• 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!

What use is testosterone for cyclists?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
slcbiker said:
There is a difference between theoretical physiology and proof that something works or doesn't work and how much effect it has. That's why people do studies. For instance:
Hoogeveen and Zonderland in the International Journal of Sports Medicine. "Relationships between testosterone, cortisol and performance in professional cyclists".
From the abstract:
"These results suggest that in endurance trained cyclists, decreased testosterone levels, increased cortisol levels and a decreased testosterone: cortisol ratio does not automatically lead to a decrease in performance or a state of overtraining."

Gosh, you know what, you're right, anyone can indeed go into PubMed.
Yes you are correct. Just because the physiological actions of testosterone on the human body are well known does not automatically mean that it enhances recovery. But the problem is that it is virtually impossible to conduct a study in elite athletes because it is a banned substance. All you can do is use well trained subjects (but not professional athletes). In the absence of literature examining specifically what you're asking, it is entirely possible to make an assumption that doping with testosterone aids performance in cycling on the basis of the existing literature and the anecdotal evidence that is has been in common use for 10-20yrs in cycling. If it didn't work, they would have have figured it out a long time ago and stopped wasting a LOT of money.

Good to see you follow the link to pubmed! Many others would not have even bothered!! The Hoogeveen study isn't particularly useful though with respect to the current thread topic because it did not examine exogenous testosterone administration during a period of intensified training. What it reveals is that the test/cortisol ratio is a variable that requires very strict measurement control if it is to be of any use in monitoring accumulated athlete fatigue.
 
Jun 26, 2009
269
0
0
Visit site
BigBoat said:
Low sex drive with low testosterone too. Not what a cyclist wants... A 20 year old inactive male might get 900ng/dl if they have slightly above average testosterone levels. Certainly not a 20 year old cyclist.

The average 40 year old that is training hard might have below 300ng/dl! Yikes, time for some synthetic testosterone. Raising it to 1,000ng/dl isnt going to do anything as far as negative side effect. Nolvedex is good for that.

Deca Durabalin and Sustanon was good for my sex life but cycling was bad for my love life :D
 
Jun 26, 2009
269
0
0
Visit site
WD-40. said:
I agree.

Most on this forum would shudder to think what can happen to the body when training hard cleanly. There are elite riders at 19-25 years old that don't dope and have to endure ultra low testosterone levels of LESS than 300ng/dl and frequently even lower. That is not good for the long term health especially the bones... Remember that most cyclists that have low testosterone levels do not know that they have low levels or want to believe it while in their ignorance develop preventable osterpenia or worse.

I know for a fact that testosterone replacement therapy (done correctly) will increase bone density and can be VERY healthy for the elite/pro athlete who will suffer from low levels.

The human body was never designed perfectly with some being more "perfect" than others. A super diet alone is just not good enough for top athletes whether we want to believe it or not.

Road cycling is one hell of a sport but treat it with respect, treat the athletes with respect and realize that sometimes the athletes know how to look after themselves better than those not in their position.

Elsewhere on this forum I suggest that a distinction should be made between drugs that increase your performance and the ones that merely keep you healthy in a sport which often has extremely high demands placed on its professionals. I was pretty much shot down in flames. Now it would appear that we are touching on the same concept that I was proposing:rolleyes:
 
beroepsrenner said:
Elsewhere on this forum I suggest that a distinction should be made between drugs that increase your performance and the ones that merely keep you healthy in a sport which often has extremely high demands placed on its professionals. I was pretty much shot down in flames. Now it would appear that we are touching on the same concept that I was proposing:rolleyes:
In you're other posts you said that doping is often needed just to "survive" ie: not get dropped (from the peloton, the race, the team etc), but that is only the case because the high physiological demands of pro cycling are coincident with doping in the first place.

If pro cycling was completely clean though the athletes wouldn't die and they wouldn't be any less healthy than what they are now. They will just ride slower and they won't compete in as many races. It is as simple as that.

edit: if they ride clean but attempt to replicate the extreme demands that are possible with doping, then the likely outcome is that they will get sick and/or overtrained, which leads us back to the same outcome.... ride slower and less often.
 
Mar 17, 2009
98
0
0
Visit site
Krebs cycle said:
If pro cycling was completely clean though the athletes wouldn't die and they wouldn't be any less healthy than what they are now. They will just ride slower and they won't compete in as many races. It is as simple as that.

May I guess that you are not too knowledgeble on the topic of endochronology? :p

I understand where you are coming from where the athletes competing cleanly would become sick or overtrained under very high stress/demands.

I do not believe at all that the human body is suited to the extreme demands of pro cycling and that "help" is needed to keep healthy. Sure by taking it easier you could prevent a lot of the health issues but you can't tell the athletes to take it easy as its a competition, and who wants the sport to become weak and tame so to speak. The TDF for example should be appreciated as arguably the hardest competition in mankinds history and not be made into a watered down joke of a race just because people feel that they should not be taking hormones to protect their health.

It seems whenever someone brings up the issue of losing bone mineral density in cyclists it is largely ignored and sometimes every attempt is made to make it seem like a non issue (not aimed at you Krebs cycle). I sure as heck don't wish to have the bones of a 70 year old woman at 30 and yet how many elite riders do you know that do not have osteopenia? There is no doubt that most will be well below "Joe Public" and I would guess that many perhaps most have osteopenia of the spine or hips.

Ignorance is bliss ;).

Long live the sport!
 
Aug 4, 2009
1,056
1
0
Visit site
Brian

I am 65 yo Vet I have had testosterone implants for last 10 years.
low dose I has not done anything for performance but then again neither has last 10 years older.

Makes you stronger sometimes in wind etc. but not so good for sprinting.
Stiff joints are wort efect .
Weight still same but possibly less body fat.
 
Jul 21, 2009
17
0
0
Visit site
WD-40. said:
It seems whenever someone brings up the issue of losing bone mineral density in cyclists it is largely ignored and sometimes every attempt is made to make it seem like a non issue (not aimed at you Krebs cycle). I sure as heck don't wish to have the bones of a 70 year old woman at 30 and yet how many elite riders do you know that do not have osteopenia? There is no doubt that most will be well below "Joe Public" and I would guess that many perhaps most have osteopenia of the spine or hips.

As most elite cyclists dope/doped, it's probably less than you think. The old "I'm just restoring the body to its natural balance" argument, is one that has been pedalled by team soigneurs and "doctors" for years. It is an argument so full of holes and leaves the door open to abuse that it can't be considered seriously.
Chris Boardman retired from Pro cycling with ostepenia, or something close to it. In the words of his Doctor he had a "spine like a 70 year-old women". As reaction to all the racing he had done, the body had stopped producing testosterone naturally. As he was not allowed to take testosterone therapy, even in the off season (he checked with the UCI), he chose to retire, before it got any worse.
Additional evidence, in case there was any doubt, that he was a clean rider.
I think this was the right decision by the UCI, it may sound like they were preventing him taking treatment for a legitimate medical complaint. But otherwise every rider in the peloton would have a TUE for osteoporosis treatment alongside the TUE for asthma and diabetes that so many seem to have now.
 
WD-40. said:
May I guess that you are not too knowledgeble on the topic of endochronology? :p
endochronology? no I'm not aware of that field. does it have something to do with the body's internal clock or something? ;)


I understand where you are coming from where the athletes competing cleanly would become sick or overtrained under very high stress/demands.

I do not believe at all that the human body is suited to the extreme demands of pro cycling and that "help" is needed to keep healthy. Sure by taking it easier you could prevent a lot of the health issues but you can't tell the athletes to take it easy as its a competition, and who wants the sport to become weak and tame so to speak. The TDF for example should be appreciated as arguably the hardest competition in mankinds history and not be made into a watered down joke of a race just because people feel that they should not be taking hormones to protect their health.

It seems whenever someone brings up the issue of losing bone mineral density in cyclists it is largely ignored and sometimes every attempt is made to make it seem like a non issue (not aimed at you Krebs cycle). I sure as heck don't wish to have the bones of a 70 year old woman at 30 and yet how many elite riders do you know that do not have osteopenia? There is no doubt that most will be well below "Joe Public" and I would guess that many perhaps most have osteopenia of the spine or hips.

Ignorance is bliss ;).

Long live the sport!
I'm not an endocrinologist but I do have a PhD in exercise physiology and 10yrs of experience working directly with world class endurance athletes. I work with many athletes that go through hell to achieve what they do, and very few come out the other side completely unscathed.... long term injuries, broken backs, ribs, joints, shot metabolism from yrs of trying to make weight, probs with hormonal balance as you say etc etc you name it, they've got it. The US ski team has a 100% ACL rupture rate. Can you believe it? Every single national team downhiller ruptures their ACL at least once in their career. IMO the football codes such as rugby leage, union and aussie rules are harder on the body than cycling. You don't see too many players in their mid 30s and their playing careers are much shorter as a consequence. The demand of professional basketball in the US and football (soccer) in the european competitions are also immense.

Pretty much all of the athletes I work with understand the risks involved, but they have chosen to make a sacrifice and the health complications are the price they pay for that sacrifice. They know that elite sport is a health hazard, but at the end of the day, individuals make thier own choices. Its their life, if they don't want health problems later in life, they can always walk away (as many have done of course).

So I agree that the demands of pro cycling are potentially bad for their long term health, but I disagree that this should be justification for doping with steroids, HGH, IGF-1 and EPO during their competitive careers.

To a large extent, international sporting competition is about survival of the fittest. Those whom can train the hardest for the longest without breaking or getting sick or overtrained, inevitably rise to the top. This is the natural order of it. If you circumvent this natural order and can only rise to the top with the assistance of medication, then how is this anything but cheating?
 
Mar 17, 2009
98
0
0
Visit site
Krebs cycle said:
endochronology? no I'm not aware of that field. does it have something to do with the body's internal clock or something? ;)
lol! Where did that h come from? :D

I don't think that taking hormones is cheating if the rules permit this practice. I also do think that therapeutic doping (if thats sounds OK), should be permitted if it can help prevent some of the physical problems associated with the sport. Thats how I personally feel and have always felt, in this case with cycling I just don't see why the riders should not be allowed to take certain hormones if it is a simple and easy way to protect their health to some extent.

Anyway we are all entitled to our opinions and that is that.

Thanks for your input Krebs.

Cheers
 
Wouldn't one of the reasons why there are no scientific studies confirming the benefit of low-dose testosterone use by professional cyclists in multi-stage races is that it would be unethical and probably illegal to intentionally dope half of the riders in the Tour with test gel and give the other half a placebo and then see who recovered more quickly and rode faster? lol :D
 
Jun 26, 2009
269
0
0
Visit site
Krebs cycle said:
endochronology? no I'm not aware of that field. does it have something to do with the body's internal clock or something? ;)


I'm not an endocrinologist but I do have a PhD in exercise physiology and 10yrs of experience working directly with world class endurance athletes. I work with many athletes that go through hell to achieve what they do, and very few come out the other side completely unscathed.... long term injuries, broken backs, ribs, joints, shot metabolism from yrs of trying to make weight, probs with hormonal balance as you say etc etc you name it, they've got it. The US ski team has a 100% ACL rupture rate. Can you believe it? Every single national team downhiller ruptures their ACL at least once in their career. IMO the football codes such as rugby leage, union and aussie rules are harder on the body than cycling. You don't see too many players in their mid 30s and their playing careers are much shorter as a consequence. The demand of professional basketball in the US and football (soccer) in the european competitions are also immense.

Pretty much all of the athletes I work with understand the risks involved, but they have chosen to make a sacrifice and the health complications are the price they pay for that sacrifice. They know that elite sport is a health hazard, but at the end of the day, individuals make thier own choices. Its their life, if they don't want health problems later in life, they can always walk away (as many have done of course).

So I agree that the demands of pro cycling are potentially bad for their long term health, but I disagree that this should be justification for doping with steroids, HGH, IGF-1 and EPO during their competitive careers.

To a large extent, international sporting competition is about survival of the fittest. Those whom can train the hardest for the longest without breaking or getting sick or overtrained, inevitably rise to the top. This is the natural order of it. If you circumvent this natural order and can only rise to the top with the assistance of medication, then how is this anything but cheating?

There are many sports that damage the body from the outside but cycling does it from the inside.

I love your final paragraph, it is so true, but then someone came along and started paying them money to do it. The rest is history.:eek:
 
Mar 17, 2009
98
0
0
Visit site
joe_papp said:
Wouldn't one of the reasons why there are no scientific studies confirming the benefit of low-dose testosterone use by professional cyclists in multi-stage races is that it would be unethical and probably illegal to intentionally dope half of the riders in the Tour with test gel and give the other half a placebo and then see who recovered more quickly and rode faster? lol :D
That sounds like a great idea Joe, the ideal testing ground for an experiment! :D
 
May 12, 2009
207
0
0
Visit site
joe_papp said:
Wouldn't one of the reasons why there are no scientific studies confirming the benefit of low-dose testosterone use by professional cyclists in multi-stage races is that it would be unethical and probably illegal to intentionally dope half of the riders in the Tour with test gel and give the other half a placebo and then see who recovered more quickly and rode faster? lol :D

Certainly true that we couldn't do this study on pro riders.
But you could probably use a bunch of Cat 3 volunteers and get results that would be if not apples to apples, at least somewhat applicable.

Hasn't this sort of study been done with EPO, which is in exactly the same boat?
 
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
Visit site
Krebs cycle said:
endochronology? no I'm not aware of that field. does it have something to do with the body's internal clock or something? ;)


I'm not an endocrinologist but I do have a PhD in exercise physiology and 10yrs of experience working directly with world class endurance athletes. I work with many athletes that go through hell to achieve what they do, and very few come out the other side completely unscathed.... long term injuries, broken backs, ribs, joints, shot metabolism from yrs of trying to make weight, probs with hormonal balance as you say etc etc you name it, they've got it. The US ski team has a 100% ACL rupture rate. Can you believe it? Every single national team downhiller ruptures their ACL at least once in their career. IMO the football codes such as rugby leage, union and aussie rules are harder on the body than cycling. You don't see too many players in their mid 30s and their playing careers are much shorter as a consequence. The demand of professional basketball in the US and football (soccer) in the european competitions are also immense.



To a large extent, international sporting competition is about survival of the fittest. Those whom can train the hardest for the longest without breaking or getting sick or overtrained, inevitably rise to the top. This is the natural order of it. If you circumvent this natural order and can only rise to the top with the assistance of medication, then how is this anything but cheating?



It seems like not that long ago when athletes were in their 30's they were considered on the downside of their career. Just the demands of the sport and the cumulative effect of injuries would usually lead athletes to consider retirement. There were a few hard souls who could maintain their level of performance but for most, recovery was harder & took longer and eventually it was not worth it to them.

Then almost by magic, we had professional baseball players & basketball players in their forties. Grim determination would not account for the increase in playing careers. Take Roger Clemens or Barry Bonds as examples, they gained alot of muscle in their late 30's
hmmmmmmmmmm
Then when testing got a little better all of a sudden the older players start missing games. There was an article on basketball last year about the significant increase in games missed due to injury. The little day to day injuries that add up to missed games eventually were on the rise.
I would say the tests have caught up to the therapy and until they find a new drug or treatment the nagging little injuries are gonna take their toll on older players.
Not science just an observation
 
WD-40. said:
lol! Where did that h come from? :D

I don't think that taking hormones is cheating if the rules permit this practice. I also do think that therapeutic doping (if thats sounds OK), should be permitted if it can help prevent some of the physical problems associated with the sport. Thats how I personally feel and have always felt, in this case with cycling I just don't see why the riders should not be allowed to take certain hormones if it is a simple and easy way to protect their health to some extent.

Anyway we are all entitled to our opinions and that is that.

Thanks for your input Krebs.

Cheers
"chrono" = time :)

I actually agree about the therapeutic use, but they should stop competing like the example of Chris Boardman if it really impacts on their health too much. It just opens up a massive can of worms if you start allowing TUEs for hormonal imbalances during the competitive season. Overtraining is characterised by sympatho-vagal imbalance for example. So its like saying whoops, you trained incorrectly and now you're not performing so well, ahhh don't worry we'll just fix you up with drugs and you'll be back on form in no time. That is cheating. The whole point is not that drugs are used for health reasons, they are used to allow the athletes to train harder and longer. The adaptation to the unnatural harder training is what gives them a performance advantage.

There is a flip side to this argument aswell. The unregulated use of PEDs can be a health hazard with long term complications itself!
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
As we're talking testosterone, and desperate doping excuses, here's one from Kim Andersen, who tested positive a stunning 7 times throughout his career for a variety of substances.
In 1987 it was for testosterone, to which he said:

"I can't explain it. I talked to Charly Bérard [a La Vie Claire/Toshiba team-mate] and Francis Castaing, who both tested positive too [Bérard also at the 1987 Tour du Limousin and Castaing at the 1987 Tour of the European Community] and like me they don't take testosterone. None of us can understand or explain it. All I can think of is that my body produced an excess of testosterone and that's what showed up in the drug test."
http://www.podiumcafe.com/2011/3/4/2029350/the-kim-andersen-files-an-update

A funny side is that he was set to get a life ban because it was his third official offense, if not for our friend Hein Verbruggen who decided to make the rules more flexible.

In 1987, Andersen managed to get caught yet again. ... Nothing could save Andersen this time. He was banned for life under the three-strikes-and-you-really-are-too-thick-to-be-playing-this-game rule. Until, that is, Hein Verbruggen looked at the matter. He decided the rules were too harsh and needed changing.
http://www.podiumcafe.com/2010/12/1/1848582/tough-on-doping-tough-on-the-causes-of-doping-the-kim-andersen-case
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
Visit site
Re:

WD-40. said:
Krebs cycle said:
If pro cycling was completely clean though the athletes wouldn't die and they wouldn't be any less healthy than what they are now. They will just ride slower and they won't compete in as many races. It is as simple as that.

May I guess that you are not too knowledgeble on the topic of endochronology? :p

I understand where you are coming from where the athletes competing cleanly would become sick or overtrained under very high stress/demands.

I do not believe at all that the human body is suited to the extreme demands of pro cycling and that "help" is needed to keep healthy. Sure by taking it easier you could prevent a lot of the health issues but you can't tell the athletes to take it easy as its a competition, and who wants the sport to become weak and tame so to speak. The TDF for example should be appreciated as arguably the hardest competition in mankinds history and not be made into a watered down joke of a race just because people feel that they should not be taking hormones to protect their health.

It seems whenever someone brings up the issue of losing bone mineral density in cyclists it is largely ignored and sometimes every attempt is made to make it seem like a non issue (not aimed at you Krebs cycle). I sure as heck don't wish to have the bones of a 70 year old woman at 30 and yet how many elite riders do you know that do not have osteopenia? There is no doubt that most will be well below "Joe Public" and I would guess that many perhaps most have osteopenia of the spine or hips.

Ignorance is bliss ;).

Long live the sport!
I feel the need to reply to one point here. The tour de France has become a watered down joke of a race because people are using drugs. Their use means it's no longer difficult to get through. What you are trying to say helps the sport destroys it.
 
Re: Re:

noddy69 said:
WD-40. said:
Krebs cycle said:
If pro cycling was completely clean though the athletes wouldn't die and they wouldn't be any less healthy than what they are now. They will just ride slower and they won't compete in as many races. It is as simple as that.

May I guess that you are not too knowledgeble on the topic of endochronology? :p

I understand where you are coming from where the athletes competing cleanly would become sick or overtrained under very high stress/demands.

I do not believe at all that the human body is suited to the extreme demands of pro cycling and that "help" is needed to keep healthy. Sure by taking it easier you could prevent a lot of the health issues but you can't tell the athletes to take it easy as its a competition, and who wants the sport to become weak and tame so to speak. The TDF for example should be appreciated as arguably the hardest competition in mankinds history and not be made into a watered down joke of a race just because people feel that they should not be taking hormones to protect their health.

It seems whenever someone brings up the issue of losing bone mineral density in cyclists it is largely ignored and sometimes every attempt is made to make it seem like a non issue (not aimed at you Krebs cycle). I sure as heck don't wish to have the bones of a 70 year old woman at 30 and yet how many elite riders do you know that do not have osteopenia? There is no doubt that most will be well below "Joe Public" and I would guess that many perhaps most have osteopenia of the spine or hips.

Ignorance is bliss ;).

Long live the sport!
I feel the need to reply to one point here. The tour de France has become a watered down joke of a race because people are using drugs. Their use means it's no longer difficult to get through. What you are trying to say helps the sport destroys it.

When has doping NOT been an important part of the TdF? You are yearning for a history that never was.
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

MarkvW said:
noddy69 said:
WD-40. said:
Krebs cycle said:
If pro cycling was completely clean though the athletes wouldn't die and they wouldn't be any less healthy than what they are now. They will just ride slower and they won't compete in as many races. It is as simple as that.

May I guess that you are not too knowledgeble on the topic of endochronology? :p

I understand where you are coming from where the athletes competing cleanly would become sick or overtrained under very high stress/demands.

I do not believe at all that the human body is suited to the extreme demands of pro cycling and that "help" is needed to keep healthy. Sure by taking it easier you could prevent a lot of the health issues but you can't tell the athletes to take it easy as its a competition, and who wants the sport to become weak and tame so to speak. The TDF for example should be appreciated as arguably the hardest competition in mankinds history and not be made into a watered down joke of a race just because people feel that they should not be taking hormones to protect their health.

It seems whenever someone brings up the issue of losing bone mineral density in cyclists it is largely ignored and sometimes every attempt is made to make it seem like a non issue (not aimed at you Krebs cycle). I sure as heck don't wish to have the bones of a 70 year old woman at 30 and yet how many elite riders do you know that do not have osteopenia? There is no doubt that most will be well below "Joe Public" and I would guess that many perhaps most have osteopenia of the spine or hips.

Ignorance is bliss ;).

Long live the sport!
I feel the need to reply to one point here. The tour de France has become a watered down joke of a race because people are using drugs. Their use means it's no longer difficult to get through. What you are trying to say helps the sport destroys it.

When has doping NOT been an important part of the TdF? You are yearning for a history that never was.
No I'm not, at this stage I'll take pre EPO days when going up mountains was difficult, or at least looked that way. The better drugs get the worse the spectacle hence the destruction of the race from what was once a test of endurance. The drugs weren't good enough at one point to completely ruin it, now I'm afraid that's mot the case.
 
Re: Re:

noddy69 said:
MarkvW said:
noddy69 said:
WD-40. said:
Krebs cycle said:
If pro cycling was completely clean though the athletes wouldn't die and they wouldn't be any less healthy than what they are now. They will just ride slower and they won't compete in as many races. It is as simple as that.

May I guess that you are not too knowledgeble on the topic of endochronology? :p

I understand where you are coming from where the athletes competing cleanly would become sick or overtrained under very high stress/demands.

I do not believe at all that the human body is suited to the extreme demands of pro cycling and that "help" is needed to keep healthy. Sure by taking it easier you could prevent a lot of the health issues but you can't tell the athletes to take it easy as its a competition, and who wants the sport to become weak and tame so to speak. The TDF for example should be appreciated as arguably the hardest competition in mankinds history and not be made into a watered down joke of a race just because people feel that they should not be taking hormones to protect their health.

It seems whenever someone brings up the issue of losing bone mineral density in cyclists it is largely ignored and sometimes every attempt is made to make it seem like a non issue (not aimed at you Krebs cycle). I sure as heck don't wish to have the bones of a 70 year old woman at 30 and yet how many elite riders do you know that do not have osteopenia? There is no doubt that most will be well below "Joe Public" and I would guess that many perhaps most have osteopenia of the spine or hips.

Ignorance is bliss ;).

Long live the sport!
I feel the need to reply to one point here. The tour de France has become a watered down joke of a race because people are using drugs. Their use means it's no longer difficult to get through. What you are trying to say helps the sport destroys it.

When has doping NOT been an important part of the TdF? You are yearning for a history that never was.
No I'm not, at this stage I'll take pre EPO days when going up mountains was difficult, or at least looked that way. The better drugs get the worse the spectacle hence the destruction of the race from what was once a test of endurance. The drugs weren't good enough at one point to completely ruin it, now I'm afraid that's mot the case.

indeed...even at the front end of the race...i have read some good contemporary accounts of the final mountain stage in '83...a long one culminating in the Joux Plane where Fignon, Roche and Millar, to name but three, struggled badly to get through...to be fair all young and I think all on first Tour but at the 'pointy end' (to use a favourite Millar phrase) of the race...youtube confirms the various states of distress of most riders hauling themselves over that climb......gearing accounts for some of the difference...but can't explain the sheer lack of distress of the majority of the peloton as it glides up various mountains these days (comparatively I hasten to add).....
 
O2 vectors do not make you "suffer less" for a given level of intensity. People dope to go faster, not complete the stage in the same time with less suffering. Some PEDs may make you off your head so you don't feel like your suffering (less common nowadays...). Recovery drugs help you perform better day-to-day but again they are probably only as effective now as they were throughout the 1900s.

There is plenty of suffering in half a dozen Giro stages in more recent years where there is altitude and people move before the final climb (or just really bad weather), funnily enough that's what happened in the racing you yearn for. Of course when those at the front of the race are actually only at full effort for 30-40 minutes every few days you're not going to see the level of suffering you desire.
 
Ferminal, I agree that the primary goal of the drugs is to go faster. But the suffering has to be a little less. The cyclist don't know it. Or maybe some. I am sure that guys in the Gruppetto appreciate the doping to make it through the mountains with less suffering.
 

TRENDING THREADS