I have been browsing through endless discussions on doping on this forum, and lately, the no. 100 000 LA thread. I ain't gonna give my 2 cents on whether LA is a syringe-expert or not. I am not trying to pin anyone guilty by logical reasoning.

However there are many indications that doping still is very widespread in the pro peloton. I read something about a new supertest, which the dainish doctor Rasmus Damsgaard is working on, but fact is; whether new pharmacologic innovations can be detected or not in a test, there are a lot of riders who will be able to dodge the controls. Once in a while though, a big fish is caught, like Tyler last season.

Doping has introduced another variable to the sport. It is not just whether you dope or not, it is whether you know how to dope properly and how to avoid getting caught. It is a paradox that the anti-doping policies that should make sport more fair, letting the best sportsman win, actually may contribute to the opposite. Factors that have nothing to do with physical constitution actually grow more important with anti-doping rules that simply can't be enforced 24-7. Since doping is all-so-shrouded in secrecy, the riders with the best docs get everything that is up 4 grabs, providing they are lucky.

Which brings me back to Tyler. Now he cheated clean riders, and a reaction might seem reasonable. But then again, what if 80% of the riders also had their fair share of forbidden juice. Is it fair that Tyler is the only one going down? I don't really know.. fishing for your opinions.

Juan Antonio Samaranch, ex-Olympic President, was once shot down in flames for suggesting that there should perhaps be two categories of performance - one with/one without drugs. But perhaps there is something to the idea that, since eradicating doping from the sport is well nigh impossible, perhaps it should follow the Festina model - a doping programme paid for by the riders properly administered and monitored by team doctors, with doped riders competing in one set of races and clean riders in another. Since you can't solve the problem at least educate riders how to dope with the minimum of harm. Interestingly, during the Festina hearings, Virenque was required to attend the sessions dealing with the effects of EPO abuse. Perhaps if riders were better educated about these aspects of doping then they could make more informed decisions.

The problem that Juan S. does not recognize is that most elite/pro athletesprobably don't want to dope. They want an edge (whether it's legal or not), or to keep up with those who have that edge.

There may be many performance enhancing drugs out there that are not legal, but are reasonably safe when taken properly (i.e. Dr. Ferrari's EPO vs. OJ comment). Problem: There's always going to be some knucklehead out that that is either willing to take illegal drugs that may not be safe or legal drugs in unsafe dosages...this will be the only way to get an edge if some/selected drugs are made legal.

Also, at what level does the doping stop? If all the euro pros acknowledge that they are taking the stuff, then all of the cat. 1's and 2's who want to ride at that level will start doping as well since they'll have to impress potential employers. Pretty soon, cat. 3's who want to upgrade to 2, get into the junk. After that, knuckleheaded cat. 4's with more money than sense will do the same.

Juan Antonio Samaranch, ex-Olympic President, was once shot down in flames for suggesting that there should perhaps be two categories of performance - one with/one without drugs.
A recent commentary on NPR recently espoused this idea for baseball. IMO, this won't work for baseball or for cycling. Success in the "doper's category" would be "tainted" in the public's eye, reducing the market value for sponsorships and endorsements that success as an open doper would result in. This creates an incentive to achieve success while appearing clean - just what is already happening.

Not to mention the enormous redundancies that would compete for resources in a finite market.

The problem that Juan S. does not recognize is that most elite/pro athletesprobably don't want to dope. They want an edge (whether it's legal or not), or to keep up with those who have that edge.

There may be many performance enhancing drugs out there that are not legal, but are reasonably safe when taken properly (i.e. Dr. Ferrari's EPO vs. OJ comment). Problem: There's always going to be some knucklehead out that that is either willing to take illegal drugs that may not be safe or legal drugs in unsafe dosages...this will be the only way to get an edge if some/selected drugs are made legal.

Also, at what level does the doping stop? If all the euro pros acknowledge that they are taking the stuff, then all of the cat. 1's and 2's who want to ride at that level will start doping as well since they'll have to impress potential employers. Pretty soon, cat. 3's who want to upgrade to 2, get into the junk. After that, knuckleheaded cat. 4's with more money than sense will do the same.


No, I substantially disagree with you. I don't care whether some knuckleheads in cat 4 (whatever cat 4 means, is that something roadie/american specific? ) wants to dope; fact is at those levels you can beat dopers with regular training, cause your potential isn't maxed out. 2nd fact, here in Europe where I live, doping controls are a joke. A JOKE. There are natural reasons for this, cost control seems to be the most reasonable. I have only once heard of a doping control, and I've been to several national championships. In the lower categories that you are mentioning, there are riders who are suspiciously good, and they are never tested. But fact is, I don't care either, coz there are enough prizes up for grabs at sub-pro level without my needing to break into some hospital or something to afford aranesp, or hooking up with some vet to get cheap testosterone.

This doping issue concerns the pros mainly. I think BugMan sums it up quite nicely, public interest and sponsorship money + rider health. To take rider health first: if amphetamine was legal all of a sudden, we know we would see more deaths on the course. But then again, we don't have to make every drug legal, and amphetamine is easily detected. Anyone who hasn't got high hopes for podium places wouldn't risk death by doping with amphetamine, I am sure.

2) public interest: yes, the public has its illusions. The best rider is the strongest mentally who can push himself/herself to limits exceeding the protagonists of greek mythology when it comes down to heroic efforts. Media needs its human gladiators, and not robots. Which is probably also why talent receives more respect than working your way to the top by long struggle. Everybody knows how to train right? Just as everybody can take a few pills to be the best- cycling enthusiasts are proven intellectuals.

3) Sponsorship money: Same reasoning as above, if spectator interest falls, money will abandon the sport.

Now, is this neccesarily a bad thing? Perhaps the culture is a little different on the other side of the atlantic here. Often when hobbies are discussed, I learn that the conversation is heading in the direction of how-much-money-you-can-make. That is especially the case when it comes to parent's discussion at a 2nd activity, like school soccer. That is so shallow. Neither Cyclingnews nor Velonews will die, even if professional sport vanishes. Perhaps having less money in the sport isn't so bad.

Now, it sounds plausible that athletes want doping rules to be able to cheat within limits, to get an edge. That was my argument in the first place. Legalize the most important drugs- have a more fair sport.

A recent commentary on NPR recently espoused this idea for baseball. IMO, this won't work for baseball or for cycling. Success in the "doper's category" would be "tainted" in the public's eye, reducing the market value for sponsorships and endorsements that success as an open doper would result in. This creates an incentive to achieve success while appearing clean - just what is already happening.

Not to mention the enormous redundancies that would compete for resources in a finite market.

I don't know... look at "pro bodybuilding"- those guys are shameless kamakazis- and will go on and on about which steroids and growth hormones (and insulin and diuretics) they take... in great detail. Nobody even wants to see a "mr. natural" contest.

My two cents: hopefully by the time I grow old, they will have male hormone replacement so we can lead healthier lives as we age. There is plenty of science to support the benefits of testosterone replacement therapy for men as they age. I hope this doesn't end up all lumped into this witch hunt about steroids and doping.

I'd wager the entire US olympic track and field team is doped...

IF they REALLY want to do something about the issue, athletes would be sequestered for a period leading up to and during the event. ;)

Doping has tainted enough results in enough sports that there will always be questions- no matter who wins... Armstrong doping? Who knows? The odds are just as great that #2 was doping... or #100- just to stay on the team.... it never ends.

I find it interesting that in auto racing, there are all sorts of limits placed upon raw speed in the name of safety. The rule books need to be deciphered by lawyers. It is no longer "may the fastest car win"- there are all sorts of restrictor plates, etc... limitations on equipment.

Juan Antonio Samaranch, ex-Olympic President, was once shot down in flames for suggesting that there should perhaps be two categories of performance - one with/one without drugs.
What I remember was that Samaranch was criticizes for saying,
Drug taking is anything which firstly damages the health of the sportsman and, secondly, artificially improves his performance. If something produces just the second effect, then for me it's not drug-taking. If it produces the first, then yes. The list of products must be reduced drastically. Anything that doesn't adversely affect the health of the athlete, for me isn't doping,"http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/cycling/1998/tourdefrance/news/1998/07/27/spanish_samaranch/, emphasis added.

In other words, rather than two categories he would allow Olympians to use any performance enhancing chemicals that had not been proved harmful to their health.

Originally Posted by Juan Antonio Samaranch:
Drug taking is anything which firstly damages...

I didn't know Samaranch posted here. What's his avatar, a syringe?

I didn't know Samaranch posted here. What's his avatar, a syringe?
If you're from Utah, you should know that Samaranch's avatar would have to be five interlinked bags of money. Altius Costlibus Bribius, anyone?

It´s hard to do something unhealthy and still be able to perfom on top for a longer period of time.

I don´t think amphetamine causes any deaths,neither that it is something that allows you to beat your best when you´re taking it.Hell,it´s perscribed to 6-year old children.
It´s needed to get on your bike while still being sleepy. :o :D

I don´t think amphetamine causes any deaths

Tom Simpson might disagree.

Tom Simpson might disagree.

or he would if.......

funny but the vision of him falling over on Mt Ventoux keeps ruining my chuckle.

c'mon folks, it's called cycling history. investigate before posting.

ritalin though a stimulant is on not on par with most amphetamines and it works the inverse on hyper 6 year olds. overloads the nor-epi receptors and brings you down.