Professional Cycling For the Fans - Are we (cycling fans) naive and expecting the impossible?

Now that Frank Schleck has been busted for doping, it's time to pose the question that has been on my mind for quite a while.

Is it reasonable to expect these cyclists in the pro peloton to do what they do without doping of some kind? I mean, it's tough stuff riding those mountains day after day.

Are we expecting the impossible here?

And when you look back at pro cycling history, it looks like doping of one kind or the other has been going on for a long time.

Discuss.

Sure it's possible. No one can argue that modern drugs are necessary, since races were raced and won long before they were invented.

The earlier drugs had little real effect on performance apparently, and mostly served as pain killers. Are pain killers necessary? When I'm in pain and tired, I just go slower.

Sure it's possible. No one can argue that modern drugs are necessary, since races were raced and won long before they were invented.

The earlier drugs had little real effect on performance apparently, and mostly served as pain killers. Are pain killers necessary? When I'm in pain and tired, I just go slower.

There were also amphetamines and other stimulants in the old days.

Frank Schleck is the impetus for a conversation that's been going heavy since the Festina scandal?

Who cares about Frank Schleck? When Armstrong goes down virtually every podium finisher for something like a decade will be tainted.

I'm watching the tour this year because I'm hurt, but honestly you guys are better off heading to a local crit a watching the juniors race. They'll appreciate it more also.

Who cares about Frank Schleck? When Armstrong goes down virtually every podium finisher for something like a decade will be tainted.



This. Cant pick & choose who gets busted & who doesn't, if they did, they should ALL be banned, regardless of what year it was.

At this point, let them all dope and do it openly. It will at least be safer for the riders (openly overseen by doctors), everyone will be on the same footing, and everyone will know the doping is going on instead of guessing.
Next up....Sky

Athletes have cheated since the first moments of sport. The ancient Olympics was a religious event, and one of the most important cultural events of its era, yet its participants still cheated. (Their punishment was a fine that paid for a bronze statue of Zeus, which immortalized their crimes.)

You also see people cheating when the stakes are incredibly low, as in negligible -- e.g. cheating in non-competitive online games.

There's little doubt that doping is rampant in all sports; cyclists are just getting caught more frequently. This in turn makes cycling (and track & field) seem so much worse than other sports.

Cyclists also don't have a strong player's union which spent years refusing to allow tests, and water down those tests when instituted. E.g. MLB does no random tests during the season; they only test if there is a "reasonable suspicion." Players are notified they will be tested and are given an hour to "prepare." It's ridiculous -- and the naivete is for those who imagine such a system would actually catch any but the most idiotic of dopers.

I don't think there is any way to ever completely eliminate cheating.

That said, and at the small chance of being a sucker ;) I genuinely don't believe the Slipstream/Garmin guys are cheating. Sky probably aren't cheating either. I.e. yes, it can be done, and I don't think it really changes the tactics or the nature of the race that much -- especially since a lot of the doping is by domestiques.

I agree with this post for the most part. I think there are some clean riders, but who are they??

Sky should not have hired that team doctor. For what reason? Lots of doctors out there without ties to doping


Athletes have cheated since the first moments of sport. The ancient Olympics was a religious event, and one of the most important cultural events of its era, yet its participants still cheated. (Their punishment was a fine that paid for a bronze statue of Zeus, which immortalized their crimes.)

You also see people cheating when the stakes are incredibly low, as in negligible -- e.g. cheating in non-competitive online games.

There's little doubt that doping is rampant in all sports; cyclists are just getting caught more frequently. This in turn makes cycling (and track & field) seem so much worse than other sports.

Cyclists also don't have a strong player's union which spent years refusing to allow tests, and water down those tests when instituted. E.g. MLB does no random tests during the season; they only test if there is a "reasonable suspicion." Players are notified they will be tested and are given an hour to "prepare." It's ridiculous -- and the naivete is for those who imagine such a system would actually catch any but the most idiotic of dopers.

I don't think there is any way to ever completely eliminate cheating.

That said, and at the small chance of being a sucker ;) I genuinely don't believe the Slipstream/Garmin guys are cheating. Sky probably aren't cheating either. I.e. yes, it can be done, and I don't think it really changes the tactics or the nature of the race that much -- especially since a lot of the doping is by domestiques.

Do they expect us to climb these mountains on nothing but mineral water?

Do they expect us to climb these mountains on nothing but mineral water?

Coppi?

Anquetil?

Coppi?

Anquetil?

Anquetil. Mineral water is big in France.

Though Coppi would likely have said something similar.

Its a losing battle. Doping will keep up with and surpass our ability to test for illegal substances. Designer drugs are only going to become more sophisticated and difficullt to detect. And don't forget the not so far off reality of genetically modified athletes.

Let them do what they will and just figure they are all doing it.

I think it has been fairly well established that it's possible to ride these mountains day after day without doping. You would likely lose to the people who are doping, but it can be done. So if one person can do it, they can all do it.

The question really comes down to human nature. Can we expect a group of highly motivated individuals to follow a set of rules that limit their ability to achieve their goals? I wish the answer were an unqualified 'yes'. Unfortunately the answer seems to be that we can only expect it if the net rewards for following the rules outweigh the net rewards for breaking the rules. The UCI, USADA, etc. are unlikely to be able to tip the balance, but I think the sponsors could if they wanted to.

Yeah, I was trying to be snarky and show that it's a very old problem in the same post. I believe it was Anquetil, but I'm not positive. Sounds like something he'd say.

[QUOTE=Laggard;14494501]Its a losing battle. Doping will keep up with and surpass our ability to test for illegal substances. Designer drugs are only going to become more sophisticated and difficullt to detect. And don't forget the not so far off reality of genetically modified athletes./QUOTE]

This is what I think also. I mean, it seems the anti-doping authorities are forever condemned to be playing catch-up. It is really getting ridiculous. Whenever I want to believe in the pro peloton again, wham, they slap you on your face with another positive test result (sigh).

And what is really shameful is that it looks as if these two-year bans for testing positive is not serving as a deterrent. What could be the solution? I sure don't like the idea of letting them all dope. I mean, that is gonna be a race to the bottom, and the whole thing becomes a big pharmological/pharmaceutical farce, instead of a cycling race/competition (sigh again).

There were also amphetamines and other stimulants in the old days.

Of course. Hence the second line of the post you quoted.

Its a losing battle. Doping will keep up with and surpass our ability to test for illegal substances. Designer drugs are only going to become more sophisticated and difficullt to detect. And don't forget the not so far off reality of genetically modified athletes.

Let them do what they will and just figure they are all doing it.

You ever hear Carmelita Jeter speak? The Incredible Hulk lady with the roid voice. Never tested positive!

At this point, let them all dope and do it openly. It will at least be safer for the riders (openly overseen by doctors)

Tom Simpson is all the reasons you need why doping can't be allowed.

The issue isn't really about doping, it's about cheating. Yes, Coppi did a lot of amphetamines, Anquetil made the famous mineral water remark, lots of the early guys were boozed up to the eyeballs to anaesthetise themselves through prodigiously long stages on fixed gear bikes. But it wasn't against the rules. And the rules change. Drugs (including caffeine) move on and off the banned list.

So the question is, what do we decide is cheating? What is the difference between doping and medication, for example? If an athlete is treated with pharmaceuticals to speed their recovery from injury, is that doping? Most people would probably say no, if what we are doing is restoring them to fitness rather than enhancing their level of performance. But where is the line drawn between injury and the wear and tear that is to be expected in a stage race? Is it OK to help people recover, as long as we aren't helping them do things they couldn't do before? If yes, then some of the chemicals now banned would be OK. If no, then the line between legitimate and illegitimate won't be clear.

These are murky waters. If I discovered that a naturally-occurring, widely-availanble foodstuff boosted my ability to tolerate training, would it be unethical to eat it? I think not. Would it be unethical to avoid telling my competitors? Again, I'd say no. I'm under no obligation to reveal the details of my training regime to them, it is perfectly reasonable that I should seek an advantage. And is there any moral difference between a chemical that grows in the ground as opposed to being synthesised in a lab? No, the vitamin C in a multivitamin is no more evil than the vitamin C in an orange.

So the question of doping is far from cut and dried, ethically speaking. What turns it into an ethical issue is the rules. We decide, pretty much arbitrarily, what is permissible and what isn't. and if you are going to make a rule, you'd better be confident that you can enforce it consistently, or the unfairness increases rather than decreases.

Tom Simpson is all the reasons you need why doping can't be allowed.

I disagree. Had he been better supervised, he'd probably be alive. He did famously say, after all, "if it takes ten to kill you, I'll take nine".

This is why Messenger Alleycats are better.
If the drugs don't kill you, the cars will.

Tom Simpson is all the reasons you need why doping can't be allowed.
Had you had any knowledge about the circumstances Simpson's death, you would have known that cycling and its cyclists were incredibly stupid in those days. As in: they didn't drink during hot days -- because they were only allowed to take two bidons along, and get another two bidons during the race. More was not allowed -- and yes there were raids by the domestiques into cafés to get anything drinkable.

Now, try racing several hundred kilometres on a hot summer day on just two liters of water.

That they healed their self inflicted pain with amphetamines just added stupid to stupid.

put 'em all, "back on their bikes". (joking)

I've got to agree with Chasm.

Arbitrary rules, lines drawn in the sand that determine if naturally occuring chemistry is deemed permissible or not, substances on the banned list not because they have any chance of increasing performance, but, because they might obscure what is being examined for or simply dilute it.

It's a shame that Frank has tested positive. However, I'm not surprised. Nor would I be if any other pro peleton member tested positive.

The larger shame is the retro active approach to some of what is taking place. Not just LA, but, also what they did to Contador. The shame is not that athletes have been or may be stripped of a title. The real shame is for those that were deprived of it in the first place and will spend the rest of their life asking, 'what if". What would their career have looked like? How would it have changed their next contract? What sort of team mates and support might they have been able to attract? How would their lives have changed?

To confuse it further, once they've retroactively stripped a title, what do they do when the runner up and even third place have been indicted for similiar offenses and/or already been penalized? And, when the first eligible rider wasn't sampled immediately following competition because they were so far down the list?

What was the definition of "farce" again?

of course athletes are usually one step ahead of the tests available.

epo test gives rise to the use of cera.

I'm not sure how Contador fits in here. Why was it a shame he got stripped of a title? Was it a shame they stripped Floyd? Circumstances were the same. Both were caught and fought it. That battle took quite a bit of time.

The fear of getting caught not now, but two years from now, is about the only thing that could keep a guy taking the newest thing.

It's apparently part of what the Fed was investigating Armstrong for...an alleged ability to get drug trials due to his pharmaceutical connections. I suspect the Fed case got dropped because they couldn't get any of these more serious charges to stick on him.

I think Dick Pound discusses the issue of always playing catch up with drug testing

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/Drug-Lord.html?page=all

This may smack of semantics but I think they should call it "cheating" or "cheating by doping". Maybe it's just me but I believe you need to have the label cheat applied to someone who dopes to get ahead. In a sport that prides itself on manners, it woud be good to point out just how unmannerly a participant has been by doping.

My comments about just letting them all dope weren't, of course, serious. Although it might prove to be safer all around for the riders to dope in a controlled, monitored way, rather than whatever is going on now. I believe there are very few truly 'clean' riders on the pro circuit. there's too much pressure and too much money at stake. That includes SKY. Like US Postal / Lance, they've just been smarter about it. My understanding is, the real time to look at someone you suspect is doping is 3 to 6 months prior to the event(s) they're targeting, as they're doing the doping thing in conjunction with the training and buildup to the events. During the events themselves, there may well be very little doping occurring (except for the stupid or the desperate). Cheating is cheating is cheating, and I'm certainly not the person who has the answer.

Let them dope, despite all the obvious legal issues, is a frequent serious refrain from folks.

Let them dope, despite all the obvious legal issues, is a frequent serious refrain from folks.

With some reason. The main issue, for me, would be kids. In a world in which parents are prepared to push doctors to prescribe growth hormone for their normal-sized children, there'd be too many of them ambitious enough to encourage their little darling to dope.

I've sometimes toyed with the idea of rigorous testing for junior competitions, with the UCI imposing a lifetime ban on any under-eighteen found doping. Then a free-for-all for adults, with any legal substance being allowed. Not going to happen, of course.

My comments about just letting them all dope weren't, of course, serious. Although it might prove to be safer all around for the riders to dope in a controlled, monitored way, rather than whatever is going on now.
That isn't going to work.

If you can't stop the riders from doping, how could you possibly keep track of their taking PED's within specified limits? E.g. if they allow EPO use within a specified range, but ban stimulants, the riders are just going to figure out a way to take the stimulants and mask it from the tests.

I also think that riders getting popped obscures how doping has changed since '87. Back then, it's virtually certain the teams were encouraging riders to dope, and the peloton would go on strike when a rider or team was accused. The sense of an entitlement to dope is pretty much out the window.



My understanding is, the real time to look at someone you suspect is doping is 3 to 6 months prior to the event(s)....
Cycling already has out-of-competition tests, and profiles riders year-round to look for abnormalities.

The big problem I have with doping is that if one person does it, then you are either forcing everyone else to do it just to remain competitive, or forcing them out of the sport if they don't want to risk it.

It's stupid. Don't dope.

So the question is, what do we decide is cheating? What is the difference between doping and medication, for example? If an athlete is treated with pharmaceuticals to speed their recovery from injury, is that doping?
If you require medication which might have a performance-enhancing effect, then you get a TUE.

Lines do get a little fuzzy, but as long as the policies are clear, then the doctors and riders can be viably held responsible for their actions.



where is the line drawn between injury and the wear and tear that is to be expected in a stage race?
EPO, HGH and synthetic T are not normally prescribed for road rash or ITBS.



If I discovered that a naturally-occurring, widely-availanble foodstuff boosted my ability to tolerate training, would it be unethical to eat it?
If you're talking about "chocolate milk," then it's ethical.

If you're taking a hormone that occurs naturally, but is conveyed in shots, and you're taking it with the intent to enhance your performance, not so much.



What turns it into an ethical issue is the rules. We decide, pretty much arbitrarily, what is permissible and what isn't. and if you are going to make a rule, you'd better be confident that you can enforce it consistently, or the unfairness increases rather than decreases.
No active pro cyclist has a genuine medical reason to take EPO. Frank Schleck does not have lymphedema. Ricco had kidney failure, admitted to the doctors that he transfused 25 day old blood, and still denied he was blood doping. Where's the ambiguity here?

Life is full of fuzzy lines and borderline cases. Thus try to be as clear as possible, and have safeguards like the CAS. No system is perfect, and the current anti-doping could be better; but the solution is to improve the system, not dump it in the trash. Especially since even if you allow it in some form, riders will be motivated to find some other way to cheat.

With some reason. The main issue, for me, would be kids. In a world in which parents are prepared to push doctors to prescribe growth hormone for their normal-sized children, there'd be too many of them ambitious enough to encourage their little darling to dope.

I've sometimes toyed with the idea of rigorous testing for junior competitions, with the UCI imposing a lifetime ban on any under-eighteen found doping. Then a free-for-all for adults, with any legal substance being allowed. Not going to happen, of course.

Why define the line at 18 and under? What about the 22 year old NCC rider chasing a USA crit title and dreams of racing in europe? What happens when his team has to race against euro pro teams that come to the states for the big races? And what of the 19 and 18 and 20 year olds, not to mention 45 year old guys like me that have to race against that guy when he's around doing any one of the 100 races he'll do in a season. Not to forget there would be no way to tell how good any of these kids would really be in the pro ranks because the pros are a drug league and every one else is being tested.

EPO, HGH and synthetic T are not normally prescribed for road rash or ITBS.

No. But HGH and testosterone gel might be very useful for recovery, while doing little or nothing to actually enhance performance.




If you're talking about "chocolate milk," then it's ethical.

If you're taking a hormone that occurs naturally, but is conveyed in shots, and you're taking it with the intent to enhance your performance, not so much.


Too simplistic, in my view. Everything a professional athlete does is done with a view to enhancing their performance. There's nothing wrong with that. And there's no difference in principle, and no clear difference in practice, between "occurs naturally" and "conveyed in shots". Natural is not synonymous with good. The issue is how we choose to frame the rules.




Life is full of fuzzy lines and borderline cases. Thus try to be as clear as possible, and have safeguards like the CAS. No system is perfect, and the current anti-doping could be better; but the solution is to improve the system, not dump it in the trash. Especially since even if you allow it in some form, riders will be motivated to find some other way to cheat.

Or, have fewer rules, and make them rules you can actually make stick. That's the way to have a level playing field. Having rules that can be evaded is the surest recipe for cheating.

Why define the line at 18 and under? What about the 22 year old NCC rider chasing a USA crit title and dreams of racing in europe? What happens when his team has to race against euro pro teams that come to the states for the big races? And what of the 19 and 18 and 20 year olds, not to mention 45 year old guys like me that have to race against that guy when he's around doing any one of the 100 races he'll do in a season. Not to forget there would be no way to tell how good any of these kids would really be in the pro ranks because the pros are a drug league and every one else is being tested.

Yeah, well, I agree. It's a mess, and nothing we can do will resolve the problem in a way that is cut and dried.

Yep, it's a mess. And I want big name guys to fall hard for it. I don't care if it's rational or not. I want Armstrong living in a cardboard box beneath a footbridge, and I hope someday that fall from grace acts as a deterrent. Without it true sport is utterly lost.

Yep, it's a mess. And I want big name guys to fall hard for it. I don't care if it's rational or not. I want Armstrong living in a cardboard box beneath a footbridge, and I hope someday that fall from grace acts as a deterrent. Without it true sport is utterly lost.

Oh, I'm a bit less pessimistic than that. The kids I sometimes help with are just as keen and idealistic and full of belief in their own potential as we were, and there's plenty of room for most f them to fulfil that potential, and enjoy the sport, without worrying about what it might tak to climb the Alpe d'Huez in less than half an hour.

Edit: OK, less than forty minutes...

Admittedly, I'm pretty tired of racing against dopers.

Admittedly, I'm pretty tired of racing against dopers.

I sympathise. And it may explain our difference in mood. The calibre of racing I do is so poor that if anyone were doping, you'd be more inclined to pity than resent them. LOL.

Tom Simpson is all the reasons you need why doping can't be allowed.And Fabio Carsatelli, Andrei Kivilev, and Wouter Weylandt are the only reasons you need why descents can't be allowed in bike racing!

The big problem I have with doping is that if one person does it, then you are either forcing everyone else to do it just to remain competitive, or forcing them out of the sport if they don't want to risk it.

It's stupid. Don't dope.

Agreed. You let everyone dope, and to be totally serious: why bother having the race? The winner is the one whose body best metabolizes whatever drugs they were given. Why bother? That ain't sport. And there will still be cheats. Gotta be vigilant. Have to make the risks of cheater greater than the reward. The old balance of shame and glory.

Yep, it's a mess. And I want big name guys to fall hard for it. I don't care if it's rational or not. I want Armstrong living in a cardboard box beneath a footbridge, and I hope someday that fall from grace acts as a deterrent. Without it true sport is utterly lost.

True sport was lost when they started allowing professionals into the Olympics. Not that the Olympics were any cleaqner than pro sports, but it crossed a line that can't be re-crossed. Roger Federer and LaBron James in the Olympics is a travesty. Poor Jim Thorpe. If only he'd known.

Yeah, I was trying to be snarky and show that it's a very old problem in the same post. I believe it was Anquetil, but I'm not positive. Sounds like something he'd say.

It was Anquetil, but your quote is not exact. In 1967 he said (on TV, no less) "on ne fait pas dauphiné Bordeaux-Paris en marchant à l’eau claire" (one doesn't win Bordeaux-Paris by running on mineral water). He could have said the same about the Tour, and probably did at some point, just not on TV.

It is a mess folks. No easy answer, I guess the current system is the best system.. If you allowed open doping then all professional cyclist would be forced to dope to be competitive. Teams are punishing riders big time for doping these days and while the system will never be perfect, it is a system. Out of 192 riders, 2 have been caught doping this year I think...

Outside of perhaps some lifetime bans, I don't know more what to do.

The issue isn't really about doping, it's about cheating. Yes, Coppi did a lot of amphetamines, Anquetil made the famous mineral water remark, lots of the early guys were boozed up to the eyeballs to anaesthetise themselves through prodigiously long stages on fixed gear bikes. But it wasn't against the rules. And the rules change. Drugs (including caffeine) move on and off the banned list.

So the question is, what do we decide is cheating? What is the difference between doping and medication, for example? If an athlete is treated with pharmaceuticals to speed their recovery from injury, is that doping? Most people would probably say no, if what we are doing is restoring them to fitness rather than enhancing their level of performance. But where is the line drawn between injury and the wear and tear that is to be expected in a stage race? Is it OK to help people recover, as long as we aren't helping them do things they couldn't do before? If yes, then some of the chemicals now banned would be OK. If no, then the line between legitimate and illegitimate won't be clear.

These are murky waters. If I discovered that a naturally-occurring, widely-availanble foodstuff boosted my ability to tolerate training, would it be unethical to eat it? I think not. Would it be unethical to avoid telling my competitors? Again, I'd say no. I'm under no obligation to reveal the details of my training regime to them, it is perfectly reasonable that I should seek an advantage. And is there any moral difference between a chemical that grows in the ground as opposed to being synthesised in a lab? No, the vitamin C in a multivitamin is no more evil than the vitamin C in an orange.

So the question of doping is far from cut and dried, ethically speaking. What turns it into an ethical issue is the rules. We decide, pretty much arbitrarily, what is permissible and what isn't. and if you are going to make a rule, you'd better be confident that you can enforce it consistently, or the unfairness increases rather than decreases.

+1

No. But HGH and testosterone gel might be very useful for recovery, while doing little or nothing to actually enhance performance.
Not really seeing a difference between "artificially enhancing your recovery" and "enhancing performance."



Too simplistic, in my view. Everything a professional athlete does is done with a view to enhancing their performance. There's nothing wrong with that.
There is, when the rules explicitly bar those actions.

Riders who take PED's aren't engaging in civil disobedience against a profoundly unfair system. They're looking for an edge to win the game (or just stay in it).

Taking a drug isn't much different than a pro hiding a 1 pound weight on his bike to get it up to 15 pounds, and surreptitiously shedding it at the bottom of a climb. Even if the 15-pound UCI rule strikes you as arbitrary or a poor choice, you don't have the right to break the rules.



here's no difference in principle, and no clear difference in practice, between "occurs naturally" and "conveyed in shots". Natural is not synonymous with good.
If your body can't produce enough testosterone, then injecting an artificial supplement is significantly different both in practice and principle.



Or, have fewer rules, and make them rules you can actually make stick. That's the way to have a level playing field. Having rules that can be evaded is the surest recipe for cheating.
The problem isn't that the rules are "too complex."

The riders, their doctors, and team management know very well what's on the WADA Prohibited List, (http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-Prohibited-list/2012/WADA_Prohibited_List_2012_EN.pdf) which is updated annually.

So, the rule is simple: Don't take prohibited substances. Is that really so hard?

Further, it's well-known that there is an arms race between cheaters and testers. The cheaters do things like blood doping, or take masking agents, take drugs that are nearly undetectable, or take PED's that they know their sport doesn't test for (e.g. EPO use by track & field sprinters) specifically in order to evade the rules. As soon as a substance or technique becomes detectable, they find another one.

The "surest recipe for cheating" is just "being human." I'm not sure what will actually stop people from cheating, but I am fairly sure that relaxing rules is not going to do it.

Its also an evolution, not a static situation. Doing the best, fairest thing at any point in time is the best we can hope for.
We'll always get attempts to play outside the rules because fatigue is a biochemical state, not a bio-mechanical one and thus so tempting to artificially alter.

Not really seeing a difference between "artificially enhancing your recovery" and "enhancing performance."

Really? You don't see the difference between helping someone recover from illness, injury or fatigue, and enabling them to do something they could not normally achieve when healthy and fresh?

I think you, and many others, are hung up on an illusory distinction between what is "natural" and "artificial". Having foam rollers to massage your quads isn't "natural".




If your body can't produce enough testosterone, then injecting an artificial supplement is significantly different both in practice and principle.

If you have asthma, you are entitled to an exemption and can use drugs that are banned for others. How is that different from being unable "naturally" to produce as much testosterone as one's competitors?




The "surest recipe for cheating" is just "being human." I'm not sure what will actually stop people from cheating, but I am fairly sure that relaxing rules is not going to do it.

You are missing my point - probably deliberately. I was observing that if one has rules one cannot reliably enforce, that makes matters worse, because those who wish to play fair will observe them while cheats prosper.

It's pretty difficult to actually get a TUE. Guys who don't know think that a DS can just write one and it's all ok. It's a bit more complicated.

Really? You don't see the difference between helping someone recover from illness, injury or fatigue, and enabling them to do something they could not normally achieve when healthy and fresh?
I see a difference between working hard to train your body and your mind to compete in a stage race, and taking a drug to induce recovery above and beyond what you could possibly ever achieve with training.



I think you, and many others, are hung up on an illusory distinction between what is "natural" and "artificial". Having foam rollers to massage your quads isn't "natural".
I'd rather be hung up on the idea of "natural" and "artificial" (which, really, isn't that hard to figure out) than make excuses for cheaters.

Again: Yes, there are fuzzy borders; something like a hyperbaric chamber skates a fine line. That makes those specific cases problematic, and have no effect on other aspects. EPO, for example, is clearly going to boost your hematocrit far beyond what you could ever achieve with hard work and intelligent training -- so much that it can kill you in your sleep. And if not taking EPO means you're slower after 14 days of constant riding than another rider whose genetic structure gives them a higher hematocrit, and you can't outsmart them by conserving your energy, and you don't get lucky, then you lose. In fact, you're supposed to lose.

There is nothing "natural" about taking EPO, HGH, synthetic T, CERA, diuretics, or ozone. Don't fool yourself about that, 'cause you aren't fooling me.



If you have asthma, you are entitled to an exemption and can use drugs that are banned for others. How is that different from being unable "naturally" to produce as much testosterone as one's competitors?
Asthma is a medical condition; there is nothing "natural" about the inability to breathe, and you can't relieve it with training. More importantly, the cutoff for salbutamol is well below any possible performance-enhancing effects, but is still clinically effective. There's also considerable debate about salbutamol; some docs say it shouldn't be allowed at all, while others say there is little evidence it has any effects on performance at all.

It's perfectly normal for men to produce less testosterone as they age. Normal, natural, inherent, pick a word -- any word. The reality is that as you get older, you lose certain physical aptitudes. If you can't make up for that with tactics and experience and knowing your body better and mental toughness, then you lose. That's the nature of sport.



You are missing my point - probably deliberately. I was observing that if one has rules one cannot reliably enforce, that makes matters worse, because those who wish to play fair will observe them while cheats prosper.
What you said is "have fewer rules, and make them stick." Go read your own words. :D

But the problem is not a surfeit of rules, or too much complexity. It's that riders are very, very good at cheating.

The UCI already does extensive testing, far more than most other sports -- including required testing for stage winners and category leaders, random year-round testing, year-round tracking of test results (the "biological passport"), criminal investigations of dirty doctors, and occasional searches of hotel rooms and team vehicles.

What more are they supposed to do -- give them polygraph tests? 24/7 chaperones? Mandatory searches of hotel rooms and team vehicles? Polygraphs can be beaten; chaperones can be bribed; riders can have someone not on the team transport their drugs.

The reason why it's difficult to have effective tests is not because the rules are too complex or poorly thought out. It's because the riders and their doctors are expending significant resources to develop doping techniques that cannot be detected. A test for EPO is developed; the riders switch to CERA. A few riders get popped for CERA; riders stop using it. They develop a test for residual phthalates from blood bags, docs will either figure out how to filter those out, or switch to glass, or who knows.

When black-hat hackers zing a credit card processor, the solution is not to transmit credit card information in the clear. It's to toughen up security and enforcement -- even though you know the hackers will turn right around and look for new vulnerabilities and other weak spots in the armor.

Relaxing or lifting the rules against PED's is not going to reduce the amount of PED's in use, and it's not going to make it safer for the riders. They'll continue to push the boundaries, even if it jeopardizes their health and safety. Sponsors would flee, law enforcement would pop half the riders, municipalities would cancel events.

So you tell me. What rules should be eliminated? What rules are too complex for the riders to figure out? How would removing tests actually improve the situation? How do you ensure rider safety, when they still have the exact same incentives to push the boundaries and use undetectable drugs to get an otherwise unavailable advantage?

Nice article this one

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18921784