You are reading a single comment by @Brommers and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@Brommers
I think that's how it was viewed before EPO came along. A quick dose of amphetamines might perk you up at the end of a long stage, and a wee bit of cortisone might help you recover at the end of a particularly long stage. But it gave you a slight edge, in the same way as having a light bike or the best tyres. And so it was condoned and tolerated, because doping in those days just gave you an edge, but no more.
EPO changed all that, turning 'carthorses into racehorses' as they said about Riis. It wasn't just an edge, it was a 5%, 10%, 15% improvement. This led to the 'two races' syndrome. If you weren't on EPO it wasn't just a case that you lost an edge, you weren't even in the race at all. Pre-EPO dope might meant you won, but not being on EPO didn't mean you didn't win, it meant you weren't even competing. And that's when it stops being a matter of personal choice and personal ethics, at least if you want to even stand a chance.
Personally, I'm happy with the idea that winning means having the best bike, the best training and the best team. I'm not that happy with the idea that winning, and not dying in the process, should be determined by who's best at doping.
And no, I don't think Froome's juiced. There's really no evidence to support the rumours that he (or the rest of Sky) is, and trying to prove a negative is impossible.