If you were a pro rider during the EPO era, what would you have done?

C3PO

I've been wondering what choices I would have made if I'd been a pro rider during the EPO era. Faced with the option of doping or not being able to survive never mind competing for wins what would have I decided? Between earning a living and going home with my tail between my legs?
While I'm fairly sure I wouldn't have been a "first mover", if I'm honest I suspect I would have taken the "EPO option" just to keep up! Given that, as appears to have been the case, "everybody" else was doing it it would probably have been easy enough to justify.
Am I alone in believing this?

MrCreosote

It's too easy to vilify the riders. In reality the vast majority are going to take it and I'd be no different myself. For most it was the only livelihood they knew.

The main problem was with the teams, medical staff, and especially the UCI who almost sanctioned the use of EPO with their 50% rule.

Pawlie

If I where in a team that had no doping well then id be clean,but if I was in a team similar to the US Postal team I prop be full to the gills of everything :-)

Captain Havoc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Jeu_de_la_Mort

Ole Rodrigo

Same as Pawlie. I always thought doping was a problem of organisation (UCI ) and PR. It was never really a moral problem.

vistafinder

Its a very easy trap to fall into.Imagine if you were a young 17 or 18 year old talented rider and you were killing yourself daily to make it.You join a team that some of your heroes may have been on or another rider tells you storys about whats going on.Managers and doctors giveing you advice,
It would take a very strong person not to do it.
Its a different world where lots of money is involved.
But after a while surely your conscience would be at you if you were any way decent.

Its the reluctance to tell the truth thats pis-ing off.They say the cream rises to the top but its the bullys and the selfish and greedy and the people with no conscience that nearly always make it because they dont care about other people. Its the same with everything else in this world.

I said it before I think we are looking in the wrong places for our heroes.

luapenak

Taken it until they developed a test for it, after that not so sure

on_the_nickel

I'd have scorched up Temple Hill dressed like this

ROK ON

Captain Havoc wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Jeu_de_la_Mort

There have been numerous well documented behavioural studies conducted into obedience and groupthink.
Daniel Kanehman has written a out live experiments were a group of people were told a story that in another room was a bad man, say a criminal of some description. They were told to administer a mild shock via a dial going from 1 to 10.

They were given more and more bad info and given the choice whether to administer a shock. As the shocks got bigger, the screams of agony from the other room got louder and more desperate.

It takes an extraordinary character to "choose" to go against the grain, to not do what is expected.

For the top amateurs it is plausibly psychologically more difficult. Why - it is their professionalism and attitude that has helped to get them so far.
They are used to sacrifice.

If I was ever that good, why should I think that I have the type of extraordinary psychological make up that would enable me to say no, when everyone around me said maybe or yes.

Russman

Christophe Bassons looks like an even bigger hero now IMO,
Imagine the sh1t he must have seen/listened to back in the day, not many would honestly have been able to refuse, in my humble opinion. Hindsight is great, but it was basically just the way things were (some say still are) in cycling.

Squidgy Black

Lets be honest, you're a young rider who's worked his ass of to get a pro contract, and the next thing you know is you're being told by doctors and director sportifs that the only way you're going to be able to compete is by using EPOs. The choice between being famous and earning a mint, or staying clean and your opponents have the upper hand.

Hermy

stetyrrell wrote: »

Lets be honest...

Interesting choice of phrase.

ozzy jr

Didn't it thicken the blood to the extent that some cyclists set alarms to wake up during the night to do a work out to thin the blood and keep them alive?

If I'd know of this side effect, I wouldn't have taken it.

If I was in US Postal, I probably wouldn't of had much choice, although I'm sure Tyler Hamilton said there was one rider in the team who was clean.

jive

I wouldn't have done it. Anyone who takes drugs in sport is morally bankrupt imo as they are cheating other clean athletes of their livelihoods. Easier said than done but I'd definitely rather earn an honest living than potentially disgrace myself just because 'everyone else is doing it'. Hollow victories in the pursuit of a cheated living not to mention potentially ruining your body and possibly dying, no thanks.

manwithaplan

Part of the problem is how much people have already invested in the sport before the choice is presented to them. Another part of the problem is the youth of those facing the decision - I did terrible things to myself in my teens and twenties and there wasn't even money and fame at stake.

check_six

Well, we all know now that you could simply refuse to get involved in supercharging your blood and instead make a series of very small changes to the food you ate, the bed you rested on, the shape of your chainring, and get a fancy speedometer and you would be keeping up with the super-mutants no problem. I'm not missing anything here, right?

desertcircus

From reading David Millar's autobiography, I suspect most people would end up juiced.

Brian?

Yes. No point in denying it. In fact I'm tempted to try it now out or sheer curiosity.*

It must have been incredibly hard to resist the pressure to dope.

*joke.

allan450

i would no prob.you dont no who is no what these days even in amature sports.when i was in recruit training for the army not the irish army different one altogether i was introduced to all sorts.first was D-norpseudo ephedrine HCI 20.tried that before a run one day.it was serious cardio enhancer last for hours though.then i tried clenbuterol much the same as above but not as strong.calves kept getting muscle spasms and you run hot on it great for weight loss and keeps hunger at bay.then anavar was tried with all the above this helps in lean muscle mass and fatloss with little or know side affects.i mention the above becus they are prob used still today by cycling teams as they have a sort half life and are out of your system in a few hours.i could go in to in greater detail but thats what google is for.their all tablet form well the D-norpseudo ephedrine is drops.i could go into the injectable forms but id be here all day.i use the above at the start of the football session to get the edge.as one wise man said[if your not cheating your not trying]ha ha

bazermc

With all this talk of who took EPO etc etc etc, I still dont really understand what it is, other than a performance enhancing drug.

So question please, what exactly does EPO do to your body and how does it assist in cycling performance?

Guybrush T

bazermc wrote: »

With all this talk of who took EPO etc etc etc, I still dont really understand what it is other than a performance enhancing drug.

So question please, what exactly does EPO do to your body and how does it assist in cycling performance?

Others more learned than wot I am can expand on this, but it increases your red blood cell count so you can get more oxygen from your lungs to your muscles where it's needed for cycling.

And in answer to the OPs question, I'd have been whizzed off my tiny tits. I see no point in trundling along behind the peloton in a smug little cloud of moral superiority.

couerdelion

Interesting article on this in the Economist - http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2013/07/doping-sport

petethedrummer

I probably wouldn't have doped and just come home and stomped all over the amateur scene.

spoke2cun

I would take it now if I got my hands on it just for our 2 hour training rides!

-K2-

I'd have bought it myself without talking to anyone. Then taken it once, just the once, in my hotel room alone.

Shakakan

Yes I would have done it.



I'm juiced up to my tits right now.

allan450

epo is not classed as juice but performance enhancer juice is street name for anabolic steriods.

Macy0161

Plenty walked rather than dope to compete. They're the real victims, not those coming out with excuses 15 years down the line to justify their actions.

As to whether I would of - who knows. You'd have invested your life up to that point for the career. That's why the hero's are those that took the harder option not to take it.

Ole Rodrigo

Macy0161 wrote: »

Plenty walked rather than dope to compete. They're the real victims, not those coming out with excuses 15 years down the line to justify their actions.

As to whether I would of - who knows. You'd have invested your life up to that point for the career. That's why the hero's are those that took the harder option not to take it.

But we don't now why they didn't. We're assuming it was for moral reasons.

Using labels such as cheat, hero, victim..they all take away from really understanding the problem, and what - if anything - can be done about it.

REBELSAFC

allan450 wrote: »

i would no prob.you dont no who is no what these days even in amature sports.when i was in recruit training for the army not the irish army different one altogether i was introduced to all sorts.first was D-norpseudo ephedrine HCI 20.tried that before a run one day.it was serious cardio enhancer last for hours though.then i tried clenbuterol much the same as above but not as strong.calves kept getting muscle spasms and you run hot on it great for weight loss and keeps hunger at bay.then anavar was tried with all the above this helps in lean muscle mass and fatloss with little or know side affects.i mention the above becus they are prob used still today by cycling teams as they have a sort half life and are out of your system in a few hours.i could go in to in greater detail but thats what google is for.their all tablet form well the D-norpseudo ephedrine is drops.i could go into the injectable forms but id be here all day.i use the above at the start of the football session to get the edge.as one wise man said[if your not cheating your not trying]ha ha

All that ****e must have affected your grammar and punctuation

Slo_Rida

To all those who said they WOULD have doped with EPO. I think you are wrong. I think that regular-minded people would realise that the risk of death just to go faster on a push-bike is ludicrous. And it is.

This is th eoriginal no-brainer. I'd love to see IQ tests on people who took that risk. There's the moral issue too which I'd like to think would also have desuaded me from doping but, definitely the dying thing would have put me off.

Ole Rodrigo

Slo_Rida wrote: »

To all those who said they WOULD have doped with EPO. I think you are wrong. I think that regular-minded people would realise that the risk of death just to go faster on a push-bike is ludicrous. And it is.

This is th eoriginal no-brainer. I'd love to see IQ tests on people who took that risk. There's the moral issue too which I'd like to think would also have desuaded me from doping but, definitely the dying thing would have put me off.

You cant say that either. I'm sure the advice dopers would have received would have indicated risk, but an acceptable one.

To be honest , there are too many ambiguities with doping to say what is right or wrong. There needs to be much better management by the authorities...or else lift the rules entirely so that its no different than a double espresso or night in an oxygen tent. Professional sports is about entertainment first, sadly. Maybe amateur sports is where you will find the noble ideals.

C3PO

Slo_Rida wrote: »

To all those who said they WOULD have doped with EPO. I think you are wrong. I think that regular-minded people would realise that the risk of death just to go faster on a push-bike is ludicrous. And it is.

This is th eoriginal no-brainer. I'd love to see IQ tests on people who took that risk. There's the moral issue too which I'd like to think would also have desuaded me from doping but, definitely the dying thing would have put me off.

I know loads of people who smoke cigarettes ..... without any real benefits .... how ludicrous is that!

allan450

+1 on that my friend.

Slo_Rida

C3PO wrote: »

I know loads of people who smoke cigarettes ..... without any real benefits .... how ludicrous is that!

I couldn't agree more. Ludicrous to spend vast somes of money to get a tiny kick all the while damaging your health. And as if that wasn't enough, it also makes you smelly. I'm not joking here either, people need to take a second look at things like smoking.

jive

bazermc wrote: »

With all this talk of who took EPO etc etc etc, I still dont really understand what it is, other than a performance enhancing drug.

So question please, what exactly does EPO do to your body and how does it assist in cycling performance?

It controls red blood cell production. It was originally intended for use in patients suffering from chronic kidney disease to treat anemia (lack of red blood cells) and I think is still used for this. So basically you inject it and you get a higher number of red blood cells which are the cells that carry oxygen and therefore you can go harder for longer because you have more oxygen.

The story goes that some scientists stored gallons upon gallons of p!ss in a basement in order to obtain natural EPO and then once isolated they produced it in cell lines. Amgen bought the technology and were first to commercialise EPO, ironically enough they sponsored the tour of California there a few years ago.

Aicar, S107, S108 and Gw1516 are the 'new EPO' so to speak.

JOHN_70

I think professional cycling was in some ways very different to other sports - each rider was an advertising billboard on wheels so the emphasis was to gain maximum exposure for the sponsors by winning races getting into breaks etc. Any clean rider just getting shelled out of the peloton in every race because he couldn't keep up with those on EPO had a fairly simple choice to make. It is well worth keeping in mind also that pro cyclists did not tend to come from particularly wealthy backgrounds - cycling was their livelihood and doping would enable them to do their job a lot better.
So another way of putting it would be along the lines of: "If you could take a pharmaceutical product that would make you work more effectively* and enhance your chances of getting promotion would you do it?"

I certainly would.

*Staying off boards during working hours would help too! :rolleyes:

Ryder

correct me here but......i cant think of any other professional sport which is so dependent on physiology rather than skill. its logical then to see why doping is more prevalent in cycling - taking a drug means a more reliable future. it may be that many cyclists have little other options regarding income, and need to do well.

is professionalism the ruin of cycling and can there ever be drug free racing without it? personally, im not sure that there can

jive

Ryder wrote: »

correct me here but......i cant think of any other professional sport which is so dependent on physiology rather than skill.

Athletics/track and field would be on a par, and I'd guess it's on a par with drug use too. Also american football, baseball, weightlifting and to a lesser extent rugby are all heavily reliant on the persons physiology. At least in cycling they are doing something about the drug use, can't say the same effort is being made for any of the above sports.

JOHN_70

jive wrote: »

Athletics/track and field would be on a par, and I'd guess it's on a par with drug use too.

Very true!

However completing a Grand Tour in cycling where you are out on your bike working hard for 3 weeks with maybe 2 rest days along the way is probably unique in sporting terms. The temptation to take a little pharmaceutical help along the way is understandable.

Ryder

jive wrote: »

Athletics/track and field would be on a par, and I'd guess it's on a par with drug use too. Also american football, baseball, weightlifting and to a lesser extent rugby are all heavily reliant on the persons physiology. At least in cycling they are doing something about the drug use, can't say the same effort is being made for any of the above sports.

id argue that all the ball sports are equally dependent on skill. you are selected for your motor ability, i think that the physiological enhancement comes after.

weightlifting and athletics i agree with. but, the rewards are much less. in athletics at least the prize pot is small and limited to only a select few. therefore you really need to be in the top 10/20 in the world to make any kind of living. i dont think the temptation in terms of making a living are as great

Captain Havoc

I'm pretty sure when a DS is proposing that a cyclist dopes, he doesn't say, "I want you to cheat and dope yourself to the gills" but something along the lines of "I think you should see the doctor about leveling the playing field and maybe you could realise your potential, which you clearly have. Your current regime won't allow you to race so much or be competitive when you do. Your career is short and cycling is unforgiving to those that don't make it, you should earn as much as you can, while you can. I think if you see Dr. Ferrari, you're earnings would shoot up and you could get yourself on a couple of podiums."

jive

Ryder wrote: »

id argue that all the ball sports are equally dependent on skill. you are selected for your motor ability, i think that the physiological enhancement comes after.

weightlifting and athletics i agree with. but, the rewards are much less. in athletics at least the prize pot is small and limited to only a select few. therefore you really need to be in the top 10/20 in the world to make any kind of living. i dont think the temptation in terms of making a living are as great

Yeah I would say that for _most_ ball sports too but the majority of the positions in baseball, american football and to a lesser extent rugby are predominantly based on your athletic prowess rather than your ability to have good hands or spot a pass or whatever the sport calls for. As you said you need to be in the top 10 or 20 to make a living for many athletic disciplines, I'd like to know how many of the top athletes have actually never used PEDs.

Doping in tennis, soccer et al. is somewhat known also but I would hold the opinion that because of the skill level involved in those sports that the results are not _as_ noticeable as they would be in sports heavily reliant on an individuals physique and/or endurance. People can say that rugby is heavily skill based but in reality it's the top athletes who will make it professional in that sport for the most part; for a sport so renowned for strength and brutality their drug testing is laughable but the sport is then perceived to be super clean by the public because nobody ever gets caught whereas in stark contrast to this cycling does all it can to catch cheats and are painted with the dirty brush. It really is dependent on the sport though, boxing is heavily skill based but drug use is rampant due to the nature of the sport.

I'm extremely cynical because I don't see how anyone can out perform another competitor, likely to have been involved in the sport at a professional capacity prior to indulging in PEDs, who is drugged up to the gills. Kudos to cycling for making cheating difficult, it's a pity that they are loathed by the public rather than lauded for their efforts. The reality is that pharmaceuticals are a part of almost every professional sport because it can be the difference between making a living and not.

desertcircus

jive wrote: »

Yeah I would say that for _most_ ball sports too but the majority of the positions in baseball, american football and to a lesser extent rugby are predominantly based on your athletic prowess rather than your ability to have good hands or spot a pass or whatever the sport calls for. As you said you need to be in the top 10 or 20 to make a living for many athletic disciplines, I'd like to know how many of the top athletes have actually never used PEDs.

Doping in tennis, soccer et al. is somewhat known also but I would hold the opinion that because of the skill level involved in those sports that the results are not _as_ noticeable as they would be in sports heavily reliant on an individuals physique and/or endurance. People can say that rugby is heavily skill based but in reality it's the top athletes who will make it professional in that sport for the most part; for a sport so renowned for strength and brutality their drug testing is laughable but the sport is then perceived to be super clean by the public because nobody ever gets caught whereas in stark contrast to this cycling does all it can to catch cheats and are painted with the dirty brush. It really is dependent on the sport though, boxing is heavily skill based but drug use is rampant due to the nature of the sport.

I'm extremely cynical because I don't see how anyone can out perform another competitor, likely to have been involved in the sport at a professional capacity prior to indulging in PEDs, who is drugged up to the gills. Kudos to cycling for making cheating difficult, it's a pity that they are loathed by the public rather than lauded for their efforts. The reality is that pharmaceuticals are a part of almost every professional sport because it can be the difference between making a living and not.

Rugby does reward physical strength, but not nearly as much as baseball or gridiron. Top performers in those sports tend to be the top performers in athletic tests, whereas in rugby the correlation isn't as accurate. Pierre Spies would come in ahead of Richie McCaw on more or less any athletic test you could devise, but even Pierre Spies wouldn't pick Pierre Spies ahead of McCaw for a game of rugby. Physical output isn't the same determinant of success in rugby that it is in cycling or athletics.

I suspect that steroids are used, but not to a huge extent, and I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that doping was being done to aid recovery from injury more than anything else. There are very few absolute monsters in rugby; most players are about the size and shape you'd expect from a self-selecting group of big guys who effectively work out for a living.

Russman

Captain Havoc wrote: »

I'm pretty sure when a DS is proposing that a cyclist dopes, he doesn't say, "I want you to cheat and dope yourself to the gills" but something along the lines of "I think you should see the doctor about leveling the playing field and maybe you could realise your potential, which you clearly have. Your current regime won't allow you to race so much or be competitive when you do. Your career is short and cycling is unforgiving to those that don't make it, you should earn as much as you can, while you can. I think if you see Dr. Ferrari, you're earnings would shoot up and you could get yourself on a couple of podiums."

That sounds exactly like it might be.

The part I don't get (and this might be more suited to The Secret Pro thread, so apologies if it should be moved), is how/when/why did cycling change itself ? I can't believe that any generation of sportspeople is suddenly more "honourable" or less inclined to cheat than a previous generation. Human nature is human nature. Most of the doctors are the same as years ago, a lot of the DS are former pros etc etc. If it changed just because you're more likely to get caught, then that's hardly the right reason for a long term solution, its basically saying I'd cheat if the chances of success were better.

I'm sorry but I just don't buy that cycling has cleaned itself up. I'd say cyclists are still having to deal with the dilemma the Op refers to.
Put it this way, I can't imagine a DS telling a young pro he needs to sleep in a different shaped bed, warm down, wear a jacket, wash his hands properly etc while sitting back and wistfully thinking "...in the old days I'd simply send you to a good doctor, but I can't do that now because its wrong, the sponsor will be ok and he'll understand why the team is always last...."

jive

desertcircus wrote: »

Rugby does reward physical strength, but not nearly as much as baseball or gridiron. Top performers in those sports tend to be the top performers in athletic tests, whereas in rugby the correlation isn't as accurate. Pierre Spies would come in ahead of Richie McCaw on more or less any athletic test you could devise, but even Pierre Spies wouldn't pick Pierre Spies ahead of McCaw for a game of rugby. Physical output isn't the same determinant of success in rugby that it is in cycling or athletics.

I suspect that steroids are used, but not to a huge extent, and I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that doping was being done to aid recovery from injury more than anything else. There are very few absolute monsters in rugby; most players are about the size and shape you'd expect from a self-selecting group of big guys who effectively work out for a living.

I agree with the first paragraph but I'd guess that steroids are rampant in rugby. I know what you're saying about guys not being absolute freaks but at the same time there are guys who are 19,20,21 years old who are just mass monsters with about 10% body fat which just simply isn't possible at that age naturally regardless of the fact they are professional.

A lot of top *cough* natural *cough* bodybuilders have similar physiques to some of these rugby players. The professional excuse doesn't fly with me because there is only so much working out you can do for hypertrophy. There are plenty of actually natural bodybuilders who train for hypertrophy and after 10 dedicated years in the gym focusing solely on size would not have the same physique as some of the young rugby players; being professional sounds like a Brailsfordesque excuse and does not account for the discrepancies in size difference nor would genetics. I could name names and post some pictures of some of those athletes who have muscular development far beyond what is naturally possible at their age but obviously this is against forum rules so I won't but their is a certain amount of naivety from the public regarding rugby IMO, a perception probably driven by a lack of adequate testing.

pelevin

Regarding if you were a pro rider what would u have done - Impossible to answer without being in the situation, & so any answer either way fairly worthless.

desertcircus

jive wrote: »

I agree with the first paragraph but I'd guess that steroids are rampant in rugby. I know what you're saying about guys not being absolute freaks but at the same time there are guys who are 19,20,21 years old who are just mass monsters with about 10% body fat which just simply isn't possible at that age naturally regardless of the fact they are professional.

A lot of top *cough* natural *cough* bodybuilders have similar physiques to some of these rugby players. The professional excuse doesn't fly with me because there is only so much working out you can do for hypertrophy. There are plenty of actually natural bodybuilders who train for hypertrophy and after 10 dedicated years in the gym focusing solely on size would not have the same physique as some of the young rugby players; being professional sounds like a Brailsfordesque excuse and does not account for the discrepancies in size difference nor would genetics. I could name names and post some pictures of some of those athletes who have muscular development far beyond what is naturally possible at their age but obviously this is against forum rules so I won't but their is a certain amount of naivety from the public regarding rugby IMO, a perception probably driven by a lack of adequate testing.

Cian Healy is probably the most physically massive of Irish rugby players, but he's been a freakish outlier his whole life - he won a Senior Cup when he was in fifth year and by all accounts bulldozed everything in front of him, and I've heard people who played against him when he was fourteen mention how unbelievably strong he was. Unless he was juicing at fourteen, then the most freakish player in Ireland is clean. Something that gets forgotten in talk about rugby players is that they're picked for size and strength right from the start, and from the age of sixteen are following a rigorous strength and conditioning programme and eating a protein-rich diet. A twenty-year old in the Leinster academy has spent four solid years on a controlled diet and a training program designed to maximise the bulk of an already big body; it's not surprising that they get so big.

But this is all somewhat off topic, so apologies!

MrCreosote

jive wrote: »

A lot of top *cough* natural *cough* bodybuilders have similar physiques to some of these rugby players.

I'm not sure why there's the cynical cough about bodybuilders. Some of the most famous bodybuilders have clearly said they are natural i.e. no doping. Here's Ronnie Coleman for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1kqvahX6LU

If they can do it, why not rugby players?

hinault

I suppose it would depend on whether one would be a contender or a water carrier.

You've got to remember that a lot of young men who tried to get a professional contract, certainly in the pre 1990's, were trialled at teams and if you survived the trial you got the chance to work your nuts off to try to earn a living as a professional.

In many ways you were at the grace and favour of the DS. If you wanted to hold on to your career, his word was the law and if that meant doing what he told you, you did it.
The fact that DS's sole concern was the "success" of the team, could well be lost on many a neophyte professional.

The entire team structure was built around the ethos of the DS. His support staff would mirror the DS's views.
A neophyte professional would have to try to survive in that ethical pressure cooker.
How many of us would have the maturity, insight and moral certainty to resist such a culture?

And if you were a rider with a chance for real success at GT, the pressure only increased.

Undercover Elephant

JOHN_70 wrote: »

So another way of putting it would be along the lines of: "If you could take a pharmaceutical product that would make you work more effectively* and enhance your chances of getting promotion would you do it?"

I certainly would.

This piece on the use of neuroenhancing drugs is well worth a read. It also has something to say to the question of the IQ of athletes who took PEDs.