- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Cross country mountain bikes
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
bigger, stronger, faster
Just watched this on Netflix which is a doc about steroid use in the US. It asks questions on why it is so bad to take them and is it that bad anyway.
Let me make it quite clear I am totally 100% against doping and have a zero tolerance to it but some questions asked
1) Tiger Woods had eye surgery to make his eyes better for golf, is that not a kind of doping ?
2) Anyone who takes cortisone surely is doping ? Only today in the Leicester game they said Vardy had ops to make his foot better, is that not doping ?
In sports where do you draw the lines between what people can do and their own natural issues, say with eyes etc ?
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- David9694 10 sec ago
Garstang NSW
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 53 min ago
The owner of that car wants to take it back to the dealer and get the lights fixed if they're so poor they can't see someone in red until they're...
- NickJP 7 hours 34 min ago
Now that I'm in my 70s, I don't have a big chainring larger than 42t on any of my bikes. When I started racing in the early 1970s, standard top...
- stonojnr 8 hours 38 min ago
nah they just read the question as do you always not leave the recommended 1.5m when overtaking cyclists. I know people overestimate their...
- David9694 8 hours 46 min ago
Worcester hospital parking 'horrific' as petition handed in...
- stonojnr 8 hours 48 min ago
Ive never seen the figures broken down by who reports them, you can kind of infer things from stats, like Ive seen them break it down as careless...
- Hirsute 9 hours 15 min ago
Are you going to answer?
- wtjs 9 hours 27 min ago
No more of this! HP will turn to stone!!
- Bmblbzzz 11 hours 42 min ago
"A brutalist interpretation of a road" So true. Grey markings on grey paving slabs surrounded by other grey paving slabs...
- arichman 12 hours 15 min ago
Somewhat confusingly, Velocio includes both a fit and a size chart, and says to use the fit chart (which uses height and weight) as the guide for...
Add new comment
15 comments
I suspect much of the danger of doping comes from that medical support for cheating is bound to be expensive, the medical professionals and labs are doing something that is unethical and/or illegal.
Whereas actually the drugs and medical support for a 'safe' doping programme are less than the cost of altitude training (moving your base, staff and home to altitude for a period is expensive).
The important aspect is that it requires honesty - either you are doping, and are monitored for health or you are not and you therefore do not require monitoring.
I suspect this would work better than the current system of trying (and often failing) to catch cheats.
Injections are a modern norm if you're sick, correct.
If you're sick you shouldn't be in a pro race.
Hence the no needle rule currently in place.
Thing is the sport doesn't just stick with normal human levels. It adds so much that isn't natural. Gels being one. Not saying that doping should be allowed, just questioning the line drawn? After all injections are a modern norm as are other banned medicines.
On another point, it is no ones responsibility to look after the health of a adult except themselves. Immoral to do otherwise.
yeah basically they will die like when epo first came in. When you add in riders from emergent nations that are desperate to succeed and feel that they have a lot less to lose then yes, back to blood like raspberry jam or stick to stimulants and its back to heart attacks in the 40s or worse.
Interesting mention of A Sunday In Hell in the other thread, given what happened to a lot of the protagonists in that race.
I knew an old British Pro many years back who said who wants to be unsuccessful and live to 80 when you can be successful and go at 60. He was being serious too...
its very easy to make some horrendously bad decisions when you're in your early 20s. With an unscrupulous manager and no rule book its a race to the bottom.
let them all dope. Everyone is then at level playing field.
and people go further and further to win and prob death in some cases.
Quite.
Back in the day, the likes of Armstrong and [redacted for legal reasons] had access not only to the drugs but also top flight medical advice and testing. Lesser players could get the drugs, but not the "full package". As a result, many young athletes died. They died because they thought they had to take the drugs to be competitive but they did in ignorance and without support.
"Let them all dope" does not level the playing field. It kills those who don't have the resources of famous rich athletes.
That is just stupid from the people who takes drugs without knowing the consequences. If they all take all the same drugs and no have to hide what they are taking then they will all have the same advice and no need to test them out themselves.
IF Armstrong is taking A and the poor cyclists takes A too then I would assume they both live.
IF poor cyclists takes B then he is stupid.
No.
If you look at a drug like EPO then some people will be able to take x amount without coming to harm and some people will wake up dead after taking x amount. If you have an expensive medical team backing you up then you know how much you can take.
A lot of young aspiring riders died because they thought they could take the same drugs as the top-level riders but they didn't have the medical support.
Is it supposed to be a sport where the rider with the best legs and lungs wins or the rider with the best doctors? And should the riders who can't afford the best doctors be condemned to die in their sleep with blood like raspberry jam?
I always thought sport was supposed to be aspirational - something about developing the best qualities and being the ultimate.
If a green light was given to doping what parent in their right mind would enthuse their children through sport when the pinnacle of that sport would be so destructive to their childs future.
Why would it be destructive? Will they die or something? If anything competition will be fair because everyone will be doing the same thing. As long as it doesn't kill their health I say go for it.
so why no ?
Why is one man made way to increase red blood cells legal and another man made way not ?
No.
/end thread.
Look at the Woods example that made him a better golfer. If sport is about making the best of your own talent then any flaws in your makeup should be part of that ?
Just think it is an interesting discussion. So another example was some athletes to try and get more red blood cells use high altitude chambers (Landis) and some use EPO, one is banned and the other is not.
Both are man made ways to increase endurance.
That is fixing something that is not right, doping is improving beyond what nature can do.... (IMO)
Also, if its on the banned list, then its doping