chasm54

1. If what you're doing is within the rules, you're not cheating.
2. Your views about ethics are your own, but are not binding on other people.
3. "Natural" is not synonymous with "good", nor is "synthetic" synonymous with "evil". A chemical compound in a pill is not intrinsically less virtuous than one in a steak.
4. Paying more attention than your opponents to what you ingest is no more unfair than is training harder than they do.

TMonk

1) Um, duh? No one will argue with that. That's what cheating means: breaking the rules. We're talking about the underlying ethos here.

2) Agreed

3) That's also just your opinion

4) Agreed

Looigi

Especially for mountain bike races.

TMonk

Darth Lefty 

Years ago, Cruiser magazine did an article (not really a study) where they went to a bike training camp and sent people out with varying levels of booze in their systems. The Mythbusters have done similar stunts over the years.

Rolling Stoned: Experiments in Riding Drunk | Motorcycle Cruiser

chasm54

Well, not exactly. I think it's a statement of fact that natural does not mean the same as good, and that synthetic does not mean the same as evil. That's not my opinion, it's just that words have particular meanings. And if you want to assert that it is somehow more ethical to get a given dose of, say, Leucine from a steak than from a pill, you're under some obligation to justify that assertion, it seems to me. Because if it just boils down to some vague feeling of distaste about the manufacturing process, that's not ethics, it's just preference.

TMonk

I see your point; I was just playing the devil's advocate.

To use a previously mentioned example, to me it's different to ingest 150mg of caffeine from an espresso than it is from a pill. My issues have less to do with natural versus synthetic and more to do with context of use and intent. I have no issues with the manufacturing process associated with most pharmaceuticals and dietary supplements.

Also, I'm a chemist for the record, not that it matters.

chasm54

Hmm. All these things are slippery, it seems to me. If the issue is intent, then I honestly can't see the difference between eating a particular wholefood diet because I think it optimises my training and performance, and getting the same nutrition from supplements for the same reasons. Say I happen not to like coffee, while you love it. We know caffeine works. Am I supposed to put myself at a disadvantage just because I'd rather not drink the stuff? That makes no sense to me.

TMonk

I agree that it all is very slippery.

I guess the answer to your question is, yes. I suppose if something is allowed by WADA than it shouldn't make much of a difference. Are you at a disadvantage because you don't have caffeine in you while I had my morning coffee? Maybe a little bit, I guess.

This is sort of separate from my criterion of intent: I think it is OK to have your morning coffee because you like to, but I think it's lame to pop a caffeine pill before a race specifically for the purpose of enhancing your performance. Also, I realize that this is a huge can of worms that has brought this thread out to 8 pages .

chasm54

But is it lame to have a protein shake as a recovery drink "specifically for the purpose of enhancing your performance"? If so, lameness might extend to adopting training techniques that are smarter, but take less work, than those used by competitors.

This is why I referenced the rules in my initial post. They are all we have to cling to. If they're inadequate, let's change them. But attempting to discriminate on ethical grounds between behaviours that are permissible is never going to find a secure footing.

Doge

We use substances only for their benefit to athletic performance. Exactly what you and others have an issue with. I don't understand it, but rather than argue it (philosophy) I am interested in combinations and stacks that work. I am also concerned about health but have become convinced you can have both AND you can do legal unhealthy things. Some folks here share that interest and also are interested.

KP mentioned a supplement I started investigating. turns out his trainer just started using it and I think we may.

We pay very close attention to what is taken, how much, what it is stacked with and when it is taken and when it is stopped. But if it is legal it will be looked into (not necessarily taken - looked into).

hack

Today I overslept and didn't eat a proper breakfast. Ate a couple of clif gels during the ride and won the final sprint. Made sure to DQ myself at the end since they were the gels with caffeine.

misterwaterfall

but what was your intent???

hack

domination

TMonk

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to draw a line in the sand, or claim the my way is the only right and true way,

I don't know if you've read the thread, but I've mentioned that I do drink whey shakes after some workouts, to aid in recovery.

Your second sentence begs the question: Where do you draw the line? Taking EPO and HGH will make you get more bang for your training buck as well.

Isn't that the whole point of the WADA code in the first place? Some other more experienced racers may have a better context for this one. @racerEx mentioned that, originally, the rules were to prevent athletes from inflicting self harm and doing dangerous things to their bodies. In recent decades, it has extended to prevent having an unfair advantage from a substance. Both are noble causes, IMO.

TMonk

TMonk

If EPO was legal, would you condone that too?

TMonk

@hack and @misterwaterfall where do you guys draw the line? Would you use EPO if it was legal?

chasm54

Yes, I've read it, that's why I chose that example. My point is that there is no difference in principle between what you practise, and what you object to.

I draw the line at what the rules dictate. Were EPO legal, and were I to conclude that I could take it without too great a risk to my health, then I'd see no reason not to take it. Same for HGH.


Ex is absolutely right about the origin of the anti-doping code. Noble causes? I'm not so sure. Prohibition, in this as in pretty much every other case, seems less effective at preventing harm than at driving the prohibited behaviour underground. That's not to say that I am advocating doping. I just think that the "fairness" argument is specious. If we were just interested in fairness, there'd be no reason not to allow everyone equal access to whatever was available.

Doge

Sure - I'd condone it - likely would not use it on my kid. I have not really researched it because it is not legal. What I understand is it may increase the chance of tumors. What I know is I can get near that 50 hematocrit with other methods so not so sure it would meet the useful/risk equation.

misterwaterfall

I don't care enough about racing pedal bikes to spend the cash or risk my health with something like epo. I wouldn't care if others took it though and really don't care about people who might be taking it currently under the strict rules that we have. I also ride a clapped out 5 year old Fuji though so ymmv

You use the word "intent" as your over under line which makes no sense to me. If you take a caffeine pill or down an espresso the intent of increased energy is still the same.

Doge

But the concept of intent in sports - don't wana deal with that. And I especially don't want rules based on intent. Same goes for fairness, although I'd be OK is USAC wanted to make things equal - they don't. So I'm OK with that too - but fairness really isn't in the equation for bike racing IMO. Just follow the rules, keep your agreements, be professional/have class so waiting for your opponent that had a mishap, being polite, waiting around to congratulate the winners rather than going home cause you didn't win, thank officials etc.. Those are things I encourage (and when younger required) my son to do. @chasm54 articulates my view well.

TMonk

I'll agree with that.

Hmm. Not sure where I stand on this one. I still think that taking substances like that is lame - but you guys are certainly making my question why.

TMonk

Agreed - mainly because I don't think that its practical or possible.

TMonk

I think it does - you're just thinking about it to much.

My perspective is real fundamental and theoretical. The practical reality is that there is no hard line between "vanilla" things like coffee and whey shakes, and hard-core agents like EPO, HGH, steroids, testosterone etc. Because of this I'm not trying to objectively state what's OK and what isn't; I'm just posting about how I conduct myself.