Mark Cavendish, the best UK cyclist?

What did Florence Griffith-Joyner, Fatima Whitbread and Lance Armstrong all have in common? Superb achievements of course.

And...em....Fatima did show some serious facial hair growth at one time. Flo-Jo bulked up massively in one year, then broke every record in sight, then died of heart failure (brought on by her heart growing unnaturally; well it is a muscle). And Lance Armstrong, was, erm, exonerated.

But the latest carbon wheels or whatever won't give you a fatal nocturnal heart attack.
What is so sad about doping is the fact that when it was prevalent the same guys would probably have won without it - they would just have been a little slower

Yeah, and that's why Simpson, despite having been a doper, is still one of the greatest British cyclists ever.

But the latest carbon wheels or whatever won't give you a fatal nocturnal heart attack.
What is so sad about doping is the fact that when it was prevalent the same guys would probably have won without it - they would just have been a little slower

I mentioned the health risks invovled with body-chemistry tampering, and think that's a calculated risk that certain sportspeople make, although I realize they may be puppets in the hands of managers and politicians.

It could be argued that the latest carbon wheels will fold up under you on an 80kph descent when you run over an ant or something, and bring about a fatal head injury.

In some ways, athletes could benefit from taking performance enhancing substances that sharpen up their mental accuity, in order to cope with the reduced reaction times that are necessary when moving at the kind of speeds afforded by lightweight super-aero kit.

In some ways, athletes could benefit from taking performance enhancing substances that sharpen up their mental accuity, in order to cope with the reduced reaction times that are necessary when moving at the kind of speeds afforded by lightweight super-aero kit.

If such substances existed wouldn't taking them make you too smart to take them?

In some ways, athletes could benefit from taking performance enhancing substances that sharpen up their mental accuity, in order to cope with the reduced reaction times that are necessary when moving at the kind of speeds afforded by lightweight super-aero kit.

If such substances existed wouldn't taking them make you too smart to take them?

Research suggested that as far as smart drugs are concerned, you'd be hard pushed to beat glucose, caffeine, and nicotine, as they all aid concentration/focus/attention, which is the foundation for 'efficient' cognition.

You can never be too smart. Even if it gets you in trouble.

But the latest carbon wheels or whatever won't give you a fatal nocturnal heart attack.

Isn't it for safety reasons that there is now a lower limit on bike weights?

Isn't it for safety reasons that there is now a lower limit on bike weights?

Erm, yeah - and doping's proscribed too...

Boring rules.

Tommy Simpson was wack. He could not even make it up that hill that Pj manged on HOLIDAY. Rubbish.

(ducks)

Cheating in sport's open to philosophical debate, init.

There seems to be this idea that enhancements applied inside the athlete somehow make them less responsible for pulling off amazing feats of strength, speed, power, and endurance. Look at track and field athletics - not so long ago, atheletes didn't have spiked footwear, something that knocks whole seconds off the times produced in sprint events. If you don't wear them, you're not going to win. But this is basically benefitting from technological enhancement, which is exactly what taking a newly synthesized substance is doing.

Biffalo Bull mentioned how the superman position wasn't cheating at one point in history. Equally, having a sub 6.7kg bike wasn't against the rules for a bit, whilst it was possible to build such a machine, and that could easily have been the winning edge in any mountain stage, as much as a dose of testosterone - in fact, externally applied technological enhancements are probably more reliable aids, so are more unequivocally part of 'cheating'.

The argument about doping being bad because it detracts from a level playing field is complete bollocks. There are certainly other issues to consider (health of athletes etc), but I don't really give a fuck, and have enjoyed some seminal moments in sport where all kinds of 'cheating' (worn, applied, imbibed, ridden, injected, whatever) have been in full effect. World-class atheletes are genetically predisposed to pull of some of these mind-blowing acheivements, and it's a natural human urge to want to do everything possible to see people go faster, higher, further, and so on...

The enhancement given by doping, especially with something like EPO, often has no correlation to how natuarally gifted a cyclist you are. It's more to do with how your body reacts to the drug.

Look at Bjarne Riis TDF finishes - never a particulary gifted cyclist.

'89 - 95th
'90 - DNF
'91 - 107th
'92 - Didn't start
'93 - 5th
'94 - 14th
'95 - 3rd
'96 - 1st
'97 - 7th
'98 - 11th

Have a guess which year he started using EPO.

I'd rather watch naturally gifted climbers duking it out on the high cols rather than charged up domestiques racing up there with their mouths closed

The enhancement given by doping, especially with something like EPO, often has no correlation to how natuarally gifted a cyclist you are. It's more to do with how your body reacts to the drug.

Look at Bjarne Riis TDF finishes - never a particulary gifted cyclist.

'89 - 95th
'90 - DNF
'91 - 107th
'92 - Didn't start
'93 - 5th
'94 - 14th
'95 - 3rd
'96 - 1st
'97 - 7th
'98 - 11th

Have a guess which year he started using EPO.

I'd rather watch naturally gifted climbers duking it out on the high cols rather than charged up domestiques racing up there with their mouths closed

It's all relative though. The fact that Riis was riding the Tour at all '89 was because he had the physiology that's needed to become a professional cyclist.

The action on the slopes (from a spectator's point of view) isn't just determined by whether people are using performance enhancing substances or equipment or not - unless it's the spectacle of a naturally-gifted climber with every enhancement available riding off on their own.

I don't think sport will ever be 'pure' like some people want. We could compete completely naked, eating the same diet, and wait a few thousand years to see evolutionary gains come into play, but let's face it, civilization is too impatient for that kind of thing. And I'd rather see sport as the arena for showcasing/developing technological enhancements of all kinds, rather than war.

I don't think sport will ever be 'pure' like some people want. We could compete completely naked, eating the same diet, and wait a few thousand years to see evolutionary gains come into play, but let's face it, civilization is too impatient for that kind of thing. And I'd rather see sport as the arena for showcasing/developing technological enhancements of all kinds, rather than war.

Me too. It's just a shame that the UCI has hindered the technological advance of bicycle technology with it's artificial weight limit and other regressive rules, especially for track bikes, whilst turning a blind eye (and I'm being generous here) to the unfettered use of pharmaceutical products.

Tommy Simpson was wack. He could not even make it up that hill that Pj manged on HOLIDAY. Rubbish.
(ducks)

Only 20 posts too late Tommy 2 :P

No question that Riis was using EPO, but in 89 he was a domestique for Fignon (and actually won a stage of the Giro) - the whole of the Renault team was riding like trojans to get rid of Mottet, Lemond and it was really attacking tour - anarchy every day. So his overall isn't really a reflection of his ability.

He was dom in 91, and it wasn't until he moved to the Ariostea Team (and would presumably also had the benefit of Italian medical 'assistance'), whose philosophy was of opportunistically using other teams efforts to hunt for victories, rather than riding for a nominated leader, that he got his chance to show what he could do.

From what I remember, he spent most of the 93 Tour (his breakthrough year) hanging on to the Mig's back wheel for as long as he could. Absolutely no question that he was doped - had the nickname Mr 60% in the peloton - referring to his haemcrit level, tho.

If anyone's interested Greg Lemond gave a couple of interviews, one to David Walsh, one to a web radio station in the States, which explain why EPO made such a difference to riders like Indurain, Riis and Armstrong, who should not have been able to generate the power to move their bodies up-hill as fast as they did in the 90s and 00s.

Me too. It's just a shame that the UCI has hindered the technological advance of bicycle technology with it's artificial weight limit and other regressive rules, especially for track bikes, whilst turning a blind eye (and I'm being generous here) to the unfettered use of pharmaceutical products.

Yes, but they limit the changes possible to bikes so that racing doesn't look like a HPV aerodynamic challenge..

THen it'd be the team with the biggest budget for wind tunnel testing rather than drugs that would win :)

By contrast, my favourite rider of the 90s was Pantani - he made Indurain's victory parades interesting, and scored the most dramatic win since Lemond's 89 in 98. But guess what...

he was doped too.

I agree there is a need for some rules as to what can and can't be used - but to limit weight just when carbon fibre was becoming mainstream seems an unnecessary and retrograde step.

No question that Riis was using EPO, but in 89 he was a domestique for Fignon (and actually won a stage of the Giro) - the whole of the Renault team was riding like trojans to get rid of Mottet, Lemond and it was really attacking tour - anarchy every day. So his overall isn't really a reflection of his ability.

He was dom in 91, and it wasn't until he moved to the Ariostea Team (and would presumably also had the benefit of Italian medical 'assistance'), whose philosophy was of opportunistically using other teams efforts to hunt for victories, rather than riding for a nominated leader, that he got his chance to show what he could do.

From what I remember, he spent most of the 93 Tour (his breakthrough year) hanging on to the Mig's back wheel for as long as he could. Absolutely no question that he was doped - had the nickname Mr 60% in the peloton - referring to his haemcrit level, tho.

His admission last year of doping probably removed a lot of doubt too. ;)

THen it'd be the team with the biggest budget for wind tunnel testing rather than drugs that would win :)

Yeah, when Boardman won the Gold in 92, all the press and media talked about was the bike - ignoring the fact that his victory margin was greater than could be accounted for solely by the bike. It was depressing, and I was glad that the UCI moved to make it more about the rider than the bike.

I wish they would also make more about the rider than the doctor, though. 90s and 00s cycling has been boring because no-one gets dropped anymore, no-one attacks, it all comes down the TTs. I first started watching cycling in the 80s - attacking tours.

I agree there is a need for some rules as to what can and can't be used - but to limit weight just when carbon fibre was becoming mainstream seems an unnecessary and retrograde step.

Has it really limited anything? Frames just get lighter and lighter and allows teams to get creative with weight, e.g the prevalence of power meters and electronic shifting - both of which would have been deemed somewhat wasted weight before such a limit was in place.

His admission last year of doping probably removed a lot of doubt too. ;)

It was nice that he actually owned up to it, but I knew he was a doper before. Just as it was obvious that Festina were up to something in 97. And Once, and all the others. I wanted to believe that Pantani wasn't a doper, but I knew he was. Everyone knew.

I'd like to see radios removed. There's been talk of this during the Giro. I'm all for it. I want the muppets to think for themselves and not just follow DS orders, being informed of every detail by people watching TV screens.

It was nice that he actually owned up to it, but I knew he was a doper before. Just as it was obvious that Festina were up to something in 97. And Once, and all the others. I wanted to believe that Pantani wasn't a doper, but I knew he was. Everyone knew.
I think it's safe to assume that the last clean Tour winner was Lemond in 1990.

I agree it was good that Riis owned up - he went up in my estimation then as it would have been very easy for him to use the "I never tested positive" defence.

I've felt a little bit 'robbed' in a few hillclimbs where I've lost 3 or 4 places due to being less than 0.5s slower than people with bikes 4 or 5lb lighter than mine. At the time, I wasn't able to afford that kind of kit/those kind of upgrades, so thought it was a bit unfair.

Then I got over myself and realized that i) I probably wouldn't have got the necessary kit even if I could've afforded it (I'm just not that committed), ii) I could always have worked just that little bit harder on the slope, iii) I could've spent a few quid on some lines of billy, and levelled the playing field according to my financial means.

I've also been beaten in crits and time-trials by people who were obviously on amphetamines, but as long as they didn't ride dangerously, I wasn't really bothered.

And I've seen people using drugs/fancy equipment getting dropped after the first corner. It's all part of sport's rich tapestry. But I wouldn't dream of expecting everyone to agree with that point of view.

I'd like to see radios removed. There's been talk of this during the Giro. I'm all for it. I want the muppets to think for themselves and not just follow DS orders, being informed of every detail by people watching TV screens.

The UCI are looking at the use of radios currently. It seems 70% of riders want to keep them citing safety as the main reason, and with the rise of street furniture in urban areas you can understand why to an extent.

I'd go for a compromise - allow radios but restrict them so that the riders only have receivers.