• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

The Internet and increased doping.

Jun 12, 2010
1,083
0
0
"Back in the day" as it were, in my case the 80`s, as with kit advantages ( wind tunnal use was VERY rare), much about doping seemed to be speculation and guess work.
It was very rare I ever heard anyone speek with any certainty about doses, methodology and % gains.
It would seem to me the rise in doping understanding and practice since the early 90`s may be in large part due to the internet allowing access to a lot of research and sharing of info in a way previously not possible.
Theres also the availabilty of the drugs by post that while possible back in the 80`s finding out from were was no easy matter..certainly not two clicks on google!.
Its certainly the case that theres more genuine knowledge of the subject on a forum like this than there was in most of the peloton back then.

Any thoughts folks?
 
Apr 13, 2010
1,199
0
0
I definitely agree with you that the web has made it more accessible, but mainly in the last 10 years and not back to early nineties.

I think there was a growth in the use of doctors for more than proper treatment in those years, but you'd have better first hand knowledge of that. As I understand it the pro users mainly got their stuff from the doctors who treated them or other direct contacts.

However I have no doubt that the internet has had more than a small hand in the proliferation beyond the pro peloton and into the amateur ranks - so, yeah...
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,083
0
0
JPM London said:
I definitely agree with you that the web has made it more accessible, but mainly in the last 10 years and not back to early nineties.

I think there was a growth in the use of doctors for more than proper treatment in those years, but you'd have better first hand knowledge of that. As I understand it the pro users mainly got their stuff from the doctors who treated them or other direct contacts.

However I have no doubt that the internet has had more than a small hand in the proliferation beyond the pro peloton and into the amateur ranks - so, yeah...
I can only speek for UK teams and my year at Teka but I was never aware of a specific doctor used by a UK team or Teka.
My impression was there was a few sogniours who had more knowledge than how to rub legs and prepare lunch for bidons but they were of a very mixed knowledge base...most a long way from real qualification and understanding.
Around 89, 90 Is realy when that began to change and teams began to be more "profesionaly" organised.
I dont know the figures but wages and security that you`d even get them back then could be very hit and miss even on teams you`d exspect to have no such issues.
Many a pro from that time has a wages tail to tell.
Growth in sophistication of doping has a very strong correlation with increased earnings.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,108
0
0
When I pointed out that the benefits of blood doping were well understood by the mid to late eighties, someone commented that the internet wasn't around yet, and all of the available research may not have been at every library or research center.

I was going to answer that on the other thread, but I'll answer it here instead. That's a ridiculous premise, for several reasons.

-research into blood transfusions has many uses besides sports and doping. Most of this research would have been available in most universities medical libraries. I know clinical researchers who to this day barely know about the internet...

-the US was hardly 'cutting edge' on the cycling world, but even a luddite like Eddie B knew about the efficacy of blood doping

-if there was any question about whether or not blood doping worked in real-world settings, the '84 Olympics made that clear

-EPO. This is the biggie that really shoots down the "internet" argument. Doctors were experimenting with this drug was in was still in clinical trials and/or just approved. The Dutch were already killing riders with it by the late '80's, and early nineties, when the internet wasn't around or in its infancy.

The internet certainly has made the spread of information easier, particularly for lay people, and it has certainly made it much easier to weed out tradition versus fact. In high level doping that involves people in the medical community, though, cutting edge information has always been available. It just wasn't as easy to get it as it is now.

I'd have to agree that the growth of using actual doctors has had more to do doping methods being used, and the absence of doctors in the early '80s was probably the main reason blood doping wasn't used extensively by road teams during that time. I don't think lack of internet had anything to do with it. I really don't know much about the trend of cycling teams and medical doctors began, so maybe someone can fill me in?
 
Dec 30, 2009
27
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Doping; whatever the fanboys are on to enable them to live in lala land, i want some of it and i want it now:D
The 1950s and 1960s were the best years for charging, mainly amphetamines. If you didn't win anything, at least you enjoyed the racing, and everyone was so chatty!
 
May 13, 2009
3,042
0
0
131313 said:
When I pointed out that the benefits of blood doping were well understood by the mid to late eighties, someone commented that the internet wasn't around yet, and all of the available research may not have been at every library or research center.

I was going to answer that on the other thread, but I'll answer it here instead. That's a ridiculous premise, for several reasons.

-research into blood transfusions has many uses besides sports and doping. Most of this research would have been available in most universities medical libraries. I know clinical researchers who to this day barely know about the internet...

-the US was hardly 'cutting edge' on the cycling world, but even a luddite like Eddie B knew about the efficacy of blood doping

-if there was any question about whether or not blood doping worked in real-world settings, the '84 Olympics made that clear

-EPO. This is the biggie that really shoots down the "internet" argument. Doctors were experimenting with this drug was in was still in clinical trials and/or just approved. The Dutch were already killing riders with it by the late '80's, and early nineties, when the internet wasn't around or in its infancy.

The internet certainly has made the spread of information easier, particularly for lay people, and it has certainly made it much easier to weed out tradition versus fact. In high level doping that involves people in the medical community, though, cutting edge information has always been available. It just wasn't as easy to get it as it is now.

I'd have to agree that the growth of using actual doctors has had more to do doping methods being used, and the absence of doctors in the early '80s was probably the main reason blood doping wasn't used extensively by road teams during that time. I don't think lack of internet had anything to do with it. I really don't know much about the trend of cycling teams and medical doctors began, so maybe someone can fill me in?
+1

If you were on the internet in the early 90s you'd know that it mostly consisted of websites by University science departments. You could submit your new website to Yahoo by email and you'd get a hand written thank-you email in return. Browsers such as mosaic had the option 'do not load images' for text-only surfing (because the speed was so terribly slow). It was a different beast back then; in no way comparable to today. I can't see the connection between EPO and internet.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,083
0
0
Cobblestones said:
+1

If you were on the internet in the early 90s you'd know that it mostly consisted of websites by University science departments. You could submit your new website to Yahoo by email and you'd get a hand written thank-you email in return. Browsers such as mosaic had the option 'do not load images' for text-only surfing (because the speed was so terribly slow). It was a different beast back then; in no way comparable to today. I can't see the connection between EPO and internet.
I wasnt thinking specificly of EPO but any knowledge / drug.
Obviously in the early 90`s with the net in its infancy it wasnt as it is now...but it would be interesting to know what efect the net has had in drug use/ supply/ and knowledge and if theres any indication that as the net has become more sophisticated has it had an effect in the numbers of athletes using drugs. That can work both ways.
On the other hand the net might also be said to have spread awareness to to both fans and public and increased the desire and drive to clean up a sport that can`t in any time in its entire history claim to have been "clean".
As pro sport is essentialy a form of advert/ entertainment within its own walls for many , many years, there just wasnt the imperative of the publics attitude to doping to deal with.
Now its a become the MAJOR reason somat has to be done...or seen to be done.
Question hanging on everyones lips is " Will it?":rolleyes:
 
May 13, 2009
3,042
0
0
Darryl Webster said:
I wasnt thinking specificly of EPO but any knowledge / drug.
Obviously in the early 90`s with the net in its infancy it wasnt as it is now...but it would be interesting to know what efect the net has had in drug use/ supply/ and knowledge and if theres any indication that as the net has become more sophisticated has it had an effect in the numbers of athletes using drugs. That can work both ways.
On the other hand the net might also be said to have spread awareness to to both fans and public and increased the desire and drive to clean up a sport that can`t in any time in its entire history claim to have been "clean".
As pro sport is essentialy a form of advert/ entertainment within its own walls for many , many years, there just wasnt the imperative of the publics attitude to doping to deal with.
Now its a become the MAJOR reason somat has to be done...or seen to be done.
Question hanging on everyones lips is " Will it?":rolleyes:
I see your point. In general, I'd say that the net had an effect maybe from around 1999 on, the time of the first dot com bubble. It was the time when it began getting commercialized for real. I remember ordering a kit online for the first time I think around 1998. That was also the time where discussion groups in the usenet started to grow, in a sense the very early incarnations of a forum.

It might be an interesting topic to investigate the effect of the internet. Personally, it has made me much more aware of doping. Maybe that's a general observation for most fans of cycling. If so, it could be for the good (by demonstrating how big the problem really is so it will be taken more seriously) or the bad (by making information and availability much more widespread). I really have no idea.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts