5 ms·

Note for everyone that will come in here to say the secret is drugs : In cyclism taking drugs is not considered a secret, it's common practice.

knallfrosch 2y ago
And since everyone is taking them, they're not the discriminator between the world class champions and the merely Tour-de-France participants.
- matthewowen 2y ago
  There is a common refrain about the Armstrong era "all the top guys were taking them so it's fair" but it's not really accurate. Because yes, the people at the top were all taking them, but that's because the clean guys that _would_ have been at the top otherwise aren't there: the prevalence of doping meant that you had to dope to even be in the conversation at that level, and so the clean athletes that might have won otherwise aren't coming in 18th, they're at home on the couch or they're racing at the pro-conti level. For example, Greg LeMond won the TdF in 1990. In 1991 he came 7th, and then never completed it again. There is some complication here because of the hunting accident he suffered in '87, but he also said "The speeds were faster and riders that I had easily outperformed were now dropping me", and the guy who won in 1991 was Indurain who was basically the first mega-doper. Without EPO and blood doping becoming prevalent, does Greg LeMond compete for a few more years? Do other guys with similar talent who aren't willing to dope also make it to that top level. I think the answer is probably yes, and so all those guys who doped are responsible for excluding those clean athletes from the top level.
  - vbarrielle 2y ago
    You're spot on, and there's another point that makes doping unfair even if it was widespread. There is a max hematocrit rule, but riders had different pre-doping base hematocrit levels. Those with the lowest level could benefit more from doping before reaching the limit. In a way, the less gifted would be more advantaged by EPO.
alistairSH 2y ago
In professional sports taking drugs is not considered a secret, it's common practice Fixed. Cycling has one of the strictest out-of-competition testing regimens. Which isn't to say doping doesn't exist - it does, no question - only that it's WAY better now than during the Armstrong era. Some details... https://lanternerouge.com/2023/03/26/how-clean-is-cycling-analysing-the-anti-doping-fight/ https://lanternerouge.com/2023/03/26/how-clean-is-cycling-an...
- skeeter2020 2y ago
  They're still fighting a losing battle. The business of cycling dictates that they remain ever vigilant and attempt to catch dopers and keep the sport "clean", while the science of what the atheletes are trying to do suggests they should just accept the reality and not police legal vs. illegal. It's like a drug-free body building contenst; what's the point?
  - skhr0680 2y ago
    > It's like a drug-free body building contenst; what's the point? The point is to not die or be in a wheelchair by the time you’re 60
    - matwood 2y ago
      If that's the goal, then you might as well get rid of all contact sports - drugs or not.
      - alistairSH 2y ago
        Probably a case to be made for doing that. At least with martial arts/combat sports, American football, and probably rugby (mostly related to brain damage, not broken bones/joints).
    - pyrale 2y ago
      Also to make it a sports contest and not a pharma contest. It's the same reason there's a minimum weight for bikes used in the race: people tend to disregard security when making lighter bikes, and the cost of experiments means that some competitors exit the sport because they can't compete on funding.
gosub100 2y ago
And to me, there's a distinction between taking a drug that increases availability of red blood cells vs taking steroids or meth.
- skeeter2020 2y ago
  What's the distinction? What about taking something when you have a cold, or nutritional supplements? It seems weird to draw an arbitrary line between things that make a body perform by stimulating natural production vs directly using synthetics.
  - jerlam 2y ago
    Seconded, there is no clear line between banned drugs that help you cheat and drugs that fix medical conditions. There are drugs that are allowed if you have a doctor's note, and there are drugs that you can use only up to a certain amount. Asthma meds for cycling, some of which are steroids, are one of the more popular examples: https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/the-truth-about-cycling-and-asthma-317941 https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/the-truth-abo...
    - vbarrielle 2y ago
      WADA rules do not ban a drug just because it is performance enhancing. Otherwise caffeine would be banned. Two out of three factors have to be present to ban a drug: - be performance enhancing - present a health risk - violate the spirit of sport The third one is a bit harder to define but there is a WADA code defining the spirit of sport. Most banned drugs are banned because of the first two.
      - Someone 2y ago
        > Two out of three factors have to be present to ban a drug: > - be performance enhancing - present a health risk - violate the spirit of sport There also are drugs banned that mask the use of performance enhancing drugs. You could call that “violate the spirit of the sport”, but that’s so vague a term it could cover anything.
parthdesai 2y ago
My personal semi-conspiracy theory is that cycling is the only sport that took anti doping measures seriously and sort of fucked itself over. All the "anti" doping measures in major sports are laughable. There's too much money involved for the athletes to be not on steroids.
- jimbokun 2y ago
  Based on what? Have revenues for pro cycling dropped off? I honestly don’t know.
- borroka 2y ago
  If it were only for the money...In CrossFit, even in competitions at the regional or provincial level, the top positions are practically all taken by athletes who use performance-enhancing drugs. Or, to take another example, in jiu jitsu, a discipline in which you almost always have to pay to compete and win nothing but a medal that will cost five dollars at the department store, I would venture to say that at least 90% of those placed in the top positions use PEDs.

knallfrosch 2y ago

And since everyone is taking them, they're not the discriminator between the world class champions and the merely Tour-de-France participants.

matthewowen 2y ago
There is a common refrain about the Armstrong era "all the top guys were taking them so it's fair" but it's not really accurate. Because yes, the people at the top were all taking them, but that's because the clean guys that _would_ have been at the top otherwise aren't there: the prevalence of doping meant that you had to dope to even be in the conversation at that level, and so the clean athletes that might have won otherwise aren't coming in 18th, they're at home on the couch or they're racing at the pro-conti level. For example, Greg LeMond won the TdF in 1990. In 1991 he came 7th, and then never completed it again. There is some complication here because of the hunting accident he suffered in '87, but he also said "The speeds were faster and riders that I had easily outperformed were now dropping me", and the guy who won in 1991 was Indurain who was basically the first mega-doper. Without EPO and blood doping becoming prevalent, does Greg LeMond compete for a few more years? Do other guys with similar talent who aren't willing to dope also make it to that top level. I think the answer is probably yes, and so all those guys who doped are responsible for excluding those clean athletes from the top level.
- vbarrielle 2y ago
  You're spot on, and there's another point that makes doping unfair even if it was widespread. There is a max hematocrit rule, but riders had different pre-doping base hematocrit levels. Those with the lowest level could benefit more from doping before reaching the limit. In a way, the less gifted would be more advantaged by EPO.

alistairSH 2y ago

In professional sports taking drugs is not considered a secret, it's common practice Fixed. Cycling has one of the strictest out-of-competition testing regimens. Which isn't to say doping doesn't exist - it does, no question - only that it's WAY better now than during the Armstrong era. Some details... https://lanternerouge.com/2023/03/26/how-clean-is-cycling-analysing-the-anti-doping-fight/ https://lanternerouge.com/2023/03/26/how-clean-is-cycling-an...

skeeter2020 2y ago
They're still fighting a losing battle. The business of cycling dictates that they remain ever vigilant and attempt to catch dopers and keep the sport "clean", while the science of what the atheletes are trying to do suggests they should just accept the reality and not police legal vs. illegal. It's like a drug-free body building contenst; what's the point?
- skhr0680 2y ago
  > It's like a drug-free body building contenst; what's the point? The point is to not die or be in a wheelchair by the time you’re 60
  - matwood 2y ago
    If that's the goal, then you might as well get rid of all contact sports - drugs or not.
    - alistairSH 2y ago
      Probably a case to be made for doing that. At least with martial arts/combat sports, American football, and probably rugby (mostly related to brain damage, not broken bones/joints).
  - pyrale 2y ago
    Also to make it a sports contest and not a pharma contest. It's the same reason there's a minimum weight for bikes used in the race: people tend to disregard security when making lighter bikes, and the cost of experiments means that some competitors exit the sport because they can't compete on funding.

gosub100 2y ago

And to me, there's a distinction between taking a drug that increases availability of red blood cells vs taking steroids or meth.

skeeter2020 2y ago
What's the distinction? What about taking something when you have a cold, or nutritional supplements? It seems weird to draw an arbitrary line between things that make a body perform by stimulating natural production vs directly using synthetics.
- jerlam 2y ago
  Seconded, there is no clear line between banned drugs that help you cheat and drugs that fix medical conditions. There are drugs that are allowed if you have a doctor's note, and there are drugs that you can use only up to a certain amount. Asthma meds for cycling, some of which are steroids, are one of the more popular examples: https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/the-truth-about-cycling-and-asthma-317941 https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/the-truth-abo...
  - vbarrielle 2y ago
    WADA rules do not ban a drug just because it is performance enhancing. Otherwise caffeine would be banned. Two out of three factors have to be present to ban a drug: - be performance enhancing - present a health risk - violate the spirit of sport The third one is a bit harder to define but there is a WADA code defining the spirit of sport. Most banned drugs are banned because of the first two.
    - Someone 2y ago
      > Two out of three factors have to be present to ban a drug: > - be performance enhancing - present a health risk - violate the spirit of sport There also are drugs banned that mask the use of performance enhancing drugs. You could call that “violate the spirit of the sport”, but that’s so vague a term it could cover anything.

parthdesai 2y ago

My personal semi-conspiracy theory is that cycling is the only sport that took anti doping measures seriously and sort of fucked itself over. All the "anti" doping measures in major sports are laughable. There's too much money involved for the athletes to be not on steroids.

jimbokun 2y ago
Based on what? Have revenues for pro cycling dropped off? I honestly don’t know.
borroka 2y ago
If it were only for the money...In CrossFit, even in competitions at the regional or provincial level, the top positions are practically all taken by athletes who use performance-enhancing drugs. Or, to take another example, in jiu jitsu, a discipline in which you almost always have to pay to compete and win nothing but a medal that will cost five dollars at the department store, I would venture to say that at least 90% of those placed in the top positions use PEDs.