question about doping

My muscles are less than the average pro cyclist. Doesn't mean I should be allowed to use steroids so that I can be pro. If you don't have the right body chemistry to be pro, too bad. Hard work, natural talent, and water. Nothing else.

Well that will be the day, at least. Hah!

SaintAndrew said:

do you guys think that pro cyclists should be allowed to use things like GH and testosterone if they are shown lower than average and they only use them to the point where they get their levels to average?

Hmm, reverse Harrison Bergeron.

It seems to me that the matrix of factors that determine performance is so complex, that it would be difficult to bring one aspect up to average and have that be any different from doping as it exists today. It would just help people the most who have elite performance levels and some deficiency that can be enhanced.

You already have a similar situation right now. Everything I have read seems to indicate that your performance level is not determined by your natural hematocrit level, but performance goes up with artifical increases. If you are a rider who is lucky enough to have a low hematocrit, you can increase it a much greater percentage than someone who has a natural level that is just below the 50% level.

Bro Deal said:

You already have a similar situation right now. Everything I have read seems to indicate that your performance level is not determined by your natural hematocrit level, but performance goes up with artifical increases. If you are a rider who is lucky enough to have a low hematocrit, you can increase it a much greater percentage than someone who has a natural level that is just below the 50% level.

wery interesting. assuming that massive numbers of pro's are blood doping to exactly 50%, then you gotta think management blows it wad when they find some rider with like a 40% hemocrit

SaintAndrew said:

wery interesting. assuming that massive numbers of pro's are blood doping to exactly 50%, then you gotta think management blows it wad when they find some rider with like a 40% hemocrit

I heard that in the mid-90s teams would test the hematocrits of prospective neo-pros for just that situation. If they could find a good, young rider with a low hematocrit it was like striking gold.

Absolutely not, isn't sport about who has the best physique? The best body?

JohnDDD said:

Absolutely not, isn't sport about who has the best physique? The best body?

Maybe in 1902...........

Most of the papers I've come across the last few days show that endurance trained athletes tend to have lower levels of testosterone. Also endurance races (marathons and 6-day stage race in particular) result in even lower levels of testosterone post-competition. So anecdotallly riders appear to do pretty well without augmenting their testosterone levels.

discobean7 said:

Most of the papers I've come across the last few days show that endurance trained athletes tend to have lower levels of testosterone. Also endurance races (marathons and 6-day stage race in particular) result in even lower levels of testosterone post-competition. So anecdotallly riders appear to do pretty well without augmenting their testosterone levels.

Yes, that is the thesis : testosterone levels drop as a result of more work.
In the case of Landis - the reverse appears to have happened (if you believe his
version of events) from stage 16 to stage 17.

But back to the original question : I don't agree with allowing riders to take drugs in order to "even out the field".
That would debase the concept of what sport is all about.

limerickman said:

Yes, that is the thesis : testosterone levels drop as a result of more work.
In the case of Landis - the reverse appears to have happened (if you believe his
version of events) from stage 16 to stage 17.

But back to the original question : I don't agree with allowing riders to take drugs in order to "even out the field".
That would debase the concept of what sport is all about.

Agreed