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

unbrainwashed wrote:

That's fine except when most of the peloton is doping, and the team doctor says it's ok you won't test postive, and the management turn a blind eye etc etc etc.

The culture of doping is what needs to be adressed, not just individual choice.

What does that have to do with it? No one is MAKING them dope. The decision is entirely in the athlete's hands. All they have to do is say no.

unbrainwashed wrote:

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?

Ha! Now I know you are trolling. Thanks for being so obvious, now I don't have to waste my time educating you about cycling.

Along these lines Hamilton says that the story of doping is:

"[Is] really about making choices when you're pushed to the edge and deciding what you are willing to do to compete."

Gotta love the geezer ego. Always finds away to make the thread about himself. Flagpole Willy would be proud:

Wow. What a guy. Geezer KNOWS who is clean and who isn't, and then praises the poor little hard working honest losers who don't win. What a hero. ALL fans should be like geezer! If they were, the world would be perfect!

Translation: if I wasn't injured, I could "EASILY" run 11.5 as a masters. Pretty impressive, eh? And if I tried at all, which I don't, I'd run even a lot faster. Pretty impressive, eh? And if I doped, which a lot of masters runners do, I could hold the masters WR. Yup, if I trained like other top masters, and doped like many of them do, I would be WORLD RECORD HOLDER. That's how talented I am. But I don't try because I am not like those other losers trying to beat up local competition or recapture youth. No. I am too cool for that, and don't need to prove anything to anyone. Yup, total badass. But this thread isn't about me.....

'THEN, just short of finally living your childhood dream, you are told, either straight out or implicitly, by some coaches, mentors, even the boss, that you aren’t going to make it, unless you cheat.'

Strange that he does not manage getting beat in races? Sounds like someone not as talented as he thought he the was to me. I would have more respect for him if he was robbing banks. Just admit what your are doing is wrong and you don't give a toss

jikugki wrote:

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.

How on earth can you say this? All people have different genes. Genes code for proteins. We are nothing more than a big blob of protein that dictates our performance as it interacts with our environment. Adaptation is at its essence is protein synthesis. How could genes not have anything to do with difference in performance?

There are responders and non responders to identical training, which shows a significant genetic component.

Here's a pretty important study:

Agree with this. To argue that genetics is indepedent of endurance performance is absurd. Before they started training, most (if not all) elite distance runners were faster than their untrained peers. Look at Meb's comment about running a 5:20 mile in 7th grade. Look at your own experience. Plenty of runners training in a nearly identical or merely comparable way and get vastly different results. Almost anyone is physically capable of running 130 mpw but very few will ever run a sub-2:20 marathon.

Twain said it best wrote:

How on earth can you say this? All people have different genes. Genes code for proteins. We are nothing more than a big blob of protein that dictates our performance as it interacts with our environment. Adaptation is at its essence is protein synthesis. How could genes not have anything to do with difference in performance?

There are responders and non responders to identical training, which shows a significant genetic component.

Here's a pretty important study:

http://www.jappl.org/content/87/3/1003.full

That paper does not show a genetic component. It shows a slight correlation between family members. That could be explained by several others possibilities. Proof of a genetic limit/link to performance would be if they found a gene. They did not find a gene. They did not even look for one.

I didn't say that genes do NOT have anything to do with it. I specifically said that they may or they may not, but so far there has been no proof. Only suggested possibilities.

What is your point about Meb's 5:20 in 7th grade? That wasn't particularly impressive and is on par with what an average - above average distance runner might be expected to run at that age. It clearly is not predictive of his eventual success.

Talentmythbuster wrote:

Agree with this. To argue that genetics is indepedent of endurance performance is absurd. Before they started training, most (if not all) elite distance runners were faster than their untrained peers. Look at Meb's comment about running a 5:20 mile in 7th grade. Look at your own experience. Plenty of runners training in a nearly identical or merely comparable way and get vastly different results. Almost anyone is physically capable of running 130 mpw but very few will ever run a sub-2:20 marathon.

You honestly believe that any randomly chosen child could be trained to beat Usain Bolt's time in the 100 meter dash?

If so, I applaud your faith in accepting your mother's "you can be anything you want to be" speech, but can only shake my head in amazement.

jikugki wrote:

That paper does not show a genetic component. It shows a slight correlation between family members. That could be explained by several others possibilities. Proof of a genetic limit/link to performance would be if they found a gene. They did not find a gene. They did not even look for one.

I didn't say that genes do NOT have anything to do with it. I specifically said that they may or they may not, but so far there has been no proof. Only suggested possibilities.

You clearly have no grasp of how biology works.

Please explain to me how performance could EVER have no genetic component? Someone is training. They have genes. Any physiological change in physiology requires the turning on and off of genes that code for protein synthesis. So how can performance ever be independent of a person's genes? The only discussion to be had is what portion of improvement is due to genes.

And btw, the authors state: "We conclude that the trainability ofV˙o 2 max is highly familial and includes a significant genetic component." What exactly is unclear to you about that? And nitpicking about how we don't know until the we find a gene shows a clear lack of understanding of the complexity of performance. There is not one gene, there are many, many genes that effect it. Having the right set of genes is obviously important and if you refuse to accept the standards in science that statistically determine the portion accountable to genetics, then you should also dismiss everything else you think you know.Those same statistical methods are always used in the study of physiology.

And we don't ever "prove" things in science, we support them and disprove them. This study is very, very good support that there is a significant portion of adaptability to training that is genetic.

The HERITAGE study is widely regarded as profoundly important in our understanding how genetics effect response to exercise. So if you plan to criticize it, you have a quite a task ahead of you.

The problem with the piece is that he really does not offer a way to stop doping.

Who is Jonathan Vaughters?

Jonathan Vaughters is CEO of Team Garmin-Sharp and former professional rider. Former teammate of Lance Armstrong on US Postal during Lance's first victory in 1999. He he held the record for fastest ascent of Mont Ventoux, until it was broken by Iban Mayo in 2004One incident during his career shows just how ridiculous the PED policy is in biking: (Remember he was doped up on EPO at the time)-He was again forced to retire from the Tour however, Suffering from a wasp sting above his right eye during the 14th stage, and it is prohibited by the Union Cycliste international to use cortizone for the treatment of any wounds.

?!? wrote:

Who is Jonathan Vaughters?

Aghast wrote:

it’s like fudging your income taxes in a world where the government doesn’t audit. Think of what you would do if there were no Internal Revenue Service."

I like this part of Vaughter's quote.

I don't have an especially complicated tax return, but there is enough going on (multiple sources of income, multiple residences, running a business) that there is obviously a spectrum of ways someone in my position could file. Do I make every single decision on that? Of course not. I pay an expert a small pile of money to do so for me, and trust that as a professional in a regulated field he is doing well for me but staying within current bounds and norms, and of course the law. When I ask if I can deduct something, he frequently says something like "most in your position do," and I go with that. If he said, "no, that would be unusual," I wouldn't do it.

Same goes for many pro athletes (definitely cyclists) and their team doctors, trainers, etc. The hazy area as one moves from 'supplements' to 'prescription medication' to 'cheating' is not always directly navigated by the athlete. But they trust that they are being steered into the same waters as most of their competition. That's the mentality of most of the now-retired 90s cyclists I've chatted with - taking what you were told was part of the job, and it was pretty clear that everyone else was, anyway. So yeah, go ahead and write off that flight.

Another Option wrote:

You honestly believe that any randomly chosen child could be trained to beat Usain Bolt's time in the 100 meter dash?

If so, I applaud your faith in accepting your mother's "you can be anything you want to be" speech, but can only shake my head in amazement.

I didn't say any of that or anything about what I believe. All I said was there is no concrete evidence either way.

But their is concrete historical data suggesting that genetics matters.

jikugki wrote:

I didn't say any of that or anything about what I believe. All I said was there is no concrete evidence either way.

YOU clearly have no grasp of how biology works nor do you have a good level of reading comprehension.

I said that there is no evidence that endurance performance is strongly dependent on genes. I believe that is the same thing as what you just said which was: "The only discussion to be had is what portion of improvement is due to genes".

This study is NOT a very, very good support that there is a significant portion of adaptability to training that is genetic. There are not even any genes in the entire study! That's not "nitpicking". You don't arrive at genetic conclusions without any genes. The authors of that paper made huge leaps in logic with their conclusion. They didn't investigate any other possible reasons for the family linking of vo2max numbers. Families share lots of things for lots of reasons. Many of these similarities have nothing to do with genes.

That paper is just full of bad science. I don't care how widely regarded the paper is. Its conclusion is premature and inappropriate in a scientific context.

So.... wrote:

But their is concrete historical data suggesting that genetics matters.

Like what? Anything with actual identified genes?