Great question. One for which I have no answer.
To me---there is only: doping or no doping. (no other distiction)
Anything more flexible will lead to ethical compromises and eventual wholesale arms warfare--as we now have. If you NEED drugs---you should NOT be competeting. You should rest and recover off the bike.
eg: What does Therapeutic Use really mean?
If I rounded up ten physicians would any of them agree on the same limit?
If I added finanical pressure---would the limit definition line move?
If I added emotion, peer pressure, screaming crowds, fans, threats, employment, bonuses, media jobs, could the definition be altered some more?
Luc Leblanc one said that racing a grand tour without drugs would cause illness. He is probably correct----if you raced against blood doped and steroid fed competition, that is.
If everyone were clean---the speeds would drop by 15-30%, the attacks would be cut by 75% and the race would be decided in the final hour each day.
But as soon as just one person gets a drug supplier's help----the race tilts into a Polypharmacy arms war and Life Sciences too.
EPO is therapeutic for exhausted people
hGH is therapeutic for beat up muscles
testosterone is essential for fast recovery, insulin too
corticosteroids are essential for daily abuse (riding with infammation)
Salbutamol is therapeutic for breathing when anaerobic
Cow blood my be therapeutic if riding uphill for one hour at 25 kph is the GC tempo.
limerickman said:
Doc : a question for you.
Do you draw any distinction in the case of doping?
Let me clarify :
I don't condone any sort of doping however looking at the entire doping issue I can see a clear distinction between taking stuff in order to stay on the bike and taking stuff which alters a persons natural limits.
For example, Henri Pelissier took a cocktail back in the 1920's in order to ward off tiredness and to keep him on the bike.
In the 1990's, we have cyclists taking dope in order to race faster.
To me there is a subtle distinction.
You have guys back in the 1920's - cycling incredible distances (far further than today), on terrible bikes (by modern standards), on terrible roads (by modern standards), and who were essentially amateur riders (by modern standards).
Under those circumstances I can understand why someone would dope.
Whereas today, you have riders cycling shorter distances (compared to the old days), on great roads (compared to the old days), on superb bikes (compared to the old days) and who are looked after in the most professional manner (guaranteed salary, expert medical assistance, goods accomodation - all unlike the old days).
