Cyclist Vaughters gives an impassioned explanation of why he and other pros cheat

jikugki wrote:

Those aren't the only 2 choices. The 3rd choice is to keep training and become better.

That is a a very simple minded approach to a what is a complex issue. Things aren't that simple.

Koppenberg wrote:

People choose to be intentionally ignorant and pretend that is is a simple black/white distinction w/ weak-minded cheaters on one side and hard working pure-minded champions on the other.

This. The reason champions dope (steroids, anyway) is so they can work *harder*.

Yes, there are lower-level athletes who think that drugs are a shortcut. But generally speaking the juicers are the hardest-working people in the gym. They know that it's WORK that makes you better--and they do whatever they can so that they can work more.

Yes, it's not simple, but it is still true. Cycling is weird. Morale is hugely important, and cyclist with the best morale have the best results and those with low morale have a terrible time.

Also technique is hugely important, just simple things like dropping down a gear or lowering the ankle at the precise moment in the pedal revolution, makes big differences to avoiding fatique.

EPO increases blood viscosity, which is a disadvantage. It also increases glycogen uptake, which is a point that all the physiologists seem to have missed. Placebe effect is underated.

Vaughters is the man who got a doctor's note to say that his hematocrit wat naturally 52 insted of 42 (or less when you are super hydrated).

broken arrow wrote:

You are kidding right?

The same logic would mean that it would not be murder if everybody does it.

Yeah, that's called a war, and that is exactly how it works.

unbrainwashed wrote:

Yes, it's not simple, but it is still true. Cycling is weird. Morale is hugely important, and cyclist with the best morale have the best results and those with low morale have a terrible time.

Also technique is hugely important, just simple things like dropping down a gear or lowering the ankle at the precise moment in the pedal revolution, makes big differences to avoiding fatique.

EPO increases blood viscosity, which is a disadvantage. It also increases glycogen uptake, which is a point that all the physiologists seem to have missed. Placebe effect is underated.

Vaughters is the man who got a doctor's note to say that his hematocrit wat naturally 52 insted of 42 (or less when you are super hydrated).

What are you talking about? Please be trolling.

Morale is what makes a rider fast? So Lance just had better morale for 7 years?

Technique? So of all of these lifetime pros only some of them know how to gear their bikes properly? Please.

Ankle angle - not a factor. Dude, I don't know where you got your info, but none of it is correct.

EPO is a placebo? Awesome.

Like Koppenberg said, it is in part the fans who suck.

That's why I start threads on people I believe to have been clean, even though they aren't necessarily champions--like Collins, Patton, Lemaitre, etc.

I really do appreciate performances I think were clean, and laugh at those I think were doped, because I know they are more absurd than impressive.

Also, one other thing: even among highly-trained athletes, at least in the sprints, juicing can make a much greater difference than the 2% suggested. Take Jeter as an example--from 2004-2006 she was running mid-11's, and she got down to around 10.7, which represents a 0.80 improvement, which is 7% of 11.5

That is huge. Juicing is done by not only those who have worked hard and might be within 2% of the top, it is also done by those who can see the top, but who are nowhere near it--like an 11.5 female 100m sprinter.

Also, masters athletes juice. Why? Overcompensation and unfinished business. Check it out: I've gone 11.8 this year, not all-out because of injury. I could easily have gone 11.5, again. What if I started using? Given how hard I train, a decent response could be expected. Let's say my response wasn't as dramatic as Jeter's--let's say that I would get to 10.8 That would be very, very close to the masters WR in my age group. If I responded as well as Jeter, I would have it.

I'm sure that some people find this kind of incentive compelling. Personally, I don't. I'm so not-serious about it that I won't even run a meet that takes more than 15 minutes to get to--but some masters take it very seriously, maybe trying to recapture youth, or win some races against local competition, something they couldn't, or didn't, do when competing open, or in college, where the times are faster than at local track meets.

There's also just the effect of aging that people are trying to overcome. With masters, the reasoning is obvious--but I think it applies to open athletes as well. After a guy hits 30 or 35, performance slips, no matter who you are. Check out Lagat at the Olympics, you can tell that he is a step slower at 37. Now, nobody would deny that Lagat is still elite--of course he is--but when people in his position decide to juice, it's not necessarily to get that 2%, it is to regain something that has just recently been lost. And, it can happen even at age 30. People would take stuff not necessarily to win, but to get back to feeling that winning is an actual possibility, and to reverse the inevitable trend of getting slower and weaker. To feel better about themselves, in short.

Anyway, I think that the benefit even among the highly trained can be very much greater than a mere 2%, and that the benefit among the less-highly-trained can be absolutely gigantic. If it would be 7% in people like Jeter, I would say that 25% or more gain would be achievable for a weekend warrior.

Oh boy, you need to learn something about cycling.

Morale is absolutely hugely important. You have obviously no experiennce of bike racing.

Pro's often overgear.

Proper ankling technique is something you should try, I reccomend you learn it. When you drop the ankle, you use different muscle groups, and this helps prevent fatigue.

EPO, does increase blood viscosity and it does increase glycogen uptake.

As for calling me a troll. How many thousands of opinionated posts have you made? Perhaps you should a life get?

unbrainwashed wrote:

EPO increases blood viscosity, which is a disadvantage. It also increases glycogen uptake, which is a point that all the physiologists seem to have missed. Placebe effect is underated.

LOl yeah EPO is just a a placebo that's only why EVERY ascendance athlete with a mind set to dope has taken it. Steroids work! That's why people take them. Read the articles and books written by guys, regular guys not super elites, that have experimented with the stuff.

Oh, and in cycling, people probably feel that they need to justify their $3k-$10k bike.

"tacomafan wrote:

I think a lot of you are missing a key point by looking at this as a cycling issue. Do you think track is different?

To me it's different. I've never watched a 5000 on TV and been absolutely sure that 80% of the field is juiced. Late 90's/early 2000's anybody that knew anything knew 80% of the tour de france field was doped.

I'm not saying doping was ever the right thing to do. However, it's easy for me to see how if you're in the perfectly wrong situation and every single person on your 10+ person team is on the juice it would be difficult to be the clean guy and get your ass kicked or go back to America and get a office job."

When I watched 11 guys break 13 min in one race before London, all I could think was EPO. Results like that just can't be taken seriously.

A Slightly More Credible Hulk wrote:

But of course Lance said no, resisted the temptation to cheat and STILL beat everybody by miles. Imagine how good he would have been if he had cheated.

Or Rupp and Farrah.

I'm not religious, and I don't believe in god, but I do believe the Bible and many other religious texts have wisdom all the same. And the Bible says something that all athletes who are considering doping, should think about:

"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?"

Even if you don't believe in a physical soul (as I do not), there is nonetheless a metaphysical one...it is our self-worth, our pride, our innate human dignity, and it can be just as readily traded as any material good, for money, fame, success.

These athletes may well be ambitious and achieve their dreams with the use of drugs, but at the cost of what makes them special. They are instead just another doper. And sure they'll have success and fame and money and admiration, but underneath it all is undoubtedly the niggling thought, "Could I have done it legitimately? Did I REALLY do all I could do before resorting to drugs?" They will never know how could they really could've been, how much of that success was theirs, and how much was Big Pharma.

And they will live their lives under the Sword of Damocles, waiting for it come down when they miss-time one dose too late in their training, or just one blood sample is tested again with a new, more accurate exam.

And when they are dead, the speculation will endure. And they will forever be tainted.

"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?" Indeed.

jikugki wrote:Those aren't the only 2 choices. The 3rd choice is to keep training and become better.

The other choice is to have different parents and different genetics. Doping makes up for that.

A question is what is the point of sport. Do you just want to find the most talented people, if so, how do you encourage the less talented to allow themselves to lose repeatedly, especially now with science they get detailed feedback that tells them they can never beat the top performers. In the old days without that information athletes could always kid themselves they'd get better.

Or do you want to see a (biological) level playing field where sport rewards effort, maybe tactics, and a certain amount of luck.

Take Bradley Wiggins, he doesn't just work hard (everybody works hard) he's also just different:

Actually, if you want to find 'the most talented', you could probably just take them into a lab and run some tests ;)

EZ10Miler wrote:

unbrainwashed wrote:

EPO increases blood viscosity, which is a disadvantage. It also increases glycogen uptake, which is a point that all the physiologists seem to have missed. Placebe effect is underated.

LOl yeah EPO is just a a placebo that's only why EVERY ascendance athlete with a mind set to dope has taken it. Steroids work! That's why people take them. Read the articles and books written by guys, regular guys not super elites, that have experimented with the stuff.

Shut up and read this:

moshimoshi wrote:

The other choice is to have different parents and different genetics. Doping makes up for that.

There is no evidence that endurance performance is strongly dependent on genetics. It may or may not, but at the current state of science, there is no proof that genetics has anything to do with it. If you've seen research that states otherwise, please link it to me.

What we need is stronger punishment. It needs to be considered as some kind of fraud and warrant jail time. And also a permanent suspension from the sport on the 1st offense.

And to those blaming the fans and the sponsors...that is a load of fuzz. No one is making them dope except themselves. The fans and the sponsors don't care how many records you have. They care about your market value. See: Lochte, Kournikova, Allison Stokke, etc.

And no, I'm not someone who has ever been 2% behind the top. I've been AT the top. No drugs needed.

Vaughters agrees with you."They [professional athletes] must know, without doubt, that they will have a fair chance by racing clean. And for them to do that, the rules must be enforced, and the painful effort to make that happen must be unending and ruthless. Antidoping enforcement is 1,000 percent better than in my era of competition, and that brings me great satisfaction. But we must support these efforts even more.Almost every athlete I’ve met who has doped will say they did it only because they wanted a level playing field. That says something: everyone wants a fair chance, not more. So, let’s give our young athletes a level playing field, without doping. Let’s put our effort and resources into making sport fair, so that no athlete faces this decision ever again. We put so much emotion into marketing and idolizing athletes, let’s put that same zeal into giving them what they really want: the ability to live their dreams without compromising their morals. "

jikugki wrote:

What we need is stronger punishment. It needs to be considered as some kind of fraud and warrant jail time. And also a permanent suspension from the sport on the 1st offense.

And to those blaming the fans and the sponsors...that is a load of fuzz. No one is making them dope except themselves. The fans and the sponsors don't care how many records you have. They care about your market value. See: Lochte, Kournikova, Allison Stokke, etc.

And no, I'm not someone who has ever been 2% behind the top. I've been AT the top. No drugs needed.

That's fine except for the part where he says athletes need to be given the ability to live their dreams without compromising their morals. They already have that ability. No one can give it to them except for themselves. Stop being weak. Take responsibility for your decisions.