EPO etc

On 2007-07-26, DaveB (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

MikeyOz said:

Theo Bekkers said:

Cost?
Theo

To some people cost is not an issue..... I actually wonder sometimes if
it actually seeps down to amateur type competition such as the local
triathlon races/running/cycling events... be interesting to see if
someone did an anonymous survey of competitors.

Mikey given the amount of drafting in triathlons (and I'm sure you've
seen your share) I'd be bloody surprised if there wasn't performance
enhancing drugs in use to some extent. Too much bloody ego near the
front of the age groupers (I'll be content way down the back of the pack).

Aw, come on -- I remember the day you shaved minutes off the
warrandyte climb compared to your previous climbs. I guess you "just
had a few beers" the night before, did you Floyd?

;P

--
TimC
"Nature is pretty" -- CmdrTaco

On 2007-07-26, Michael Warner (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

hippy said:

Amphetamines. They're your best bet for shaving a few seconds off your
commute time.

No, it'll be longer, because every time a driver pisses you off you'll
stop to beat the [censored] out of him or her instead of just swearing.

Yeah, but much more fun.

--
TimC
Er, RFC 882 put the dot in .com. -- unknown

On 2007-07-26, [email hidden] (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Bleve said:

Amphetamines have more of a mental effect than physical - you will
feel stronger and will be able to push yourself harder. Speed doesn't
directly make you stronger though. A very similar effect can be had
with pseudoephidrine. Sudafed is a common drug you can buy that has pe
in it as its major ingredient and it's *not* on the banned list at
this time. Tom Simpson was found to have amphetamines in his body
when he died in the Tour 40 years ago. It was common in the 90's in
uncontrolled races according to Paul Kimmage (ref : 'rough ride'😉 and
also a combination of speed, heroin, cocaine and cortisone (I think
cortisone? this is from memory) was common according to [censored] Voet
('breaking the chain'😉, and it was called 'Belgian Mix'. Essentially
painkilling and stimulants - they didn't make you stronger but did
make you able to push harder. Allan Peiper writes about his use of BM
(or maybe just speed?) in his book - he said it made him feel
invulnerable, but it took weeks to recover from. It's reasonably easy
to detect.

Interesting stuff, thanks. Belgian Mix sounds truly awful.

Can't be worse than powerbars.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

EPO and other boosters are harder to detect, and tests for them are
pretty recent (last 10 years). They do actually make you 'fitter'.
The complications with blood boosting is that it's not necessarily the
result of banned doping practices - train low sleep high, for example,
can significantly boost your haemocrit values as can genetic
variances. Some people are just very lucky with the genes they got
from their parents. That's why Robbie McEwen has an altitude tent to
sleep in, as do many pros. It got taken off him at the Giro last year
- cyclingnews has the story ....

Train low/sleep high sounds good, though obviously I'm not going to
bother buying an altitude tent just to improve my commuting abilities.

I can sleep high (for Australian standards -- 893hPa right now). Not
enough daylight hours currently to wake up, get dressed, on a bike,
down the bottom and back for dinner before observing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then there's the anabolic (muscle building) agents, human growth
hormones, steroids, insulin-like hormones etc. More common for power
sports (trackies, mainly - ever heard of Stephen Pate and Carey Hall?
Martin Vinicombe? Google is your friend) but not unknown for roadies.
Some are legal, some are banned. It helps to know that anabolic just
means muscle building - so any resistance training is 'anabolic' as is
eating protein.

I don't know much about 'roids (except what they've done for
neanderthals like Stallone and the Governator) but I was under the
impression they're not good for your bones among other things.

As if cycling is good for the bones. 25 year olds that have the bone
density of a 60 year old osteo arthritic because of the lack of bone
impact. And endless coke consumption.

--
TimC
"32-bit patch for a 16-bit GUI shell running on top of an
8-bit operating system written for a 4-bit processor by a
2-bit company who cannot stand 1 bit of competition." --unknown on M$

On 2007-07-26, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I enjoy the act of cycling, I just thought it would be nice to fly up
those hills Vinokourov style but without the years of intense training
since I work fulltime (yeah I know he cheated, but he's still clearly
done a [censored] of training). Hammering along the flat at 45kph+ like
they did in the time trial is certainly not without it's appeal
either. It certainly freaks the cars out when I keep up with them
down hills so I imagine the effect is magnified on level ground.

The thing about speed in this context is that it's relative. Vino,
Rasmussen etc 'flying' up hills only looks fast compared to the other
cyclists there. If you're the quickest ascender in your bunch, you're
the one flying. If you're doing 45km/h, or 30km/h, it's still way
slower than cars go in most open road situations, so it's still slow
compared to them.

My sigmonster has something to say about this conversation:

--
TimC
"It never gets easier, you just go faster."
-- Greg LeMond on bicycle riding/racing

Terryc said:

There are NO SAFE DRUGS, period. legal or illegal. All have side
effects. Read the spec sheets.

Hang on, if the side-effects of a drug are bugger-all and the benefits are rather good (I'm thinking paracetamol or aspirin) then how is that NOT SAFE?
What about blood pressure drugs that people would die without taking? Surely the side-effects of these are of little consequence?

What's unsafe about caffeine? or, for a laugh, LSD?

hippy

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:40:41 +1000

hippy said:

Terryc said:

There are NO SAFE DRUGS, period. legal or illegal. All have side
effects. Read the spec sheets.

Hang on, if the side-effects of a drug are bugger-all and the benefits
are rather good (I'm thinking paracetamol or aspirin) then how is that
NOT SAFE?

Because there are effects that are not good.

Now, if you had asked "not safe enough" that would be different.

Bicycles are "not safe". But they are "safe enough".

Zebee

hippy said:

Terryc said:

There are NO SAFE DRUGS, period. legal or illegal. All have side
effects. Read the spec sheets.

Hang on, if the side-effects of a drug are bugger-all and the benefits
are rather good (I'm thinking paracetamol or aspirin) then how is that
NOT SAFE?

Are you aware that aspirin can cause stomach bleeding and ulcers? A
paracetamol overdose can easily cause liver failure and death within
days, and it's not a nice way to go, either.

*No* drug is without side effects. Sometimes the required dosage is
sufficiently small that the risk of side effects is low enough for the
drug to be sold over the counter (as with aspirin and paracetamol).
Sometimes the risk of side effects is high enough that the drug is
available only on prescription. Sometimes it's so high that the drug is
not considered safe for use on humans.

It's all a numbers game.

Quoted message said:

What about blood pressure drugs that people would die without taking?
Surely the side-effects of these are of little consequence?

In these cases, the side effects of the drug are weighed against the
results if the drug is *not* taken. If the side effects are deemed to be
less harmful, the drug is prescribed.

Quoted message said:

What's unsafe about caffeine?

Too much of it can cause insomnia, headaches, peptic ulcers, dizziness,
nausea, ... have a look at Pikiwedia for more.

*Every* drug has side effects ... the key question is whether the
benefit of taking the drug outweighs the problem of the side effects.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@ to usenet".

Terryc said:

Theo Bekkers wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Can I still have a beer when I get home?

Quoted message said:

Pick one;

1) Well, if you want to kill some brain c3ells you can.

Saw a thing on the news this week that says they were all wrong, alcohol
doesn't kill brain cells.

Theo

Theo Bekkers said:

Saw a thing on the news this week that says they were all wrong, alcohol
doesn't kill brain cells.

You get your science from the "News"?

< goes back to waiting for some old fart to paste the worm joke>

hippy said:

Terryc said:

There are NO SAFE DRUGS, period. legal or illegal. All have side
effects. Read the spec sheets.

Hang on, if the side-effects of a drug are bugger-all and the benefits
are rather good (I'm thinking paracetamol or aspirin) then how is that
NOT SAFE?
What about blood pressure drugs that people would die without taking?
Surely the side-effects of these are of little consequence?

Little consequence?
Very few stuff has little consequence.

Yes, a lot of side effects are minor compared to the immediate
complaint. This is true.

But, it is all relative.

Basically you need to make an informed decision. an old person taking a
drug is not in the same boat as a young person taking the same drug that
knows that in 30 years it will have destroyed their heart.

If you want a laugh, there is a discussion on epillim for epileptics on
the net. Great for epileptics compared to what your life could be like.
Not so clear cut for diabetics.

All "drugs" are like this.
TANSTAAFL; there aint no such thing as a free lunch.
Often we are still learning about long term side affects.

Quinine for malaria is an old one. Quinbusul (one form
) used for cramping, is no longer on PBS, or stocked because long term
it damages bone marrow. This sort of stuff is turning up all the time.

A "drug/treatment" is basically approved because it has a better or
faster results in the short term for a condition/disease. Often, long
term studies go "woops", it is actually worse.

Quoted message said:

What's unsafe about caffeine? or, for a laugh, LSD?

Money, well it can carry diseases froms other people, its addictive,
etc, etc, etc

< wonders if hippy is old enough to understand this joke>

Terryc said:

Theo Bekkers said:

Saw a thing on the news this week that says they were all wrong,
alcohol doesn't kill brain cells.

You get your science from the "News"?

I get news from the News. It was news. Where do you get your science?

Theo

On Jul 27, 4:15 am, TimC <[email hidden]-

astro.swin.edu.au said:

As if cycling is good for the bones. 25 year olds that have the bone
density of a 60 year old osteo arthritic because of the lack of bone
impact. And endless coke consumption.

Lack of weight bearing *and* significant loss of calcium through
sweat. Drink chocolate milk and go for a walk every day ...

On Jul 27, 4:15 am, TimC <[email hidden]-

astro.swin.edu.au said:

On 2007-07-26, [email hidden] (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Interesting stuff, thanks. Belgian Mix sounds truly awful.

Can't be worse than powerbars.

On a long (for me) ride I'll eat Space Food Sticks mainly because they
taste nice, never tried powerbars.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Train low/sleep high sounds good, though obviously I'm not going to
bother buying an altitude tent just to improve my commuting abilities.

I can sleep high (for Australian standards -- 893hPa right now). Not
enough daylight hours currently to wake up, get dressed, on a bike,
down the bottom and back for dinner before observing.

You wouldn't say that if you were doping, you'd have plenty of time.
OTOH if you were pumped full of amphetamines you probably wouldn't
give a [censored] about the daylight hours ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't know much about 'roids (except what they've done for
neanderthals like Stallone and the Governator) but I was under the
impression they're not good for your bones among other things.

As if cycling is good for the bones. 25 year olds that have the bone
density of a 60 year old osteo arthritic because of the lack of bone
impact. And endless coke consumption.

Hmmm, didn't know about the bone density thing. I doubt it will be an
issue for a humble commuter like me, though any excuse to have some
chocolate milk...

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 27 Jul 2007 02:09:05 -0700

Bleve said:

On Jul 27, 4:15 am, TimC <[email hidden]-

astro.swin.edu.au said:

As if cycling is good for the bones. 25 year olds that have the bone
density of a 60 year old osteo arthritic because of the lack of bone
impact. And endless coke consumption.

Lack of weight bearing *and* significant loss of calcium through
sweat. Drink chocolate milk and go for a walk every day ...

live on the 3rd floor, own a heavy bike, carry it up and down the
stairs....

Zebee
- one out of 3?

Zebee Johnstone said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

anything to get me up Melville-bloody-street would be good.

....

Quoted message said:

yesterday I was feeling good, and I only had to stop once going up it.
Compared to my worst of 5 stops.

So going up without stopping is in my sights....

You can only mean the Melville St in Ryde, right Zebee? Gets steeper
and steeper as you climb towards Blaxland Rd, from memory.

I'm amazed you can ride up there at all. I used to live around there.
The only way I ever got up it was pushing the bike. I'm fitter now, but
I still don't know if I could climb Melville St...

--
John
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:30:32 -0000

John Pitts said:

Zebee Johnstone said:

Quoted message said:

> anything to get me up Melville-bloody-street would be good.
>

...

Quoted message said:

yesterday I was feeling good, and I only had to stop once going up it.
Compared to my worst of 5 stops.

So going up without stopping is in my sights....

You can only mean the Melville St in Ryde, right Zebee? Gets steeper
and steeper as you climb towards Blaxland Rd, from memory.

That's the [censored]. I go up the short hill along the front of the Ryde
Tafe, and stop just before the roundabout, gathering my strength....
Then I attack, and Melville St sits there, unimpressed.

Quoted message said:

I'm amazed you can ride up there at all. I used to live around there.
The only way I ever got up it was pushing the bike. I'm fitter now, but
I still don't know if I could climb Melville St...

Well..... you ride up it by pedalling till you can't pedal any more.
Then you stop and rest and when you can breathe quietly (and your legs
are talking to you again) you pedal some more.[1]

I have found that a mugs worth of cold sweet strong black coffee in one
of the bidons helps[2]

Zebee

[1] I find that towards the end of each stage the cadence is about 50
and I suspect I'm hammering my knees a bit as I push against the seat.

[2] either the caffeine gives me a boost or I'm a sucker for the
placebo effect. Either way, I'll keep doing it!

Zebee Johnstone said:

That's the [censored]. I go up the short hill along the front of the Ryde
Tafe, and stop just before the roundabout, gathering my strength....
Then I attack, and Melville St sits there, unimpressed.

It'd add a couple of K's to your trip, but if you head over to West Ryde
station and more or less follow the railway up to Eastwood, then come
across on Vimiera you'll end up at the back of mq.edu.au. That's not too
far from where I suspect you're going, and a bit easier.

There might also be other alternatives.

--
Dave Hughes | [email hidden] We tend to view 'all
publicity is good publicity' as a challenge we should endeavour to meet -
The Register

In aus.bicycle on 28 Jul 2007 10:22:49 GMT

Dave said:

Zebee Johnstone said:

That's the [censored]. I go up the short hill along the front of the Ryde
Tafe, and stop just before the roundabout, gathering my strength....
Then I attack, and Melville St sits there, unimpressed.

It'd add a couple of K's to your trip, but if you head over to West Ryde
station and more or less follow the railway up to Eastwood, then come
across on Vimiera you'll end up at the back of mq.edu.au. That's not too
far from where I suspect you're going, and a bit easier.

I had a look at that at one point and decided that one big [censored]
hill was better than lots of smaller but longer grinds.

Zebee

Dave said:

It'd add a couple of K's to your trip, but if you head over to West Ryde
station and more or less follow the railway up to Eastwood, then come
across on Vimiera you'll end up at the back of mq.edu.au. That's not too
far from where I suspect you're going, and a bit easier.

Sounds like West Parade/East Parade - from memory that is probably the
best option. I read once that that stretch of railway is one of the two
steepest in NSW (the other one is Wynyard-Milson's Point) - about a 1:40
grade. So on the road, your _average_ gradient would be the same, but
the road is more variable (no cuttings). Still might be worth a try,
Zebee.

Quoted message said:

There might also be other alternatives.

Not that I can remember. Just about every route from West Ryde to
Eastwood or North Ryde involves a monster climb somewhere.

--
John
Roses are #FF0000
Violets are #0000FF
chown -R you ~/base

John Pitts said:

Dave said:

It'd add a couple of K's to your trip, but if you head over to West Ryde
station and more or less follow the railway up to Eastwood, then come
across on Vimiera you'll end up at the back of mq.edu.au. That's not too
far from where I suspect you're going, and a bit easier.

Sounds like West Parade/East Parade - from memory that is probably the
best option. I read once that that stretch of railway is one of the two
steepest in NSW (the other one is Wynyard-Milson's Point) - about a 1:40
grade. So on the road, your _average_ gradient would be the same, but
the road is more variable (no cuttings). Still might be worth a try,
Zebee.

Here's a Bikely map: http://preview.tinyurl.com/324ldr

--
John
Guinness is a food. I remember reading somewhere that there is sufficient
nutrients to live on in 12 pints of Guinness and a pint of milk every day. But
who could drink a whole pint of milk? - Tim D on fatcyclist.com