels, since it is now years since I put in >10000km/year training, but I still ride well for a weekend warrier. I do not know how far up in elite and professional performance this is the case.

Doping (or at least some aspects of it) allow you to ride harder, train longer, recover, train more etc. This should allow to build a better base, which could stay several years after you stop doping. In particular, one could speculate that for a young developing rider, doping during that development period could be beneficial even if one were to stop doping once reaching the pro-level. Does this make sense to people with more insight?

If so, I consider it slightly less severe type of cheating. Doping to be able to train harder can probably to some extent be replaced by more commitment, determination and suffering. so a determined clean rider could train equally hard. conversely, on race day, doping adds to existing performance, and is much harder to replace by gritt by a clean rider. I am not saying that doping before reaching the top is not cheating, merely saying that it probably influences the results slightly less than doping during professional carreer.

If this idea that there are long-term benefits of training doped makes sense, one can then ask whether those benefits last longer than 2 years.

Cheating is cheating. This is the antithesis of the point of this post. We need to stop doping from starting at all by attacking dopers at a younger age.
 
offbyone said:
Cheating is cheating. This is the antithesis of the point of this post. We need to stop doping from starting at all by attacking dopers at a younger age.

Sorry, maybe I wasn't being clear. My main point was the quesiton: does doping provide a benefit even one or several seasons after stopping to dope?

If so, then doping at a young age is cheating (and therefore tempting) not only for the immediate wins but also for the development of the rider.

My comment about relative severity of doping is probably what you picked up on. By this I simply meant a factual judgement on how different aspects of doping influences the results. The long-term benefit of doping (if any) is probably smaller than the benefit of being pumped on race day. I did not mean to pardon any type of doping.
 
Aug 4, 2009
1,056
1
0
Visit site
Doping is fraud. CAS can only isue a sanctions but if it was heard in a proper Court of law as a criminal case the sentence could be 5 years behind bars.

That would at least cause second thoughts before using dope.
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,035
0
0
Visit site
okay but where do you start? In most countries that I have been associated with, more than 95% of the current racing riders have no actual ambition to get to the pro ranks because they either are already too old, or know that they are just plain not good enough. Every club has maybe ONE rider that has the talent to maybe make it. (Yes I know that in some concentrated areas like really big city based clubs there may be more)

The cost of testing at amatuer events is prohibitively expensive. I have been at clubs that would collapse due to not being able to cover it (think of a club hosts a weekly race where a $1 coin is the entry fee and a sovenier tea-spoon is the winner's prize). So you are left with testing at state or national level races (and the juniors are motivated to dope to get to THAT level)

And who are you trying to actually catch? That ONE rider who might go to a higher level. Do you somehow create a register of junior riders that are trying to make it to Pro in the future? What age do you start testing at? Do you start with 11 year olds?

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree that it is an issue that aspiring riders are motivated to dope and something needs to be done - I just don't see how its possible to do it through testing of amatuer riders without the sponsorship of some massive companies to pay for it all.
 
hmronnow said:
Somewhat related, I've been wondering about the long-term, as in several years, benefit of doping.

Cycling is a sport where the base capability is built over many years. And it takes many years to lose it again. I know that this is true on lower levels, since it is now years since I put in >10000km/year training, but I still ride well for a weekend warrier. I do not know how far up in elite and professional performance this is the case.

Doping (or at least some aspects of it) allow you to ride harder, train longer, recover, train more etc. This should allow to build a better base, which could stay several years after you stop doping. In particular, one could speculate that for a young developing rider, doping during that development period could be beneficial even if one were to stop doping once reaching the pro-level. Does this make sense to people with more insight?

If so, I consider it slightly less severe type of cheating. Doping to be able to train harder can probably to some extent be replaced by more commitment, determination and suffering. so a determined clean rider could train equally hard. conversely, on race day, doping adds to existing performance, and is much harder to replace by gritt by a clean rider. I am not saying that doping before reaching the top is not cheating, merely saying that it probably influences the results slightly less than doping during professional carreer.

If this idea that there are long-term benefits of training doped makes sense, one can then ask whether those benefits last longer than 2 years.

This is based on the naive assumption that it is about the bike and just the winning, but it is not. It is about the money first, and then the fame. Dope = $$$$. Now, at face value, if we look at professional wrestling where doping is assumed, the over muscled entertainers are out there and we all know they are just jacked up entertainers. But we are being sold a bill of goods race after race about so called "clean" cyclists and it is a F*****G joke. It's not about the bike, it's about the money.
 
Apr 26, 2010
325
0
0
Visit site
offbyone said:
Exactly and I don't believe this situation is limited to the united states.

It is not. It occurs widely in Europe as well, not very sure about Australia or South Africa. Even in Colombia and Asia it is most likely very prevalent. The fact that nobody is tested in the Amateur and low ranks causes the majority of them to dope. Alright well maybe not the majority, but enough numbers since we are talking about it.
 
Mar 19, 2009
832
0
0
Visit site
shawnrohrbach said:
This is based on the naive assumption that it is about the bike and just the winning, but it is not. It is about the money first, and then the fame. Dope = $$$$. Now, at face value, if we look at professional wrestling where doping is assumed, the over muscled entertainers are out there and we all know they are just jacked up entertainers. But we are being sold a bill of goods race after race about so called "clean" cyclists and it is a F*****G joke. It's not about the bike, it's about the money.
Eh, not necessarily. Since we are talking about young people in this thread...from my personal experience young people dope to get a competitive edge. I knew a lot of kids who used PEDs just to perform better. I'm talking 15-18 years old. Really was not much different than kids experimenting with recreational drugs.
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,035
0
0
Visit site
Vonn Brinkman said:
It is not. It occurs widely in Europe as well, not very sure about Australia or South Africa. Even in Colombia and Asia it is most likely very prevalent. The fact that nobody is tested in the Amateur and low ranks causes the majority of them to dope. Alright well maybe not the majority, but enough numbers since we are talking about it.

As I said above - I don't think thats true.

There is a difference between those riders who are trying to make a living or start a career in racing and the overwhelming majority of amateurs who race every week. I would expect to find out that in Australia the % of amateur racers that dope would be well under 1% (I am ignoring those that may have taken a banned substance such as a sinus medication, etc for a cold and am talking about those that are engaging in a specific attempt to take a product for performance advantage)

I know that last paragraph is a tad dodgy but what I am trying to say is that yes there is a lot of pressure on that 1% of riders who want to suceed but in my experience there is virtually no doping in the majority of amateur racing.

(or is this just the case in Australia and the UK?)
 
The problem starts at the top. you can test all you want at under the age of 21, but when a kid is clean, turns pro and then enters a culture where doping is normal and almost necessary to finish in the top (like 50%+ of the gt-top performers in the last 1995-now have been busted) then it really doesn't matter.

If you want to get rid of the culture then you should get rid of the structure that makes it happen. Create a situation in which everyone involved knows that if we accept that our team is doping that the likelyhood that we all go down as a result of it is huge. So aim for the teammanagers, aim for the dopingsuppliers, increase penalties for doping but reduce sentences if you name the network & suppliers, increase the effectiveness of the dope-test, speak out against doping and act like it, etc. etc.
 
Epicycle said:
Eh, not necessarily. Since we are talking about young people in this thread...from my personal experience young people dope to get a competitive edge. I knew a lot of kids who used PEDs just to perform better. I'm talking 15-18 years old. Really was not much different than kids experimenting with recreational drugs.

I am also aware of many PED users in the 15-18 range and the goal for the vast majority, depending on the sport, is always a college scholarship, early pro signing, sponsorship, etc etc. There are many avenues to the cash and most of them had their eye on the gold, not the trophy. My own nephew took them and suggested it was the popular thing to do among his weigthlifting friends, but the real goal was professional wrestling and sponsorships. He committed suicide just a few months before a significant try out and we can only speculate on whether he upped the dosage to improve performance at the try out and increase his chances of signing thereby creating more emotioanl instability.
 

Latest posts