Brad Mcgee's rant on drugs

If you are interested to read what Brad thinks about the latest drugs episode, you have to read his latest diary entry on his home page. It is awesome!

You get a great bit of aussie writing, a spade is a spade for brad! read about the training and effort that he has put in to get where he is.

Then you can all go f**k your self's (as brad says) if you think the pro's are soft!

Even if they do take drugs, they still train ridiculously hard. Anyone that is a full-time endurance athlete understands that drugs don't make the mental strain of training any easier. they dont stop your legs from hurting and your lungs burning, whilst doing intervals over and over for hours and hours. they just allow you to do it all again sooner.

But of course i dont advocate the use, but you must respect that they are still elite athletes with competitive urges to win.

 

Do you have a link to his home page you can post?

 

no idea how to do that! lol

www.bradleymcgee.com

 

Sorry, never heard of him...

 

ah, olympic gold medallist at Sydney in the individual pursuit. wore the yellow jersey in the tour de france last year. does that refresh your memory?

 

Good rant. Here is the link...

http://www.bradleymcgee.com/newmcgee/more.phtml?articleid=bb8f184a8f

 

You got that right!

 

sorry post didnt come up very well set out!

trying to work out how to edit it!

half of my opinion is in the bluebox

 

Dude, the whole point of what Brad says is that you shouldn't take drugs. They may not stop you from needing to train, but they are sure a soft shortcut. The pros who need drugs to get there are no better than you or me when it comes to cycling (and I'm serious too dude, what's your LT??? Improve that by 10% with some EPO and you're away...) The thing is, Brad's saying exactly that those who think he is on drugs can, well, f*** right off, as can those who take drugs. 300km in Mexican hill = not soft. Drugs + 300km in Mexican hills = soft as f***.

 

I think that is a pretty simplistic view. I don't condone drug-taking but they alone will not turn a mediocre rider into a champion. I'm sure riders like Virenque and Casagrande had a gift, developed by hours and miles of training. It's such a shame they needlessly resorted to drugs to seek an advantage, when their talent and hard work could have been sufficient.

 

Drug takers - kick them out of the sport for life, no second chances.

 

OK, I'm not sure what view you think I was supporting. When I say 300km + drugs is soft, I mean just that. I fully expect doping riders to train hard and suffer, but I think that the mental toughness and principle that forms the basis for respecting sport in any form isn't there when doping occurs (except inadvertent doping... that's another story). I never said drugs would instantly turn a mediocre rider into a world champion or that Virenque or Casagrande lacked ability.

Actually, being more circumspect about it, it is a shame that psychological pressures and people's expectations of themselves drive them to compromise on ethics. (I think this applies to all of us in some respect - though not all with respect to doping in sport). I guess to put my position differently I would say doping is reprehensible, the easy option, and completely soft. It's also understandable and human, sadly, and often a manifestation in riders of ugly characteristics we all have at some times.

 

word.

 

Some people will never evolve past the idea of hitting them with a bigger hammer. It doesn't work with bank robbers. It doesn't work with rapists. It doesn't work with kids smoking pot or ditching school and it isn't going to work with pro-cycling.

The answer here isn't anything close to politically correct but just like with every other rule or law, sometimes it's going to be broken. Life sentences, maximum security, isolation and even the death penalty have failed. (Perhaps I shouldn't mention the death penalty?) You do the best you can do reasonably to curb and discourage the behavior but the bigger hammer theory has never really worked.

My .02¢ (U.S.)

 

the two quotes are not quite connected. an improvement of 10% to the LT of a club level cyclist eg 300 watts wouldnt make much difference, but the improvement of an elite rider of just below gaining a pro contract is significant. the rider would have the ability to get one, or if they already have one, to win pro races.

so a mediocre rider wont win the world champs, but a pro will get the boost they need to go to the next level.

 

I've got to agree w/McGee. Here is the way I read his notes; He is upset at the media's accusations of doping. They don't see how hard he trains and who are they to judge his natural abilities. The sport of cycling should not give and advantage to one rider. We see this year after year in the TDF. No one wants to win because a rider has a fall or a mechanical problem, ie. Lance waiting for Ullrich and Ullrich waiting for Lance. Performance drugs, while they don't necessarily give an advantage to a rider who lacks natural ability, will help them perform at a higher level. If I were lucky enough to have great cycling genes, I would want to win because I train hard and ride with determination. If I won because of some un-natural reason, I would feel I haven't earned the win. This is what I believe McGee is trying to get across by his "rant" and I agree hole heartedly.

 

Hehe. Should you change your location to Vals or Aubenas now instead of Melbourne?