Interesting discussion between a couple of non cycling but v good athleates (track) friends of mine on FB about doping, if what they are saying is true, it makes you wonder how much of the whole doping scandal is politically motivated
Nick Andrews
I don’t know much about drugs in cycling , however what I do know about blood doping is that at high performance it may not necessarily improve performance, there are many considerations and factors to assertain this . Also , on a broader note , it seems that great performance is the result of some kind of ergogenic aid nowadays with people forgetting the obvious ! . Well let’s state the obvious then . There is absolute no substitute for Intense training and mental agility and the desire to win . Lance Armstrong is what he is because of those two biggest factors . Any other intervention would ‘perhaps’ and its a big ‘perhaps’ would serve to give him an edge, that’s all , however with everyone else on doping methods, if convicted it would just mean its nice to know that he was not at a disadvantage and so he was in a fair position from the start. I can’t see a reason why they would strip his titles over this ??? And if not convicted perhaps blood doping actually gives athletes a disadvantage ! Karma for you 😉
Like · · 7 hours ago via Mobile ·
4 people like this.
Mark Rogers Exactly right mate. He was the best at the time they were all doping. That is why he is suffering more than the dopers he was up against. He was one of the greatest cyclists and athletes that has ever lived- physically and mentally- anyone that argues that is talking rubbish. If he, and everyone was clean, he’d have still dominated. It’s just a shame that doping went on (and still does). If people feel that strongly about doping in cycling, they should turn their anger and critisism to the UCI- not so much Lance Armstrong, as he was just a small part of the promoted doping culture.
6 hours ago · Like
Nick Andrews Hey man Yeh , I know bud . Just seems crazy that people just don’t understand that he’s the best because of all the important attributes . Plus doping actually has a lot of negative effects and not everyone tolerates its effects on the body in the same way . An improved oxygen carrying capacity comes at the cost of increased plasma volume , high blood pressure and increased strain on the cv system , plus the blood is more viscous and the bodys cooling system doesn’t operate effectively . This is probably the most limiting factor as if you start to overheat then your performance declines rapidly .
6 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1
Mark Rogers It’s the way everything is explained in the media mate. They thrive off disgracing people, when the ignorant journalists don’t present any of those points you’ve made- they make it sound as if doping could turn a couch potato into a world champion. People believe this crap too. The people that argue with me about this, are generally people that don’t know the first thing about cycling and sport and what it takes to be at the top. It was the very top athletes that doped- and it wasn’t a case of doping to get to that level. One theory is that the UCI promoted doping to get more spectacular one-off performances in the Tours to make cycling a more appealing sport to the masses. Thats all doping could do- it inconsistantly improves recovery, meaning that some performances would be ‘a bit better than usual’.
6 hours ago · Edited · Like
Nick Andrews Man ! It doesn’t suprise me mark . After all sport like most things in a capitalist society is just as much as a business as everything else . Your right , they make it sound as though drugs are a magic potion that will give you superhuman powers . It’s just not the case and its an art to get the extra edge . I wonder whether the action of such things merely act as a placebo effect . And the media … well they got to sell the papers ! Crazy world