Then get rid of anything you're riding with/on that puts your investment in the sport higher than ~ $500. That seems like a reasonably arbitrary "unfair advantage" money limit?

I did a miss and out crit at the Taipei show a few years ago that he won. I think he'd just won some races in Cuba just before this?

Him doping didn't really matter much to me as I got stuffed into the barricade and had myself a spectacular crash but I was a bit surprised to hear his name come up a few weeks later.

On topic: The was a local guy who confessed to amphetamine use on his blog. He said how sorry he was and how ashamed he was and everyone said he was brave for coming forward.

The funny thing was this guy never got anywhere. In fact, he was so high at Nationals one year that he attacked the group, went into a corner on a descent WAY too hot and crashed his brains out. No-one could figure out what the hell had happened. It looked like this guy had attacked for all he was worth and then just sprinted of the side of the road into a ditch.

There is another rider I am pretty sure was using steroids 2 years ago. It worked for him. So yeah, there are amatuer riders who juice.

sounds like when manzano imploded in the 2003 tour.

http://www.bobkestrut.com/images/man...3_collapse.jpg

I have to agree with this. Are bling wheels unfair advantage? Aerobars? My wind tunnel experience? A power meter?

I personally do take certain supplements (for general health, but I do not doubt for an instant that my cycling benefits from these) and I would be upset with the problem of a sport where EPO was legal because while I like to push myself to the limits (within legal boundaries) I do not put medicinal chemicals into my system under almost any circumstance (I could be pushed to take antibiotics if I felt they were absolutely necessary) and thus would be left at a disadvantage to those who could/would legally use EPO. It's an interesting question. Gla dI don't have to face it.

Part of the reason I did ask though, is because I believe that most people see EPO as being terrible because it is "banned" - not because it is possibly detrimental to health. I think that lifting that ban, most of your competitors would indeed explore the option VERY quickly.

I'm not sure that it's proven EPO taken in reasonable doses is actually bad for you. I think the whole jumping jacks out of bed at night thing was an 80s thing before these guys got a handle on proper dosages. Not the same can be said for OTC supplements whose benefits are at best controversial and unclear, and which frequently turn out to not be as supportive to good health as we'd like to imagine.

Which would be immediately followed by dozens of deaths. I'd guess that a 50% hematocrit is safe, just because that's what WADA says. Hell, mine was measured at 46.8% (and yes, that's natural), and I haven't died in my sleep yet.

But you know people would start pushing the limits. 55%... 60%...

that's not what i've heard.

That was the best article I ever read in Outside Magazine.

Read The Death of Marco Pantani and then ask yourself if you think EPO is worth a try.

Doc/Nomad,

I appreciate both of your contributions to the board in general, but come on you're not seriously going to draw a parallel between use of PEDs and Zipps are you?

What they had to figure out was the proper application of blood thinners. Once they got that right it opened the door for guys like Mr 60%.

^Uh huh. No problem. Inject this to get your hematocrit up a little. Inject that to bring it back down. F it up and you're dead.

I'd rather take up competitive cross-stitching.

HGH is being billed as the fountain of youth drug in Cali for the 40 year old soccer moms, when in very low doses. The short term results are very promising. It may well be regarded in the same way as supplements like vitamin C in 40 years. Only time will tell. Creatine was the go-to performance enhancer when I was in high school. 1/2 the guys in school were on it, literally.

studies show that men who get take multi vitamins and then get prostate cancer have a higher incidence of the cancer being incurable. For all our desire to control the fountain of youth, we ultimately don't know nearly as much as we'd like to pretned.

Studies say this and studies say that. Red M&Ms gave you cancer way back then - so say the studies. There's probably nothing on this planet that can't give you cancer or exacerbate it.

it's also studies that say whether a given supplement improves performance or not. for instance, I took optygen all last season, and it seemed liked a load of bunk to me.

There are several anti aging clinics around here. They're prescribing HGH, and testosterone for middle age men. Just convince the Doctor that your testosterone level is low, and you can get this regiment legally. (of ocurse it would still be against the rules to take it and race.) I have to think there are people doing this.

Of course, one little downside is raising your tetosterone level can a take a dormant, smouldering, undetected prostate cancer and cause it to aggressively develop.

I once heard (I know, I know) that fully half the male population dies with some stage of prostate cancer, but it's so slow in developing that something else kills them first.

That's crazy.

That's true. If you live long enough, the odds are very high that you'll get prostate cancer.

Taking extra testosterone increases the odds that it will become a problem before something else kills you.

Wheres the line?

Do you or would you guys take supplements/PEDs bought at your local GNC that contain banned substances?

You can make the comparison to some degree. Zipps (or equivalent) do make a difference, especially in TTs, or if you're in a small breakaway. To the poor, underfunded racer with the same power output, getting beaten by a PED or superior equipment probably feels the same.

Look at Formula 1 car racing. The best funded teams (Ferrari, McClaren) consistently blow everyone else away, as long as they have a decent driver. They switch drivers and still win. The poor teams can have just as talented a driver, and finish at the bottom race after race. But it's pretty boring to watch lately. Compare it to Indy or Nascar and the driver makes much more difference.

Back to the original post .... yes weekend warriors are taking PEDs, so are higher level racers ....how many ?? No way to know unless CDR surprises us with testing next spring (fine with me). I sent an email to CUSA a while back asking if they did, or planned to, do any testing at lower level races. Didn't get a reply.

Back in the day racing cat 2, PEDs never even crossed my mind. Now that I'm starting over at the bottom after a long layoff, I look around and wonder sometimes if some other local hacks are taking stuff .....

The difference is that if you're a Cat3, your tactics and legs will make far, far more of a difference than those 5w you save with Zipps. I have never, ever felt like someone beat me because my bike was inferior to theirs. Stupid decision or lack of fitness on my part? Most certainly.

If you get your upgrade to the 2s, you suddenly get bikes and expensive wheels thrown at you. And really, at that point, you can't complain anymore.

Studies show that EVERYONE who ate carrots in the 1700's are now DEAD!

So what you are saying is its better to invest in EPO than Zipps?

:D

And the decrease in sea pirates since the 1700s is the cause of global warming.