ThermionicScott 

Of course you can ride the Tour without doping: https://www.theonion.com/articles/non...e-france,2268/

Velo Dog

It can, but there's a cost. I read a story a year or two about elite endurance athletes (mainly runners) who had health problems or even died at relatively young ages, 30s and 40s. Pro football players have far shorter lifespans than average and tend to have neurological problems, including depression and mood swings. I was in an elite unit in the military, with very difficult training. Nine of the 11 people I've kept in touch with have orthopedic and/or cardio issues, and two have committed suicide.
What's this have to do with cycling? Nothing specifically, but it may illustrate that being super fit when you're 27 isn't a guarantee of good health later.
As for PEDs, a neighbor of mine used to be a pro sports agent, mainly NFL players. He believes virtually all top-rank athletes use them. The difference between almost good enough and pro caliber is small, and the potential rewards are huge.

oldbobcat

Yeah, but the doping done before the 1990s was small-time compared to contemporary blood-boosting. Also, the substances used were intended strictly for enhancing the performance at hand. After doping, the athlete's recovery usually suffered. Before WW2 it was about caffeine, cocaine, and other recreational stimulants. War research brought us amphetamines and barbituates, which became popular in the 50s and 60. The side effects of these drugs was often debilitating, and it was still possible for clean riders to win on ability alone.

The 70s introduced steroids and blood transfusions, the 90s EPO, and the 00s medically managed programs that combined steroids, EPO, and transfusions. These programs met two objectives, enhancing performance and recovery.

Tours de France have also been shortened considerably since the 1970s. Also the rules on accepting aid have been slackened immensely This was done to benefit the riders' health and encourage more aggressive riding.

byhsu

is this article for REAL?

gsteinb

People climb mountains and die. The best athletes aren't healthy now, never mind later. Health and athletic success are not the same things. It's a misunderstanding to think they are.

My buddy's sister is a good example. She writes and sends me all sorts of health and fitness stuff. 'This study says if you do this,' 'or if you go gluten free' it'll help your health. Trying to explain to her that my goal was to be as fast as possible for as long as possible, and then spend the rest of my life living on pork rinds and pie kinda went over her head.

DXchulo

+1 on this. They aren't doping because they can't finish the race without drugs. They're doping because they want to win, lead out their sprinter, be there for their GC guy on the final climb, or whatever it is that gets them their paycheck. I've never used PEDs, but I would assume that it goes back to the old LeMond quote. "It doesn't get any easier. You just go faster."

You can shorten the race as much as you want, but guys will still dope because they want to win. Go all the way down to track sprinting and PEDs will still be there.

Cat4Lifer

Pretty much.

Gordy748

I think there are some significant environmental factors that encourage cyclists to take PEDs.

Professional cycling is phenomenally hard. It ranks 10/10 on endurance requirement, and the next sports are cross country skiing and professional boxing, which are 8/10. International rowing is 7/10, distance swimming and running events are 6/10, along with amateur cycling. Other sports dribble in around 5 to 4. Because it is so hard, newcomers risk getting fatigued easily, so there is an incentive to take PEDs just so you can recover.

Then there are short-term contracts. Have an average year and chances are you are out of a job. Domestiques are lucky if they get 2 year contracts. And under the current system you are only worthwhile to a team if you score points. You could be the greatest domestique that never finishes because you guarantee your leader will get a top 10 finish every time, but guess what? You've got no points so you cannot contribute to your teams points total. Plus you are worthless to any other teams. Believe me, if anyone else had the threat of being fired hanging over them as much as in cycling, everyone would be on Ritalin or some other drug to make them perform better at work.

I think it's really easy for people on this forum to type away saying that professional cyclists are all evil dopers. Occasionally that may be true. But few stop to think of the industry dynamics. There is no job security and with more and more racing, not enough time for recovery (unless your name is Boonen or similar status, then you get holidays from races to allow you to recover). These guys need to ride (very) well just to put food on the table for their family. And if I was a professional cyclist in these circumstances, worrying about how I'm going to guarantee a good life for my children, believe me that PEDs would be a seriously considered option. Chances are you would too.

If people really want drugs out of cycling, then yes, the degree of difficulty needs to be addressed, either through bigger teams or maximum races a year (to allow adequate recovery). But also a fundamental restructuring of how cyclists are employed and valued needs to be undertaken, not just by the UCI but by the teams as well.

bikerjp

Too arduous? No. Not for a pro. If it was they would be dropping like flies and wouldn't be finishing. Yes, some drop out but usually because they had shorter goals such as preparing for something else or just doing sprint stages or got injured or sick. The don't/didn't use PEDs in order to finish. Given enough time most of us could probably finish it as well. They used PEDs to finish it faster or to help maintain a certain pace or to help recover faster. I find it interesting, however, that the riders off seem off their mark the day after a rest day. Basically, they used PEDs for an edge over the competition or erase the edge someone else was getting.

bikerjp

Of course. The Onion is on par with the New York Times, Washington Post, etc.

Cat4Lifer

Andy Somnifac 

Why would you doubt them? They are the epitome of journalistic excellence.

merlinextraligh

I road the US Pro Challenge course this year, with most days like the day you decribe in the Tour of Utah.

There's no way you need PED's to finish races like that.

Finishing them at the speed the Pro'd did in the EPO era is another issue.

benajah

of course. 100+ miles a day for weeks on end isn't all that tough. Recreational bike tourists with beer guts do it routinely.

cyclezen

crap... and ... The Iron Man is a good test - a full Tri is a major test. Short course Tri's are good everyman one day events... Yeah Pro football is a joke, 10 secs of effort and then 2+ minutes of time off for commercials/breaks/ whatever...

Yes many sports are now spectacles, and less than they were some many years back. 15 basketball games in 15 days, WHY Not? 15 hockey matches in 15 days, why Not? same for football. Being a little less chipper after a day or so, you might have to really dig down a little deeper and find the stuff you;re really made of. The later games might not be real pretty - but then I remember football in the late 50's and 60's - it wasn't a pretty game, especially when it was cold and wet.

OMG, it really needs a racing perspective. Most Cat 4,3 road races (not crits) are al least 50 - 70 miles, cat 1,2 and many 3 are usually at least 70 to over 100 and most state champ races are over 100 mi. As a younger man, I and everyone I raced with did these races, often 2x a week, then we went out for beers and dinner and called it a fun day. I believe todays' young Cat 1,2,3s also do the same.
Have you ever been at a Pro race? You'll see these guys, 100 miles in, just rocketing up uphill sections in a big ring, while we struggle to make it over...
They absolutely need the big miles and big hills and tough courses to make any separation, otherwise every event ends in a Mass sprint - THAT would not be fair.


The Pro races have evolved over many decades, and in some cases over a century, of competition. Riders have died, but not that many. Most make it through. Racing is about pride, suffering and overcoming your own limitations - same as we do when we do rides and events which challenge our own limits.
Racing was one of the most excellent things I've done, and I feel stronger and more capable for having done it. I would not take that away from the current generation.

PEDS - there is NO pro sport (and many amateur that I can think of) in which PEDS are not pervasive, none.
The handwringing for the past decade is now soooo very tiring - we need to get past that.
There needs to be strong, clear direction - PEDS ok, then let it be... NO PEDS, then we continue to crack down and make sure it's as clean as we can make it. I'm OK with either.

Pro, Amateur racing is not too arduous. If anything I think the Women and Juniors need a little bit tougher tests - they've become much stronger as a group and need a bit stronger test.

there is no place for coddling or handwringing in cycling

EDIT: But I do think that rider/team radios have taken away from the sport. Too much choreographed riding, penalizing the rider who is willing to dare, to take a chance. I truly believe that riders like Merckx could not have done what they did, in the era of rider radios. The UCI needs to stop the insanity now - BAN Race Radios!

X-LinkedRider

No. It's the Onion.

brianmcg123

Baseball isn't very arduous and they are all on steroids too. How do you explain that?

mprelaw

pgjackson

"For as long as the Tour has existed, since 1903, its participants have been doping themselves. No dope, no hope. The Tour, in fact, is only possible because - not despite the fact - there is doping. For 60 years this was allowed. For the past 30 years it has been officially prohibited. Yet the fact remains; great cyclists have been doping themselves, then as now."

X-LinkedRider

Also very true. Before I ever rode road bikes, i toured and for months /weeks on end. Granted it was not at race speeds, but we were carrying a lot of ****.

merlinextraligh

1) Tell me how many players, not proven to have used Steroids, have hit more than 62 home runs in a season? and how many using steroids have?

2) Ask Sosa, Bonds, Mcguire, Conseco etc. whether they think steroids help them hit home runs. Do you think these people took drugs illegally, at significant personal expense, knowing the significant threat they posed to their health, their popularity, their endorsement money, future in baseball, and future Hall of Fame eligibility without those drugs providning a performance advantage?

Cat4Lifer

1/22/13 Michele Ferrari:

Keith99

Bolding mine.

Source?

Come one guys we all know that in the Major Tours they are NOT going anywhere near all out for most of the stage. Anyone who has even ridden at the fast purely recreational level know just how much drafting makes a difference. Any mass start stage has a lot of riding at a pace that may be fast for us, but is just a 'brisk jog' for a professional rider.

Keith99

I would not say the Football Pros practice almost every day. No team I know of practices on Monday. And often not tuesday either.

BUT that is because the players are so beat up after each game that they can't really function until at least one and often several days to recover.

(Should we tell some of the posters here jsut what pro cyclists do on a rest day during a tour? I'm betting many have no idea).

ultraman6970

The person that should have the perfect answer is andy Schleck.