It’s that time of year where everyone gets on their proverbial soap box and talks about cheating and drugs and frenchies and conspiracies etc……….
Maybe it’s time to look at what type of doping may be acceptable in cycling?

I could be wrong, but of all the methods available blood transfusion/doping with the athletes/cheaters own blood seems to be the least offensive.

And please save the speeches about the integrity of the sport. Almost all past champions should/may have an asterisk alongside their respective names. I have been watching cycling since big MIG, and I am under no disillusions that he probably didn’t cheat with some sort of pharmaceutical help. The more you read the history of the sport it falls right into place. It doesn’t mean I won’t cheer for the guy, I liked the fact he was a bigger guy and he won. I loved Pantani for the opposite reasons, he attacked and he had flair and style. Yes he is a doper, yes he died in a sad way. Yet to this day I will watch any race on video in which he attacks. I know what the counter arguments are, I know what I am supporting. I watch football, and basketball, and baseball if I can. I participated in 2 of those sports and I ran track in high school. I understand they are not clean either. Even if I was hopped up on the best designer drugs I wouldn’t run 10.1 or under 20.5 in the 100 or 200
I watch the Olympics winter and summer …… I know that they are not clean…… Marion and her association with Balco and the “clear” when she was smashing on everybody in Sydney, has made me take a difference stance in how I view “sports”.

The NBA doesn’t test for amphetamines. Baseball testing is a joke. A cheater in the No Felon League almost won defensive player of the year, if not for the uproar made by some of the finalist for the award he would have won it. The hypocrisy is rampant in American sub culture when it comes to sports and their “heroes”. People boo Barry, yet praise Mantle {I love the Mick BTW}, who for most his life was a raging alcoholic who could rake like few if any who ever played the game. Previous sentence applies for Ruth also, but we never chastise any of these “role models” for something that would not be tolerated today.. It’s like saying NBA players don’t smoke out. Okay……… I believe it. Not really.
Tiger getting eye surgery for better eyesight, is that considered cheating? To some yes, to others no. Does it really matter? Probably not, considering he could play blind folded better than any one of us period.

Basically it comes down to this, either we accept some sort of enhancement or we will be treated to this nonsense that has happened in France for the past two years. It will effectively kill any promise this great sport has. The cheaters will always be ahead of the people trying to catch them, that why it works.
In a perfect world we wouldn’t have to worry about any of this, since we don’t have that luxury of living that type of life. What are the alternatives to not completely killing this sport?

To test or not to test? That's the real question. TDF has decided to test and try to clean it up and thats the way they want it. People will still try to cheat of course and some will get busted but I think the message is out now . I really think they will crack the whip harder next year. Allowing some enhancement wont work because someone will still use "barred enhancements", and we all know they arent just gonna say "YES" to all enhancements. I applaud TDF's efforts for at least trying and I do think they will get better and more thorough with the testing. I think the riders think that too.

I think he's asking where we should draw the line? I agree to an extent: I'm not sure anyone would say a can of Coca-Cola on climb is cheating, but the instant carbohydrates and caffeine burst are a great anti-bonk. Gels are engineered crabohydrates that speed into your system. Are these cheating because you aren't working solely off last night's pasta? I know these are absurd examples, but think of it this way, almost every rider hooks up to an IV to rehydrate, simply because you cannot drink enough fluid to replace what you've lost during the day. By the end of the tour, everyone is fighting chronic dehydration. These fluids contain minerals (electrolytes: potassium, sodium, etc) that your body needs, as does Gatorade (and as we were all told 3,258 times over the last month, Accelerade has this and protein!). How much different is that than say, putting a pint of your own blood back in to replenish your red blood cells (classic "doping")? It's easy to say drugs like HGH and EPO should be banned, no doubt. These are clearly cheating. But why is it that a large chunk of the peloton has asthma that they only discovered right around the time they were getting close to the ProTour? As long as you've got your doctor's signature, you get a medical exemption to take drugs that increase your lung capacty. Is this any more or less fair than classic blood doping? What about this, if they found that kiwi fruit caused your body to make more testosterone, would/should that be banned? If mango juice washed away lactic acid? If the bark from a tree in a rainforest helped with red blood cell count? Right now, the UCI would say these are illegal wouldn't they? Should they be?

My point is this, is cycling drawing the line at the right place? Does their rulebook coincide with your own moral and ethical compass? What do you think is fair game?

but think of it this way, almost every rider hooks up to an IV to rehydrate, simply because you cannot drink enough fluid to replace what you've lost during the day. By the end of the tour, everyone is fighting chronic dehydration.

I am fairly certain IV's for rehydration are illegal.

There is a huge an obvious difference between things like drug use, and drinking gatorade. Caffeine in soda is another story because it's widely accepted... millions of people are drug addicts (caffeine addicts) but it's legal and socially acceptable to use daily. What practical use does blood doping have? Nothing. Is it safe? Hell no. It's a direct physiological alteration, like the science fiction of turning a cyclist into a cyborg.

People boo Barry, yet praise Mantle {I love the Mick BTW}, who for most his life was a raging alcoholic who could rake like few if any who ever played the game. Previous sentence applies for Ruth also, but we never chastise any of these “role models” for something that would not be tolerated today..

Yeah, but imagine what those guys coulda done if they'd actually showed up for the game well-rested and sober!

Caffeine I guess is controversial, but energy drinks and gels are just nutrition. They work great on a bike because they're portable, easy to consume and easy to digest. I'm mean heck, we all gotta eat!

I am fairly certain IV's for rehydration are illegal.

Pretty sure that's not true. The race doctors often administer them. The teams who have been busted often use that as cover - "oh, the needles and the bags? we just have those in case a rider gets severely dehydrated".

I guess how many folks have "legit" asthma might be controversial, but I can sympathize with that.

I have exercise-induced asthma that has only really been a problem for me in my life when I was racing bikes (as a teen and pre-teen). It only affected me when I was done. As long as I was riding I was fine. As soon as I stopped, my lungs would just lock up and I'd be in trouble - or at least extreme discomfort. My mom would meet me at the finish with my inhaler or I'd carry it in my jersey when I got to the older ranks (when I was 10 we just raced in t-shirts). I still get it - after I ride or whatever I wheeze and cough for awhile. Same thing happened when I wrestled in High School and in other activities. But it was only bike RACING that put me in the long, extremely-intense effort that really made it rough. When I ride recreationally I just don't go that hard - even when I'm trying to go hard it's just that I don't have that additional psychological motivation to go "over the top".

IIRC, IV hydration was legal until a few years ago. Not sure though. Armstrong used to use it IIRC as recent as 2003.

I think he's asking where we should draw the line? I agree to an extent: I'm not sure anyone would say a can of Coca-Cola on climb is cheating, but the instant carbohydrates and caffeine burst are a great anti-bonk. Gels are engineered crabohydrates that speed into your system. Are these cheating because you aren't working solely off last night's pasta? I know these are absurd examples, but think of it this way, almost every rider hooks up to an IV to rehydrate, simply because you cannot drink enough fluid to replace what you've lost during the day. By the end of the tour, everyone is fighting chronic dehydration. These fluids contain minerals (electrolytes: potassium, sodium, etc) that your body needs, as does Gatorade (and as we were all told 3,258 times over the last month, Accelerade has this and protein!). How much different is that than say, putting a pint of your own blood back in to replenish your red blood cells (classic "doping")? It's easy to say drugs like HGH and EPO should be banned, no doubt. These are clearly cheating. But why is it that a large chunk of the peloton has asthma that they only discovered right around the time they were getting close to the ProTour? As long as you've got your doctor's signature, you get a medical exemption to take drugs that increase your lung capacty. Is this any more or less fair than classic blood doping? What about this, if they found that kiwi fruit caused your body to make more testosterone, would/should that be banned? If mango juice washed away lactic acid? If the bark from a tree in a rainforest helped with red blood cell count? Right now, the UCI would say these are illegal wouldn't they? Should they be?

My point is this, is cycling drawing the line at the right place? Does their rulebook coincide with your own moral and ethical compass? What do you think is fair game?

Good question. The spirit of the tour proposed by Desgrange and Lefevre in 1903 was about endurance, no support, nutritional, mechanical or otherwise, which I imagine grew out of rides like Paris-Brest-Paris, which predated the TdF. And cheating was rampant. Loosening the definition of cheating hasn't stopped riders from breaking the rules obviously. Some of the public's frustration, I think, comes from the fact that they think a human can ride that far in that short of a time merely because he's in really good shape. We can't turn back the clock (although it would be cool to see a radical tour based on the original 1903 rules) and I'm not convinced all the current measures are serving to level the playing field. With the general consensus being that testing is not foolproof and that riders will continue to stay one step ahead -- or try to -- and that even less detectable performance enhancements are on the horizon, the only way to fix it and restore faith in the sport I think is to cloister riders away and have them watched or monitored by security cameras 24-7.

IIRC, IV hydration was legal until a few years ago. Not sure though. Armstrong used to use it IIRC as recent as 2003.

I can see them making it illegal for the reason I mentioned above. It was definitely legal a couple of years ago, though. I think I remember Floyd got one the night before his "big" day last year but I think that became controversial in the whole mess afterwards. I was thinking that you wouldn't want to have to toss a rider if it became a medical necessity after the race - or for a rider to have to say "no thanks - I want to ride tomorrow", only to kick off minutes later - but I guess that would be a medical exemption......

Basically it comes down to this, either we accept some sort of enhancement or we will be treated to this nonsense that has happened in France for the past two years. It will effectively kill any promise this great sport has. The cheaters will always be ahead of the people trying to catch them, that why it works.
In a perfect world we wouldn’t have to worry about any of this, since we don’t have that luxury of living that type of life. What are the alternatives to not completely killing this sport?

Isn't this effectively what happened in the 90's with the 50% hemocrit cap? Is cheating any less rife because of it? I disagree with the premise of your argument. Basically, I think that as methods of doping become more sophisticated in the near future, cheating will become more entrenched, and, paradoxically, a lot of these scandals will subside. Gene doping is not too far away, and as of yet nobody has any idea how it could be detected. So when it comes, riders will stop testing positive and we'll all enjoy our "clean" sport.

Yeah, but imagine what those guys coulda done if they'd actually showed up for the game well-rested and sober!

Caffeine I guess is controversial, but energy drinks and gels are just nutrition. They work great on a bike because they're portable, easy to consume and easy to digest. I'm mean heck, we all gotta eat!



I would have loved to see them not drunk or hung over.......... It would be crazy what they could do. When they were right, they were probably untouchable.

I hope this thread doesnt get into a flame war and everyone can be civil through out it. They are so many of us who like/love the hobby.... It would be a shame if we couldn't get our opinions across with out, trying to kill each other.

Isn't this effectively what happened in the 90's with the 50% hemocrit cap? Is cheating any less rife because of it? I disagree with the premise of your argument. Basically, I think that as methods of doping become more sophisticated in the near future, cheating will become more entrenched, and, paradoxically, a lot of these scandals will subside. Gene doping is not too far away, and as of yet nobody has any idea how it could be detected. So when it comes, riders will stop testing positive and we'll all enjoy our "clean" sport.

Sure we will enjoy a clean sport .......All four of us who care by the time "clean sportsmanship" comes to the for front. Its just sad......

How about this for where to draw the line: if it can kill you!!!!

A can of Coke, not going to kill you. I do not hear of any stories of cyclists strapping a HR monitor to their chests at night so that if they HR got too low, they could get up and quickly get their HR high enough to reduce the risk of blood clots because they took too many energy gels, or protein shakes. When your base-line body chemistry / genetic threshold is altered, how about drawing the line there?

How about drawing the line where someone can compete without fear of death? I mean, if you allow doping completely, then the winner is not the best athlete/rider, but the one willing to press his luck or risk his life the most cheating. Do we really want that?

Wanna know what will kill the sport ~ the TdF winner dropping dead because of doping. Wanna see the world turn on the sport, that will do it.

How about this for where to draw the line: if it can kill you!!!!

A can of Coke, not going to kill you. I do not hear of any stories of cyclists strapping a HR monitor to their chests at night so that if they HR got too low, they could get up and quickly get their HR high enough to reduce the risk of blood clots because they took too many energy gels, or protein shakes. When your base-line body chemistry / genetic threshold is altered, how about drawing the line there?

How about drawing the line where someone can compete without fear of death? I mean, if you allow doping completely, then the winner is not the best athlete/rider, but the one willing to press his luck or risk his life the most cheating. Do we really want that?

Wanna know what will kill the sport ~ the TdF winner dropping dead because of doping. Wanna see the world turn on the sport, that will do it.


You mean flying down a mountain @ 60+ miles an hour and crashing cant kill? Descending any big mountain the way these riders do is life threatening period.
I look at the tour champion being someone who doped sensibly. And history and proof is on my side when it comes to this.
Can anyone name a tour champion in the past 30+ years who didn't have any suspicion what so ever of some type of doping? Other athletes have died from drugs before........ And yet still their sport finds a way of surviving.

I look at the tour champion being someone who doped sensibly. QUOTE]

Are u serious?????????? Some of the NFL players, Lyle Alzado, John Matuzak, used enhancements to be the best they could be. They didnt reach the ripe old age 0f 43........ But maybe they didnt dope sensibly.

I do not hear of any stories of cyclists strapping a HR monitor to their chests at night so that if they HR got too low, they could get up and quickly get their HR high enough to reduce the risk of blood clots

Not anymore but it took the deaths of quite a few young riders for the team managers take control and send riders who wanted to dope to doctors who would help them out.

How about this for where to draw the line: if it can kill you!!!!

A can of Coke, not going to kill you. I do not hear of any stories of cyclists strapping a HR monitor to their chests at night so that if they HR got too low, they could get up and quickly get their HR high enough to reduce the risk of blood clots because they took too many energy gels, or protein shakes. When your base-line body chemistry / genetic threshold is altered, how about drawing the line there?

How about drawing the line where someone can compete without fear of death? I mean, if you allow doping completely, then the winner is not the best athlete/rider, but the one willing to press his luck or risk his life the most cheating. Do we really want that?

Wanna know what will kill the sport ~ the TdF winner dropping dead because of doping. Wanna see the world turn on the sport, that will do it.

So you believe testo and HGH should be permitted?

Maybe it’s time to look at what type of doping may be acceptable in cycling?

What are the alternatives to not completely killing this sport?


Good question as not taking a firm stand on doping will kill the sport.

Accepting doping turns your sport from an athletic endeavor into a freak show..

Forget who does it and who doesn't and ask yourself if the riders you were watching were drugged up freaks would you encourage your kid to look up to them and would you encourage him to participate.

Like Sumo wrestling allowing doping would turn cycling into one of those sports you watch in amazement but wouldn't contemplate trying.

I look at the tour champion being someone who doped sensibly. QUOTE]

Are u serious?????????? Some of the NFL players, Lyle Alzado, John Matuzak, used enhancements to be the best they could be. They didnt reach the ripe old age 0f 43........ But maybe they didnt dope sensibly.


Most NFL players.... are on some type of enhancement. Over using any type of enhancement will result in death. People use steriods sensibly all the time and its Dr prescribed, So is growth hormone. But it gets crazy when people mis-use the products, as with any thing in life. So to answer your question no they didnt dope sensibly. They over did it. You may not like what i just said, but its the truth.

Good question as not taking a firm stand on doping will kill the sport.

Accepting doping turns your sport from an athletic endeavor into a freak show..

Forget who does it and who doesn't and ask yourself if the riders you were watching were drugged up freaks would you encourage your kid to look up to them and would you encourage him to participate.

Like Sumo wrestling allowing doping would turn cycling into one of those sports you watch in amazement but wouldn't contemplate trying.

If you wear blinders then sure, everyone is given a pass until they failed. However when every big name in the sport has been under some type of suspicion or found to have doped, then what other recourse as a fan do we have? Most world class atheltic endeavors that require super human efforts have some type of gray area when it comes to drugs.

Would we try to play football at all? Of course. Can you play football with nfl players or nfl type players?
Hell no, I know about 4 people who didnt make it into the league and these guys are incredibly fast and quick and storng. Its the same with anyone who palys B-ball or runs track with world class althetes. They are different for a reason. it all comes down to talent, ability ,drive, etc........ Drugs help, but it doesnt mean joe public can get shot up and do the same types of things they do.

Drugs help, but it doesnt mean joe public can get shot up and do the same types of things they do.

No but they can mimick their behaviour and I don't know anyone who decides to participate who thinks of themselves as joe public.

By allowing doping you are condoning its use at all levels and it will filter through to all levels of your sport unless as you pointed out you are wearing blinders. We all know someone who didn't make the cut but condoning drug taking will turn not making the cut into not prepared to dope.

The best are the best for many reasons no argument there but try catching up with David millars interview after he lost his world TT title for doping "the most dissappointing part of this is I believe I could have won without performance enhancers but I thought I needed them to win".

No matter how well controlled or supervised the doping is the stigma will be you can't be a good cyclist unless you're prepared to dope.

Who cares what other sports are doing or what was done in the past as they are played to a different mentality or a different generation.

The current cycling supporter and the current sports fan is more informed and critical of what they are presented with than past generations, if its not the real deal they'll change channel, don't believe me! then ask yourself why extreme sports and reality tv are going gangbusters.

Me; I'm watching the fishing channel, do you think they have those fish in a tank off camera.

No but they can mimick their behaviour and I don't know anyone who decides to participate who thinks of themselves as joe public.

By allowing doping you are condoning its use at all levels and it will filter through to all levels of your sport unless as you pointed out you are wearing blinders. We all know someone who didn't make the cut but condoning drug taking will turn not making the cut into not prepared to dope.

The best are the best for many reasons no argument there but try catching up with David millars interview after he lost his world TT title for doping "the most dissappointing part of this is I believe I could have won without performance enhancers but I thought I needed them to win".

No matter how well controlled or supervised the doping is the stigma will be you can't be a good cyclist unless you're prepared to dope.

Who cares what other sports are doing or what was done in the past as they are played to a different mentality or a different generation.

The current cycling supporter and the current sports fan is more informed and critical of what they are presented with than past generations, if its not the real deal they'll change channel, don't believe me! then ask yourself why extreme sports and reality tv are going gangbusters.

Me; I'm watching the fishing channel, do you think they have those fish in a tank off camera.



The average person i.e 99% of us don’t get up one day and think to themselves, “today I am going to run a the 40 in 4.2 seconds. That same person doesn’t have any delusions about climbing like Pantani or time trialing like Lance. Even if they did they are not talented enough or fit enough to do so and realistically never will be . Don’t get me wrong there are some folks who are “freaks”. We all know someone or of someone who is”gifted” and have the drive and will power and time to do so. But for most of us that is not the case.

David Millar has the option of “Monday morning quarterbacking” his past situations. If he didn’t think he need to dope in order to win … then why did he? Because even some like him who is a talented rider has lost time trials.

We care about what other generations did because that’s the measuring stick for the present riders. If not then lets wipe the record clean and start over. See how well that goes over with the well informed “sports” fan. Won’t happen, heroes are heroes. And we need that illusion of greatness in order to give the sport an identity.

The current sports fan maybe more informed, maybe more critical than the previous generation. But we still hold the value of sporting heroes close to our hearts. Ex. Kobe Bryant………… Should he seriously represent THE United States of America in anything sports related? Honestly …..No. Dude has way too much baggage to reasonably do so. But he’s in Vegas preparing for the Olympics. Agree with what happened to him and that girl in Colorado or not. This is best example of sportsmanship we have? He can ball like a mother, but other than that on the surface he appears to be a damaged individual. It can be attributed to many things why he is on the Olympic team. Everyone deserves a second chance, he may or may not be guilty of wrong doing, he wasn’t found guilty of any crime. He just happened to be involved in something we hope that never happens to any one we know. Or the more than likely answer….We want to win more than we want to set any type of “sportsmanship”.

You're statements are a little conflicting and you have your own answers so no need for my input.

Just answer one question: Do you honestly believe cycling would be better off and improve its stature as a sport if it had an open slather doping policy that it advertised to the world audience?

You're statements are a little conflicting and you have your own answers so no need for my input.

Just answer one question: Do you honestly believe cycling would be better off and improve its stature as a sport if it had an open slather doping policy that it advertised to the world audience?


The statements essentially mean that winning matters more than sportsmanship. That what most people deem to be the greatest tragedy in all of the doping accusations. Person A didn't get a fair shake because person B was cheating etc etc.......

Honestly on a world stage i don't think that cycling has the appeal for it to advance in stature to begin with. Its a niche endurance sport, that cant police itself whether it wanted to or not. Compound that with the fact that every cycling champion since 1990 has some suspicion of doping in their respective resumes and it is pretty much an open & closed case. A serious revamping of the entire structure needs to occur from top to bottom. And doping on the jr levels, in all countries need to be either stopped or we need to allow some type to exist and have it monitored.

At this point what would you suggest cycling do?

At this point what would you suggest cycling do?

Refer to my first reply.

I suggested there was no alternative to going in hard and wiping it out.

If they condone it it will be known as the doper sport and the standard will drop as those with true physical talent will direct their efforts elsewhere.

Refer to my first reply.

I suggested there was no alternative to going in hard and wiping it out.

If they condone it it will be known as the doper sport and the standard will drop as those with true physical talent will direct their efforts elsewhere.

I agree with you is saying it should be wiped out, the reality of the situation is not what is realistic to our time. I was looking for a different idea.

Is it known as anything else today?