Would you?

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Would you have doped? (be honest)

  • Maybe

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Oct 30, 2011
2,642
0
0
Would love to think I wouldn't have done, but I think I might have. Probably depends a lot on how old I was when it first reared its ugly head and my situation at the time. Too many variables to say either way, I voted yes but should have voted maybe.
 
Apr 23, 2012
60
0
0
No. but..

So I voted No but then read this from Python:

"Would I dope as a teen had I found myself in the elite (national or professional) team ? the answer: if the peers nudged me - no, but if the coaches did - I probably would. no, b/c from get-go i was a fiercely independent, searching for my own ways kid. yes, because the respect for seniors and their authority was built into my dna and reinforced by my parents and school.."

I too am (was always) fiercely independent and part of that ethos is to (almost) never take short cuts. The short cut part is important - this has nothing to do with a moral stance against drugs per se. Its the same reason in cycling I still ride steel (at my ability level I don't deserve anything better) and haven't warmed up to a power meter (it feels like a short cut).

So from that perspective a definate "No". But.. as Python said, I might if a coach I really respected told me to do so. Because that's another part of my nature - to trust experts until proven otherwise. I definately would have questioned, but if the coach offered well reasoned arguments that I couldn't overcome I can see myself going along.

So change my "No" to a "Maybe" :)
 
Jan 20, 2013
897
0
0
Zaragon said:
There are deterrents, though they are far from being perfect, a perfect deterrent will never exist, and even hypothetically speaking if one did, there will always be those athletes who would be willing to take the risk. You cannot change the nature of humanity.
What are you saying (in bold) humanity has been changing for thousands of years, and goes on changing.....through circumstances - such as economics. Not to get too off the point, didn't a certain German chancellor do a pretty pushed attempt at "changing the nature of humanity" through the course of the 20th century (or did humanity change him?). Humanity can be changed for better or for the worst.
 
Jul 30, 2009
1,735
0
0
Berzin said:
I think the more pertinent question would be, as a rider at whatever level you're at right now, would you commit to a PED regimen if you had access to the three drugs that would make the most difference in your performances (HgH, Testosterone, EPO) and no one knew what you were doing?
The answer to this is a firm NO

Is it strange that I answered different?
 
Apr 13, 2010
1,238
0
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
No.

I have seen what doping does to people, in real life. The eighties dope that is. It messes with the brain. Big time. Guys who are now in their fourties/fifties are still enjoying those days. Addicts to any thrill they get on to.

I would have been a great whistleblower though.
You have no doubt seen that...

But as a 20-year-old? 18? Past decisions are always so much easier with hindsight and life experience and all that.

Me today with the environment and mood of today? No way - never. Me, as a young impressionable kid in the "drugs are standard" 90s? I'd like to think no, but I wouldn't believe myself or trust myself not to fall for the temptation/pressure/other. The more dependent on the life in the peloton - whether psychologically or financially - I had been in that situation the shorter the route would have been...

But I'd love to be able to put myself on a pedestal and say it'd never have happened in a million years.

Maybe things got better in the 90s, but you don't have to go further back than the 80s at least to see most work safety regulations being ignored in many if not all industries. Only with the advent of fining the employer for any transgressions has order come to some level. Hard hats, hearing protection, masks for painters, working on scaffolding, not sticking your arms into big machines that can crush you. Any of that sound familiar? We're humans and most of us are pretty stupid at the end of the day. With the peloton barely using helmets until a few years back (again, it had to be regulated) - privately we're still pretty bad about it as well - it seems to me in general hindsight is just that - hindsight...
 
Oct 20, 2012
285
0
0
No because I can't say lies, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing I had lie or I could have been caught and because I don't like drugs, needles and their side effects.

As for those who say that it would be a necessity in order to win and have money and fame..again no.. Someone can find something else to do to gain money and be famous etc. and cycling is not the only talent that someone can have in his/her life, after all nobody race for his/her entire life. So I would prefer to do from the beginning what I would had to do anyway in the end of my racing carrier. :)
 
Jan 20, 2013
238
0
0
I wouldn't have taken epo (because I have indications of a bad heart) but I don't know how I would have been if I wanted to be competitive among the pros. Hmmmm..... Maybe Riis could have persuaded me.;)

But I know for sure that I would have smoked cannabis. This enjoyable substance should never be on any doping list as it surely not enhances a damn thing performance wise.
 
Aug 30, 2012
152
0
0
No. I say that now and I said that when I had the actual chance to. Ultimately I compete against myself and I want to compete against the real me.

Even ignoring the health reasons, I've always viewed the principle in the same light I do cheating in golf. As soon as I cheat I'll shoot my best score (or perform my best re cycling). Inside I would always know that it was bogus, and that ain't how I roll.

I've always thought those who choose to dope fit a sort of psychological profile that goes beyond things like desire to enhance/prolong career, etc. While there are plenty of good people who have crossed the threshold, the fact remains that all of them chose to be dishonest with themselves and their abilities. And that holds regardless of the reasons they were able to rationalize the self-delusion. For me, that's something I was not, am not, and never will be capable of doing.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Bannockburn said:
No. I say that now and I said that when I had the actual chance to. Ultimately I compete against myself and I want to compete against the real me.

Even ignoring the health reasons, I've always viewed the principle in the same light I do cheating in golf. As soon as I cheat I'll shoot my best score (or perform my best re cycling). Inside I would always know that it was bogus, and that ain't how I roll.

I've always thought those who choose to dope fit a sort of psychological profile that goes beyond things like desire to enhance/prolong career, etc. While there are plenty of good people who have crossed the threshold, the fact remains that all of them chose to be dishonest with themselves and their abilities. And that holds regardless of the reasons they were able to rationalize the self-delusion. For me, that's something I was not, am not, and never will be capable of doing.
I would not disregard economic pressures. Riders who have an education or who have an alternative means of earning a living would seem to be more resistant to doping pressure because they are economically empowered to walk away.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Given my education and economic background, there is no way I'd dope. But then there's no way I'd be stupid enough to be a professional cyclist--where the entire system is built upon applying pressure to economically vulnerable young men.

If I was a poor Belgian good at cycling, and cycling was all I'd ever known, I'm pretty sure that I'd succumb to the pressure to dope (unless I was blessed with LeMond ability).
 
Aug 30, 2012
152
0
0
MarkvW said:
I would not disregard economic pressures. Riders who have an education or who have an alternative means of earning a living would seem to be more resistant to doping pressure because they are economically empowered to walk away.
For sure, though it always seemed to me that the financial angle was more of a rationalization as opposed to a stand-alone reason. Absent an economic challenge I suspect many would have found some other justification to partake in the act. Not all of course, but a heavy majority, imo.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY