what's a DOPER, really?

[BotanyBay]

Does the word "doping" need any classification or modification?

I tend to think of the big dividing line as the differences between the "Stimulant Era" (caffeine, amphetamines, phen phen, etc).

and the "Hormone Era" (Testosterone, HGH, Oxygen vectors such as EPO, CERA, etc). And I think some hormones such as (testosterone) acted as a bridge of sorts.

I think pre 1990's, it's easy to say that many (if not most) pro riders engaged in some form of Stimulant-Era practice. Heck, I remember winning cases of "Up-time" (usually sold to truckers in conveninece stores) at the velodrome as prizes. Riders were always looking for some little-white-lie of an advantage over their peers. A caffeine pill here, some calcium pangamate (B-15) there. Alexi Grewal shoving Chinese endurance pills into his plums (and getting caught), etc.

The Era of HGH, Testosterone, EPO was a huge difference in practice. This was a BIG mental "step-up" from popping stimulants. Big change in performance too.

Of course, the stigma of the one-brand-fits-all... "Dopers" prevents many retired riders from even talking about the stimulant era with more honesty.

So, is a "doper a doper"?

 

[hrotha]

Is a doper a doper? Ethically, and individually, sure. In all eras they used prohibited substances to improve their performance as much as possible, and the only thing keeping some stimulant users from jumping into the EPO bandwagon was fear and a lack of understanding about its performance-enhancing benefits.

Stimulants didn't distort the sport nearly as much, but every single stimulant user was ethically just as questionable as every single EPO user, in my opinion.

 

[MacRoadie]

Is a doper a doper? Ethically, and individually, sure. In all eras they used prohibited substances to improve their performance as much as possible, and the only thing keeping some stimulant users from jumping into the EPO bandwagon was fear and a lack of understanding about its performance-enhancing benefits.

Stimulants didn't distort the sport nearly as much, but every single stimulant user was ethically just as questionable as every single EPO user, in my opinion.

Spot on. +1

The difference was on the flip side: the adverse effect on the non-doper. In the stimulant era, a non-doper could still hold his own, compete, and win. In the era of oxygen vector doping, that wasn't the case.

When we say one type of doping "wasn't as bad as" another, we're not minimizing one doper relative to another: each cheated to the best of his ability with the tools available to him. We're talkiing about the relative adverse effects of the doping on the non-doping rider.

 

[ultimobici]

Does the word "doping" need any classification or modification?

I tend to think of the big dividing line as the differences between the "Stimulant Era" (caffeine, amphetamines, phen phen, etc).

and the "Hormone Era" (Testosterone, HGH, Oxygen vectors such as EPO, CERA, etc). And I think some hormones such as (testosterone) acted as a bridge of sorts.

I think pre 1990's, it's easy to say that many (if not most) pro riders engaged in some form of Stimulant-Era practice. Heck, I remember winning cases of "Up-time" (usually sold to truckers in conveninece stores) at the velodrome as prizes. Riders were always looking for some little-white-lie of an advantage over their peers. A caffeine pill here, some calcium pangamate (B-15) there. Alexi Grewal shoving Chinese endurance pills into his plums (and getting caught), etc.

The Era of HGH, Testosterone, EPO was a huge difference in practice. This was a BIG mental "step-up" from popping stimulants. Big change in performance too.

Of course, the stigma of the one-brand-fits-all... "Dopers" prevents many retired riders from even talking about the stimulant era with more honesty.

So, is a "doper a doper"?

I view any use of a performance enhancer as doping. BUT I think that the physiological effects of amphetamine, testosterone, cortisone etc were very different to those of EPO & other blood manipulation.

Prior to EPO a clean rider could compete. Mainly because the drugs being used had a price. You had an up but also there was a down.

Best analogy I can give is cars. Using amphetamine is like putting ethanol in your car, it'll run fast for a bit but it'll only go so far before it needs rebuilding. EPO is like blueprinting the engine & its management system and then using high octane fuel. It'll run and run at high speed because it's been changed fundamentally.

 

[orbeas]

Doping

In the Giro of 1914 riders used Strychnine and Cocaine, which were used by the soldiers in World War 1 and carried on after the war by sportsmen..
It is said that during World War 2 British Troops used 72 million amphet tablets !!!! and then after by sportsmen.
Coppi said he never raced without using them !!!

 

[BotanyBay]

In the Giro of 1914 riders used Strychnine and Cocaine, which were used by the soldiers in World War 1 and carried on after the war by sportsmen..
It is said that during World War 2 British Troops used 72 million amphet tablets !!!! and then after by sportsmen.
Coppi said he never raced without using them !!!

That does it. The British will have a 2-year ban from warfare and the Germans shall be awarded the technical win for WWII. At least they didn't get to be on the podium.

 

[MarkvW]

Does the word "doping" need any classification or modification?

I tend to think of the big dividing line as the differences between the "Stimulant Era" (caffeine, amphetamines, phen phen, etc).

and the "Hormone Era" (Testosterone, HGH, Oxygen vectors such as EPO, CERA, etc). And I think some hormones such as (testosterone) acted as a bridge of sorts.

I think pre 1990's, it's easy to say that many (if not most) pro riders engaged in some form of Stimulant-Era practice. Heck, I remember winning cases of "Up-time" (usually sold to truckers in conveninece stores) at the velodrome as prizes. Riders were always looking for some little-white-lie of an advantage over their peers. A caffeine pill here, some calcium pangamate (B-15) there. Alexi Grewal shoving Chinese endurance pills into his plums (and getting caught), etc.

The Era of HGH, Testosterone, EPO was a huge difference in practice. This was a BIG mental "step-up" from popping stimulants. Big change in performance too.

Of course, the stigma of the one-brand-fits-all... "Dopers" prevents many retired riders from even talking about the stimulant era with more honesty.

So, is a "doper a doper"?

A doper is a doper and a cheat is a cheat. Each sport is defined by its rules. Disobeying the rules is dishonoring the sport.

But how are the "rules" that establish cheating defined? Are they the strict, by the book, rules of the UCI, or are they defined by the actual behavior of other pro racers? The latter is is doubtless how many cheating pros rationalize their conduct.

If you take banned stimulant A and win a race, and I see it happen, why can't I escalate? Your cheating has deprived me of a chance to succeed in my career. Why can't I respond? If the UCI is too impotent to clean up the sport, I should be able to fight back with my own treatments, shouldn't I? Joe Papp has described just that, and Floyd isn't ashamed of his doping behavior. Getting cheated is a powerful inducement to cheat. Like "The Bicycle Thief" (in the mind of the cheat, anyway).

I also think that some cheaters like to encourage the idea that everybody cheats in an attempt to minimize their own cheating behavior. I'd put a big star next to that!

I would also suggest that the dopers of the stimulant era exercised no more moderation than the dopers of the EPO era. Morally, the cheaters then probably tried to cheat just as much then as they do now--it is just that present-day cheaters have more powerful tools.

Assuming that such a thing as a hypothetical clean professional bike race could ever exist in the real world, HGH, steroids, and EPO have mangled that hypothetical ideal beyond recognition. Pro cycling is a freakshow and it is only going to get freakier as gene therapies become more common. An ongoing progression of ever-freakier specimens (freakier, even, than Pantani, VDB, or LA)!

The dopers of the present are the lineal descendants of the dopers of the past. The doping culture is passed on from generation to generation. If the dopers of the past are troubled by stigma, then good! They deserve it!

 

[BotanyBay]

The dopers of the present are the lineal descendants of the dopers of the past. The doping culture is passed on from generation to generation. If the dopers of the past are troubled by stigma, then good! They deserve it!

Certainly the attitude of "win at all costs" has been carried forth. Combine this with available technology and we get what we've got today. Certainly Eddie B's progeny were open to the concept of acquiring the "good stuff" that the Eastern Bloc riders had available to them.

 

[MarkvW]

That does it. The British will have a 2-year ban from warfare and the Germans shall be awarded the technical win for WWII. At least they didn't get to be on the podium.

Unfortunately the Germans get a dope ban too (Nazi Method of methamphetamine manufacture).

Looks like WWII may have no winner!

 

[MacRoadie]

Unfortunately the Germans get a dope ban too (Nazi Method of methamphetamine manufacture).

Looks like WWII may have no winner!

Just give it to the Italians: they had Bartali.

 

[doolols]

Stimulants didn't distort the sport nearly as much, but every single stimulant user was ethically just as questionable as every single EPO user, in my opinion.

But where do you draw the line? Caffeine? Is a quick espresso before the start to be banned? What about energy drinks? Gels? To me, there is a very clear distinction between The Stimulant Era and The Hormone Era.

 

[Maxiton]

The stimulant era was also the era of pain killing, opiate-based drugs. And I agree that there's a big difference - a profound difference - between those and oxygen-vector doping.

Testosterone and corticosteroids go all the way back to the fifties, I think, and so should be included in what many of us probably think of as merely involving stimulants and opiates.

To me, there's a clear line of demarcation between pre oxygen-vector and post oxygen-vector. Some day there may be a well-defined line between pre gene doping and post gene doping; but I hope we can find some way past all this and into something far more enjoyable: authenticity. Otherwise, we might just as well watch robots race.

 

[Albatros]

Spot on. +1

The difference was on the flip side: the adverse effect on the non-doper. In the stimulant era, a non-doper could still hold his own, compete, and win. In the era of oxygen vector doping, that wasn't the case.

When we say one type of doping "wasn't as bad as" another, we're not minimizing one doper relative to another: each cheated to the best of his ability with the tools available to him. We're talkiing about the relative adverse effects of the doping on the non-doping rider.

So why the great majority took it, from the great champions to the also rans?

I don't get it.

BTW, the accounts of many ex pros on the benefits of doping pre EPO era greatly differ from what you are saying.

 

[hrotha]

But where do you draw the line? Caffeine? Is a quick espresso before the start to be banned? What about energy drinks? Gels? To me, there is a very clear distinction between The Stimulant Era and The Hormone Era.

You draw the line where the rules of the sport do. Simple.

There's one hell of a difference between how distorted the sport gets with stimulants and with hormones, no one's denying that. But the doper simply uses whatever tools available to them. The doper's a cheat by definition.

 

[pmcg76]

So why the great majority took it, from the great champions to the also rans?

I don't get it.

BTW, the accounts of many ex pros on the benefits of doping pre EPO era greatly differ from what you are saying.

That should be obvious, its called a shortcut to success. When you can take something that makes the suffering easier, then the weak minded and weak bodied will always succumb first. There is a huge psychological factor at play.

Best example of this at play is when Kimmage commented on how he finished in the Top 10 of a renowned dopers race in his first year as a pro riding clean as he didnt know it was a dopers race. However once he realised a lot of others were doping, he didnt bother trying in such races thereafter. That is where a strong minded rider will still do well. Clearly Kimmage could physically compete with these guys who were charged but was mentally beaten once he realised the truth.

Paul Kochli, former DS of LeMond and the reputedly clean Helvetia team said that he preferred riders who were mentally strong and didnt need to rely on outside help in any manner. That way he could create an environment within his team which meant doping wasnt an option. It is clear that a lot of what happens in regards doping is to do with the environment surrounding the athletes. The whole peer pressure, if others are doing it, why not me etc, etc. Same with smoking, drinking and drug taking in everyday social life.

Amphetamines were widely used in the 80s but again back to Kimmage, it was obvious that if the opportunity was there riders would charge but if dope tests were taking place, they simply wouldnt take the risk. The drug taking at Kimmage's team RMO was rife but ironically it apparently cleaned up after Kimmage left when Mottet joined the team.

Willy Voet said the same of one of the top riders he worked with(I assume it was Kelly) they would dope but never take a chance at a race were the drugs testing was good.

Ironically the race with the best anti-doping procedures during the 80s was the Tour de France.

 

[Albatros]

That should be obvious, its called a shortcut to success. When you can take something that makes the suffering easier, then the weak minded and weak bodied will always succumb first. There is a huge psychological factor at play.

Best example of this at play is when Kimmage commented on how he finished in the Top 10 of a renowned dopers race in his first year as a pro riding clean as he didnt know it was a dopers race. However once he realised a lot of others were doping, he didnt bother trying in such races thereafter. That is where a strong minded rider will still do well. Clearly Kimmage could physically compete with these guys who were charged but was mentally beaten once he realised the truth.

Paul Kochli, former DS of LeMond and the reputedly clean Helvetia team said that he preferred riders who were mentally strong and didnt need to rely on outside help in any manner. That way he could create an environment within his team which meant doping wasnt an option. It is clear that a lot of what happens in regards doping is to do with the environment surrounding the athletes. The whole peer pressure, if others are doing it, why not me etc, etc. Same with smoking, drinking and drug taking in everyday social life.

Amphetamines were widely used in the 80s but again back to Kimmage, it was obvious that if the opportunity was there riders would charge but if dope tests were taking place, they simply wouldnt take the risk. The drug taking at Kimmage's team RMO was rife but ironically it apparently cleaned up after Kimmage left when Mottet joined the team.

Willy Voet said the same of one of the top riders he worked with(I assume it was Kelly) they would dope but never take a chance at a race were the drugs testing was good.

Ironically the race with the best anti-doping procedures during the 80s was the Tour de France.

Welll I don't know how weak minded and weak bodied was Anquetil, the five times winner of the Tour de France, but he had to say on the issue the following:

"You would have to be an imbecile or a crook to imagine that a professional cyclist who races for 235 days a year can hold the pace without stimulants”

Or....

“For 50 years bike racers have been taking stimulants. Obviously we can do without them in a race, but then we will pedal 15 miles an hour (instead of 25). Since we are constantly asked to go faster and to make even greater efforts, we are obliged to take stimulants”


So Anquetil, among many others, needed those stimulants to ride at the pace he did. It looks more than psychological the effect of those drugs.

And let's not forget testosterone, used by many in the peloton during the late eighties like Thurau

And yes, he stresses the fact that doping in the Tour was more difficult than in other races, but far from impossible. He also says that everyone took doping and those who deny it are lying.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I draw the line at EPO, HGH, Insuline, Aicar etc etc. I don' t mind riders placing a testosterone/corticoide plaster during the night for better recovery. When u are taking drugs designed to aid SICK people for your own benefit you could be qualified as being unethic.

The advantage of the drugs nowadays is you can pick out the cheats much easier.

 

[Master50]

I view any use of a performance enhancer as doping. BUT I think that the physiological effects of amphetamine, testosterone, cortisone etc were very different to those of EPO & other blood manipulation.

Prior to EPO a clean rider could compete. Mainly because the drugs being used had a price. You had an up but also there was a down.

Best analogy I can give is cars. Using amphetamine is like putting ethanol in your car, it'll run fast for a bit but it'll only go so far before it needs rebuilding. EPO is like blueprinting the engine & its management system and then using high octane fuel. It'll run and run at high speed because it's been changed fundamentally.

I have a nerd update here. Hi octane gasoline is not higher energy. In fact hi test burns slower or is *** from burning under pressure. The engine is built differently with higher compression ratios of fuel to air. Regular gasoline explodes before the piston reaches top centre wich pushes against the crank rotation. Hi Octane resists the tendency to explode early and waits for the spark. Yes a high compression engine can produce more power from the higher fuel air mix but the energy in the fuel is a little lower.with a net performance benefit.

Until oxygen vector enhancements came to sport most doping was pain and sleep management.

 

[Albatros]

I draw the line at EPO, HGH, Insuline, Aicar etc etc. I don' t mind riders placing a testosterone/corticoide plaster during the night for better recovery. When u are taking drugs designed to aid SICK people for your own benefit you could be qualified as being unethic.

The advantage of the drugs nowadays is you can pick out the cheats much easier.

Oh yes, in a competition that tests your endurance you don't think it is unethical to take a drug that enhances your recovery or a drug that allows you to mask your fatigue and therefore continue longer that you would have had otherwise.

I guess those competing clean, if any , would agree with you.

He beat me but with ethical PEDs.

 

[Race Radio]

Welll I don't know how weak minded and weak bodied was Anquetil,

Most know that Anquetil was a complete nut job. That whole mother/daughter stuff is just weird

 

[pmcg76]

Welll I don't know how weak minded and weak bodied was Anquetil, the five times winner of the Tour de France, but he had to say on the issue the following:

"You would have to be an imbecile or a crook to imagine that a professional cyclist who races for 235 days a year can hold the pace without stimulants”

Or....

“For 50 years bike racers have been taking stimulants. Obviously we can do without them in a race, but then we will pedal 15 miles an hour (instead of 25). Since we are constantly asked to go faster and to make even greater efforts, we are obliged to take stimulants”


So Anquetil, among many others, needed those stimulants to ride at the pace he did. It looks more than psychological the effect of those drugs.

And let's not forget testosterone, used by many in the peloton during the late eighties like Thurau

And yes, he stresses the fact that doping in the Tour was more difficult than in other races, but far from impossible. He also says that everyone took doping and those who deny it are lying.

Ironic that Thurau was busted for doping at the Tour in 87 then.

There is no way one guy knows that everyone else dopes. Could Thurau account for all 800-900 pro cyclists who competed in any one season, was he with them all the time individually to see them doping. No Thurau assumes everyone dopes, that is definitely not the same as knowing. That is a line that those who dope big-time throw around in an effort to justify their own doping. What they know is that doping is common, even widespread so they just extend it to include everyone.

For example Thurau rode for Skala-Roland in 87, the same team as Jesper Skibby rode for that year. According to Skibby, who after all did admit to doping said he did not start doping until 90/91. So clearly Thurau didnt even know who was doing what in his own team so how can he speak for the entire peloton.

Isnt there a story that Jacques rode a race without dope which he won, the only difference being he found it a lot tougher than normal. So clearly talent made him win but he preferred when it was easier to win i.e taking a shortcut to success.

 

[Catwhoorg]

taking a shortcut to success.

And thats what the essence of all doping is about.

 

[Escarabajo]

Is a doper a doper? Ethically, and individually, sure. In all eras they used prohibited substances to improve their performance as much as possible, and the only thing keeping some stimulant users from jumping into the EPO bandwagon was fear and a lack of understanding about its performance-enhancing benefits.

Stimulants didn't distort the sport nearly as much, but every single stimulant user was ethically just as questionable as every single EPO user, in my opinion.

+1.

I like this answer.

For some reason I want to give a pass at testosterone. At least for those who need a better sex drive then they can get a TUE.

 

[Maxiton]

Most know that Anquetil was a complete nut job. That whole mother/daughter stuff is just weird

After all those years of racing like a madman and massive abuse of amphetamines and who knows what else, I don't doubt he was a madman, even if he didn't start out as one. But that doesn't mean he didn't have a point. Maybe the answer, if it could be arranged, is to really try racing without drugs and see what it looks like.

The great director Louis Malle opens his short documentary about the Tour de France, called Vive Le Tour (1962), by asking - but not answering - whether le dopage will kill the sport. I'm not sure we have an answer yet, but it certainly has changed the sport, as I think you can see from watching this film, and mostly not for the better.

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

Pretty easy, a "doper" is the most entertaining and best athletes out there...