EPO etc

Quoted message said:

I've been pondering performance enhancing drugs on my daily commute
(as you do), and I was wondering, since the average slob i.e. me
doesn't compete or have any desire to compete in cycling competitions
is there any reason why we couldn't use performance enhancers to knock
a few minutes off the commute? Or extend touring range from ~80km to
200+km per day, day after day after day?

I think I read of young cyclists dying from heart attacks while using
EPO, so that's probably not the best example, and frankly the blood
doping thing grosses me out (those are pretty much the only two I know
of), but since there'd be no drug testing involved there'd be no
requirement for the drugs to "hide" in the blood stream.

Personally I limit my drugs to alcohol, caffeine and things you can
buy from the chemist shop so this is purely a theoretical question.
I'm assuming there's more than a few good reasons why the average
commuter/tourer isn't chock full of performance enhancing drugs, but
inquiring minds need to know and all that.

Unknown long term side effects, expensive, increased risk of heart
failure. go for it ... Why not just ride a motorbike?

Bleve said:

Unknown long term side effects, expensive, increased risk of heart
failure.

I knew there'd be a catch. So there's no safe ones? I suppose it
makes sense that there wouldn't be since I assume they're all pushing
the body well above it's natural performance threshold.

Quoted message said:

go for it ... Why not just ride a motorbike?

Well for touring I do, and I used to commute on one too. It's not so
much the performance (or lack thereof in my case) that's holding me
back from bicycle touring, it's more the fear of being flattened from
behind by an [censored] driver who can't be bothered moving over 1/2 a
metre even when there's no oncoming traffic.

For commuting I'll stick to my bicycle :-)

Quoted message said:

I've been pondering performance enhancing drugs on my daily commute

Quoted message said:

I'm assuming there's more than a few good reasons why the average
commuter/tourer isn't chock full of performance enhancing drugs, but
inquiring minds need to know and all that.

Cost?

Theo

Theo Bekkers said:

Cost?
Theo

To some people cost is not an issue..... I actually wonder sometimes if it actually seeps down to amateur type competition such as the local triathlon races/running/cycling events... be interesting to see if someone did an anonymous survey of competitors.

Theo Bekkers said:

Quoted message said:

I've been pondering performance enhancing drugs on my daily commute

Quoted message said:

I'm assuming there's more than a few good reasons why the average
commuter/tourer isn't chock full of performance enhancing drugs, but
inquiring minds need to know and all that.

Cost?

And side effects. For example, anabolic steroids can cause harmful
changes in cholesterol levels; high blood pressure; liver damage; and
dangerouse changes in the structure of the left ventricle of the heart
(according to Pikiwedia.)

Drug abuse is an issue in sport not so much because of the competitive
edge they can give, but because of the negative side effects. There is
*no* drug available that has no negative side effects whatsoever, and
dosage needs to be carefully controlled to help ameliorate that; in the
context of athletic competition, dosage is often not controlled so
carefully. The competitive edge is the impetus for doping; the negative
side effects of doping (and hence the long term detrimental effect on
the athlete's health) are the impetus for prohibition. If it was all
about minimising the competitive edge, after all, you'd see carbon fibre
banned from cycling. :-)

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@ to usenet".

Theo Bekkers said:

Quoted message said:

I've been pondering performance enhancing drugs on my daily commute
I'm assuming there's more than a few good reasons why the average
commuter/tourer isn't chock full of performance enhancing drugs, but
inquiring minds need to know and all that.

Cost?

I guess so. I wouldn't even know what to buy, nevermind how much it
would cost. I guess autologous blood doping is more or less free, but
it's still pretty gross. I don't need to ride my bicycle *that* much
better.

On Jul 26, 9:38 am, MikeyOz <MikeyOz.2ua...@no-

mx.forums.cyclingforums.com said:

Theo Bekkers said:

Cost?
Theo

To some people cost is not an issue..... I actually wonder sometimes if
it actually seeps down to amateur type competition such as the local
triathlon races/running/cycling events... be interesting to see if
someone did an anonymous survey of competitors.

The first Australian done for EPO in bike racing was racing crits at
Glenvale in '04 and competing at state level in the Victorian team
pursuit squad.

so, yes ...

Quoted message said:

--
MikeyOz

Bleve said:

On Jul 26, 9:38 am, MikeyOz <MikeyOz.2ua...@no-

mx.forums.cyclingforums.com said:

Theo Bekkers Wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cost?
Theo

Quoted message said:

To some people cost is not an issue..... I actually wonder sometimes if
it actually seeps down to amateur type competition such as the local
triathlon races/running/cycling events... be interesting to see if
someone did an anonymous survey of competitors.

The first Australian done for EPO in bike racing was racing crits at
Glenvale in '04 and competing at state level in the Victorian team
pursuit squad.

Mea Culpa, Rob Wilson in '03.

MikeyOz said:

Theo Bekkers said:

Cost?
Theo

To some people cost is not an issue..... I actually wonder sometimes if
it actually seeps down to amateur type competition such as the local
triathlon races/running/cycling events... be interesting to see if
someone did an anonymous survey of competitors.

Mikey given the amount of drafting in triathlons (and I'm sure you've
seen your share) I'd be bloody surprised if there wasn't performance
enhancing drugs in use to some extent. Too much bloody ego near the
front of the age groupers (I'll be content way down the back of the pack).

DaveB

[email hidden said:

"]I've been pondering performance enhancing drugs on my daily commute
(as you do), and I was wondering, since the average slob i.e. me
doesn't compete or have any desire to compete in cycling competitions
is there any reason why we couldn't use performance enhancers to knock
a few minutes off the commute? Or extend touring range from ~80km to
200+km per day, day after day after day?

Amphetamines. They're your best bet for shaving a few seconds off your commute time. That, and getting up 30min earlier to beat the traffic. The latter isn't really a banned substance so can be ignored. Benefit is you also get a lot more cleaning done and can enjoy the clubbing scene all while holding down a 9-5 job!

Salbutimol(?) asthma inhaler stuff to expand your airways. I'm sure docs are still lax with their prescriptions..

Cortisone injections for your touring, when that knee pain just gets too bad.

EPO and other blood doping methods require a bit too much kit for your average commuter.

Good luck and be sure to post your new PBs!

hippy aka Dr Ferrari

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:05:43 -0700

Quoted message said:

Personally I limit my drugs to alcohol, caffeine and things you can
buy from the chemist shop so this is purely a theoretical question.
I'm assuming there's more than a few good reasons why the average
commuter/tourer isn't chock full of performance enhancing drugs, but
inquiring minds need to know and all that.

1) how do you know they aren't? Not as if speed is unknown to
non-racers. For all you know there are commuters out there on
amphetamines.

2) expense - coffee is cheaper than speed.

3) availability - how many commuters know where to find some? Dunno
about you but i'd have no idea how to find decent gear compared to
being ripped off as a hopelessly middle class greenie. When I was in
my 20s I had not that much trouble finding the stuff (although I only
tried it once) but now?

Zebee

[email hidden said:

"]I've been pondering performance enhancing drugs on my daily commute
(as you do), and I was wondering, since the average slob i.e. me
doesn't compete or have any desire to compete in cycling competitions
is there any reason why we couldn't use performance enhancers to knock
a few minutes off the commute? Or extend touring range from ~80km to
200+km per day, day after day after day?

I think I read of young cyclists dying from heart attacks while using
EPO, so that's probably not the best example, and frankly the blood
doping thing grosses me out (those are pretty much the only two I know
of), but since there'd be no drug testing involved there'd be no
requirement for the drugs to "hide" in the blood stream.

Personally I limit my drugs to alcohol, caffeine and things you can
buy from the chemist shop so this is purely a theoretical question.
I'm assuming there's more than a few good reasons why the average
commuter/tourer isn't chock full of performance enhancing drugs, but
inquiring minds need to know and all that.

there was a really scary dodo on SBS a few years ago (now is a good time to repeat it) on footballers who played for Juventus in Serie A. It showed that many of them had a degenerative spinal cord disease, many others had suddenly died.

The only commuters full of performance enhancing drugs are the ones that pass me:-)

On Jul 26, 10:30 am, hippy <hippy.2ua...@no-

mx.forums.cyclingforums.com said:

Amphetamines. They're your best bet for shaving a few seconds off your
commute time. That, and getting up 30min earlier to beat the traffic.
The latter isn't really a banned substance so can be ignored. Benefit
is you also get a lot more cleaning done and can enjoy the clubbing
scene all while holding down a 9-5 job!

No traffic here (gotta love country towns). I'd never considered
amphetamines, I thought they were just for long haul truckies and
mostly keeping you awake (showing my ignorance here I know). Feeling
sleepy is not a problem on my daily commute (neither is running out of
puff so much anymore, like I said, it was purely theoretical).

Quoted message said:

Salbutimol(?) asthma inhaler stuff to expand your airways. I'm sure
docs are still lax with their prescriptions..

I'm normally gasping away frantically so I'm not sure I need that.

Quoted message said:

Cortisone injections for your touring, when that knee pain just gets
too bad.

I have dicky knees but I hate injections. Interesting point though.

Quoted message said:

EPO and other blood doping methods require a bit too much kit for your
average commuter.

Good luck and be sure to post your new PBs!

About 18 minutes is my record. I'm pretty consistent provided there's
no headwind ;-)

DaveB said:

Mikey given the amount of drafting in triathlons (and I'm sure you've
seen your share) I'd be bloody surprised if there wasn't performance
enhancing drugs in use to some extent. Too much bloody ego near the
front of the age groupers (I'll be content way down the back of the pack).
DaveB

Yep... I totally agee with you.... I was getting to that very competitive stage and got sick of trying to stay with 3 or 4 riders drafting each other on a 20km course..... yet the motorbike draft patrollers never pull them over. Its bullsh&t and it is all about ego and beating the other person, particuarly in the sprint races, the longer races are definately better in that aspect.

Like yourself, its just trying to beat a PB, without cheating or if it turns out to be a bad day, just finishing!! 🙂

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:05:43 -0700

Quoted message said:

Personally I limit my drugs to alcohol, caffeine and things you can
buy from the chemist shop so this is purely a theoretical question.
I'm assuming there's more than a few good reasons why the average
commuter/tourer isn't chock full of performance enhancing drugs, but
inquiring minds need to know and all that.

1) how do you know they aren't? Not as if speed is unknown to
non-racers. For all you know there are commuters out there on
amphetamines.

True! Are amphetamines really going to enhance cycling performance
(strength, endurance) though? I have no idea, so I'm open to
enlightenment.

Quoted message said:

2) expense - coffee is cheaper than speed.

And probably tastes better too. I used to gulp down a Red Bull
between laps of a Pony Express back in my MX "racing" (for want of a
better word) days, but to be perfectly honest I felt that a giant
killer python lolly and some Powerade had a more significant impact.

Quoted message said:

3) availability - how many commuters know where to find some? Dunno
about you but i'd have no idea how to find decent gear compared to
being ripped off as a hopelessly middle class greenie. When I was in
my 20s I had not that much trouble finding the stuff (although I only
tried it once) but now?

Our local branch of the Rebels appears to have folded a couple of
years back so I really wouldn't know either. I don't swim in those
social circles.

Quoted message said:

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:05:43 -0700

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Personally I limit my drugs to alcohol, caffeine and things you can
buy from the chemist shop so this is purely a theoretical question.
I'm assuming there's more than a few good reasons why the average
commuter/tourer isn't chock full of performance enhancing drugs, but
inquiring minds need to know and all that.

Quoted message said:

1) how do you know they aren't? Not as if speed is unknown to
non-racers. For all you know there are commuters out there on
amphetamines.

True! Are amphetamines really going to enhance cycling performance
(strength, endurance) though? I have no idea, so I'm open to
enlightenment.

Amphetamines have more of a mental effect than physical - you will
feel stronger and will be able to push yourself harder. Speed doesn't
directly make you stronger though. A very similar effect can be had
with pseudoephidrine. Sudafed is a common drug you can buy that has pe
in it as its major ingredient and it's *not* on the banned list at
this time. Tom Simpson was found to have amphetamines in his body
when he died in the Tour 40 years ago. It was common in the 90's in
uncontrolled races according to Paul Kimmage (ref : 'rough ride'😉 and
also a combination of speed, heroin, cocaine and cortisone (I think
cortisone? this is from memory) was common according to [censored] Voet
('breaking the chain'😉, and it was called 'Belgian Mix'. Essentially
painkilling and stimulants - they didn't make you stronger but did
make you able to push harder. Allan Peiper writes about his use of BM
(or maybe just speed?) in his book - he said it made him feel
invulnerable, but it took weeks to recover from. It's reasonably easy
to detect.

EPO and other boosters are harder to detect, and tests for them are
pretty recent (last 10 years). They do actually make you 'fitter'.
The complications with blood boosting is that it's not necessarily the
result of banned doping practices - train low sleep high, for example,
can significantly boost your haemocrit values as can genetic
variances. Some people are just very lucky with the genes they got
from their parents. That's why Robbie McEwen has an altitude tent to
sleep in, as do many pros. It got taken off him at the Giro last year
- cyclingnews has the story ....

Then there's the anabolic (muscle building) agents, human growth
hormones, steroids, insulin-like hormones etc. More common for power
sports (trackies, mainly - ever heard of Stephen Pate and Carey Hall?
Martin Vinicombe? Google is your friend) but not unknown for roadies.
Some are legal, some are banned. It helps to know that anabolic just
means muscle building - so any resistance training is 'anabolic' as is
eating protein.

Bleve said:

Amphetamines have more of a mental effect than physical - you will
feel stronger and will be able to push yourself harder. Speed doesn't
directly make you stronger though. A very similar effect can be had
with pseudoephidrine. Sudafed is a common drug you can buy that has pe
in it as its major ingredient and it's *not* on the banned list at
this time. Tom Simpson was found to have amphetamines in his body
when he died in the Tour 40 years ago. It was common in the 90's in
uncontrolled races according to Paul Kimmage (ref : 'rough ride'😉 and
also a combination of speed, heroin, cocaine and cortisone (I think
cortisone? this is from memory) was common according to [censored] Voet
('breaking the chain'😉, and it was called 'Belgian Mix'. Essentially
painkilling and stimulants - they didn't make you stronger but did
make you able to push harder. Allan Peiper writes about his use of BM
(or maybe just speed?) in his book - he said it made him feel
invulnerable, but it took weeks to recover from. It's reasonably easy
to detect.

Interesting stuff, thanks. Belgian Mix sounds truly awful. I wonder
how I'd go feeling stronger, but not actually being any stronger. I
don't think it would have a happy ending.

Quoted message said:

EPO and other boosters are harder to detect, and tests for them are
pretty recent (last 10 years). They do actually make you 'fitter'.
The complications with blood boosting is that it's not necessarily the
result of banned doping practices - train low sleep high, for example,
can significantly boost your haemocrit values as can genetic
variances. Some people are just very lucky with the genes they got
from their parents. That's why Robbie McEwen has an altitude tent to
sleep in, as do many pros. It got taken off him at the Giro last year
- cyclingnews has the story ....

Train low/sleep high sounds good, though obviously I'm not going to
bother buying an altitude tent just to improve my commuting abilities.

Quoted message said:

Then there's the anabolic (muscle building) agents, human growth
hormones, steroids, insulin-like hormones etc. More common for power
sports (trackies, mainly - ever heard of Stephen Pate and Carey Hall?
Martin Vinicombe? Google is your friend) but not unknown for roadies.
Some are legal, some are banned. It helps to know that anabolic just
means muscle building - so any resistance training is 'anabolic' as is
eating protein.

I don't know much about 'roids (except what they've done for
neanderthals like Stallone and the Governator) but I was under the
impression they're not good for your bones among other things. Dunno
about the other things, but I'm getting the distinct impression
there's no free lunch to be had.

To be honest, I thought by now that there would be some wonder pill
that you washed down with your morning OJ and then you were off
climbing like Vinokourov with no ill effects. Guess I'll just have to
keep eating my veggies and crawling slowly up those hills. At least I
can admire the scenery :-)

Quoted message said:

I've been pondering performance enhancing drugs on my daily commute
(as you do), and I was wondering, since the average slob i.e. me
doesn't compete or have any desire to compete in cycling competitions
is there any reason why we couldn't use performance enhancers to knock
a few minutes off the commute? Or extend touring range from ~80km to
200+km per day, day after day after day?

So, if you're not competing (even with friends) why would you want to
knock off a few minutes? Why would you then extend the touring range
because you can do the previous distance faster? Would there be any
personal satisfaction in knowing that you reduced your time by
cheating?

As was suggested by another poster, you may as well ride a motorbike
or drive a car. What is it that you want to get out of cycling anyway?
Surely it isn't just to save dollars on transport.

Quoted message said:

I think I read of young cyclists dying from heart attacks while using
EPO, so that's probably not the best example, and frankly the blood
doping thing grosses me out (those are pretty much the only two I know
of), but since there'd be no drug testing involved there'd be no
requirement for the drugs to "hide" in the blood stream.

Personally I limit my drugs to alcohol, caffeine and things you can
buy from the chemist shop so this is purely a theoretical question.
I'm assuming there's more than a few good reasons why the average
commuter/tourer isn't chock full of performance enhancing drugs, but
inquiring minds need to know and all that.

I would hope it's because there is no need to be faster or go further
and no need to compete.

Steriods in body building would only be used for some kind of
competition, even if it is just comparing yourself with someone else.
Who really cares that they can lift more weight than they used to?
There's no real benefit in being able to do that.

Dale.

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:34:50 -0700

Quoted message said:

So, if you're not competing (even with friends) why would you want to
knock off a few minutes? Why would you then extend the touring range
because you can do the previous distance faster? Would there be any
personal satisfaction in knowing that you reduced your time by
cheating?

anything to get me up Melville-bloody-street would be good.

Maybe I need to hire myself some big-legged roadie to give me a tow.

Zebee