Circ report into doping in cycling

Fraser
Posts
780
Joined
9/12/2008
Location
Leics GB
Edited Date/Time 3/12/2015 8:48am
So there's a new report out regarding the current state of doping in cycling. The CIRC report. There's stuff in that which is clearly relevant to MX/SX. If you can't be bothered to read through but are interested I've copied a couple of sections that are relevant to our sport.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/31789849

'Other sports must take note'

The report concludes that "there is no straightforward solution to the problem of doping in cycling" and that "one important message that UCI and all stakeholders must keep to the fore is that the fight against doping is a continual process".
If cycling can remember this at all times, this process will have been worthwhile.

Sport cannot stand by, hold its nose and pretend this is just about cycling. Few escape the spectre of doping. Take, for example, athletics, American football, baseball, rugby and weightlifting.

What is certain is that the Circ report should be studied by every sport, because while cycling is still clearly in a critical condition, it at least knows it is ill. This must embolden leaders in all sports to push again in testing, research, education and above all good governance. The report is of value to that extent, but it makes for deflating reading.

We are told that, while the situation has undoubtedly improved, a culture of doping continues to exist in the sport and "a number" of riders "continue to cheat". It refers to "one respected cycling professional" who felt that "even today, 90% of the peloton was doping". Circ found "doping in amateur cycling is becoming endemic", too.

Circ also heard that riders:
Are using ozone therapy, which involves extracting blood, treating it with ozone and injecting it back into the blood;
Continue to use steroids;
That it is still possible for riders to micro-dose using EPO without getting caught;
And that abuse of TUEs (Therapeutic Use Exemptions) is "a significant problem" today.
|
3/9/2015 9:47am Edited Date/Time 3/9/2015 9:49am
Why would a MX rider want to look like this? There are no PEDs in our sport.

fidiot
Posts
661
Joined
3/18/2014
Location
Denver, CO US
3/9/2015 10:12am
^^^ Need lesson in doping. Lance Armstrong was doping, and did not look like that.
bvm111
Posts
10076
Joined
7/1/2008
Location
Las Vegas, NV US
3/9/2015 11:00am
Hhhhmmmmm micro dose EPO they say.... Never thought of that one!

Now I can win open practice!!!!
IWreckALot
Posts
8678
Joined
3/12/2011
Location
Fort Worth, TX US
3/9/2015 11:35am
I don't know how many PED's are in our sport. Surely there are a few that are doing it. But I don't think they're the top guys. And if they are, they're going about it in a way they won't get caught which carries the same punishment as not doing it.

So far, the extent of the testing has caught one person taking a prescribed but ill reported medication for ADD. . . If Ritalin is the worst drug in the field, I'd say that's rather clean for any sport.

The Shop

Hower131
Posts
14
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
US
3/9/2015 12:14pm
You would be extremely naive to think that doping doesn't occur in most professional sports, especially at the top level. Micro dosing with EPO is only traceable for a matter of hours but has effects that can last up to 28 days...Without the use of a "bio-logical passport" like the one used in cycling, drug testing in professional sports will only catch the blatant abusers....and even then, as the CIRC shows, people are still able to dope, not get caught and laugh all the way to the bank.
3/9/2015 12:25pm
IWreckALot wrote:
I don't know how many PED's are in our sport. Surely there are a few that are doing it. But I don't think they're the top...
I don't know how many PED's are in our sport. Surely there are a few that are doing it. But I don't think they're the top guys. And if they are, they're going about it in a way they won't get caught which carries the same punishment as not doing it.

So far, the extent of the testing has caught one person taking a prescribed but ill reported medication for ADD. . . If Ritalin is the worst drug in the field, I'd say that's rather clean for any sport.
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

Like the guy above me said, until we adopt the biological passport method, which is prohibitively expensive for our sport, the only people that will be caught are the people that don't know what they are doing.
IWreckALot
Posts
8678
Joined
3/12/2011
Location
Fort Worth, TX US
3/9/2015 2:25pm
IWreckALot wrote:
I don't know how many PED's are in our sport. Surely there are a few that are doing it. But I don't think they're the top...
I don't know how many PED's are in our sport. Surely there are a few that are doing it. But I don't think they're the top guys. And if they are, they're going about it in a way they won't get caught which carries the same punishment as not doing it.

So far, the extent of the testing has caught one person taking a prescribed but ill reported medication for ADD. . . If Ritalin is the worst drug in the field, I'd say that's rather clean for any sport.
TripleFive wrote:
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Like the guy above me said, until we adopt the biological passport method, which is prohibitively...
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

Like the guy above me said, until we adopt the biological passport method, which is prohibitively expensive for our sport, the only people that will be caught are the people that don't know what they are doing.
I think we're saying the same thing. My point is that we can either do something about it, or we choose not to. I also agree that there are likely PED's in our sport, but what testing is going to prove it? And are we willing to spend the money to do it. If we're not going to spend the money to catch the top guys, then is the money spent on the lower level stuff very well spent? Seems like a waste of a LOT of money, to catch a guy doing Adderal. Either do it right, or don't do it at all. . . Granted, I acknowledge that my view has the advantage of hindsight.
Fraser
Posts
780
Joined
9/12/2008
Location
Leics GB
3/9/2015 3:36pm
Also the point about widespread abuse of TUEs in cycling..
3/9/2015 9:14pm
TUEs are BS. Especially for speed, Crank, prescibed meth and/or amphetamines or anything else that's an analog of or similar in the short term.

The shit works and is a marked advantage.

All those guys who didn't finish... well, you see where this going?


Radical
Posts
2822
Joined
10/20/2012
Location
San Diego, CA US
3/9/2015 10:22pm
Fraser wrote:
Also the point about widespread abuse of TUEs in cycling..
If it's true that 90% of cyclists are doping, then Lance Armstrong won on equal footing and should be given his medals back.
The rules need to be fair across the board. Either get tough with everyone or no one.
Spagina767
Posts
912
Joined
8/27/2013
Location
Fredericksburg, VA US
3/10/2015 4:16am
TripleFive wrote:
Why would a MX rider want to look like this? There are no PEDs in our sport. [img]https://fullcourtsc.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/body-builder.jpg[/img]
Why would a MX rider want to look like this? There are no PEDs in our sport.

Fishing... Or, uneducated?
IWreckALot
Posts
8678
Joined
3/12/2011
Location
Fort Worth, TX US
3/10/2015 5:05am
Spagina767 wrote:
Fishing... Or, uneducated?
Clearly a little of both.
71Fish
Posts
1794
Joined
11/29/2011
Location
Ogden, UT US
3/10/2015 5:11am
Fraser wrote:
Also the point about widespread abuse of TUEs in cycling..
Radical wrote:
If it's true that 90% of cyclists are doping, then Lance Armstrong won on equal footing and should be given his medals back. The rules need...
If it's true that 90% of cyclists are doping, then Lance Armstrong won on equal footing and should be given his medals back.
The rules need to be fair across the board. Either get tough with everyone or no one.
That's what I've always said and why I have no issues with him using PEDs and boosting. Him being an asshole is a different story, but the dude can ride a bike better than anyone and that's what I like about him.
jamma10
Posts
10573
Joined
8/24/2008
Location
Bristol GB
3/10/2015 5:18am
Fraser wrote:
Also the point about widespread abuse of TUEs in cycling..
Radical wrote:
If it's true that 90% of cyclists are doping, then Lance Armstrong won on equal footing and should be given his medals back. The rules need...
If it's true that 90% of cyclists are doping, then Lance Armstrong won on equal footing and should be given his medals back.
The rules need to be fair across the board. Either get tough with everyone or no one.
71Fish wrote:
That's what I've always said and why I have no issues with him using PEDs and boosting. Him being an asshole is a different story, but...
That's what I've always said and why I have no issues with him using PEDs and boosting. Him being an asshole is a different story, but the dude can ride a bike better than anyone and that's what I like about him.
Many of his closest competitors were caught and banned, so they were stripped of their opportunity to win. So why should Armstrong be allowed to keep his tour wins if the others have been punished for the same offence?
71Fish
Posts
1794
Joined
11/29/2011
Location
Ogden, UT US
3/10/2015 5:35am
Radical wrote:
If it's true that 90% of cyclists are doping, then Lance Armstrong won on equal footing and should be given his medals back. The rules need...
If it's true that 90% of cyclists are doping, then Lance Armstrong won on equal footing and should be given his medals back.
The rules need to be fair across the board. Either get tough with everyone or no one.
71Fish wrote:
That's what I've always said and why I have no issues with him using PEDs and boosting. Him being an asshole is a different story, but...
That's what I've always said and why I have no issues with him using PEDs and boosting. Him being an asshole is a different story, but the dude can ride a bike better than anyone and that's what I like about him.
jamma10 wrote:
Many of his closest competitors were caught and banned, so they were stripped of their opportunity to win. So why should Armstrong be allowed to keep...
Many of his closest competitors were caught and banned, so they were stripped of their opportunity to win. So why should Armstrong be allowed to keep his tour wins if the others have been punished for the same offence?
If you look at tours winners, they show no top podium finisher for his 7 wins.

This is just one source.
http://www.cyclingstage.com/tour-de-france-2015/winners-tdf/
jamma10
Posts
10573
Joined
8/24/2008
Location
Bristol GB
3/10/2015 5:37am
jamma10
Posts
10573
Joined
8/24/2008
Location
Bristol GB
3/10/2015 5:42am Edited Date/Time 3/10/2015 5:47am
71Fish wrote:
That's what I've always said and why I have no issues with him using PEDs and boosting. Him being an asshole is a different story, but...
That's what I've always said and why I have no issues with him using PEDs and boosting. Him being an asshole is a different story, but the dude can ride a bike better than anyone and that's what I like about him.
jamma10 wrote:
Many of his closest competitors were caught and banned, so they were stripped of their opportunity to win. So why should Armstrong be allowed to keep...
Many of his closest competitors were caught and banned, so they were stripped of their opportunity to win. So why should Armstrong be allowed to keep his tour wins if the others have been punished for the same offence?
71Fish wrote:
If you look at tours winners, they show no top podium finisher for his 7 wins.

This is just one source.
http://www.cyclingstage.com/tour-de-france-2015/winners-tdf/
Sorry I see what you mean. But even so, I don't agree that Armstrong should have his wins reinstated. You would have to reinstate the results of every single rider who got banned over the years. Despite how many of them were doping the fact is they all broke the rules, while others didn't.
71Fish
Posts
1794
Joined
11/29/2011
Location
Ogden, UT US
3/10/2015 5:46am
jamma10 wrote:
Many of his closest competitors were caught and banned, so they were stripped of their opportunity to win. So why should Armstrong be allowed to keep...
Many of his closest competitors were caught and banned, so they were stripped of their opportunity to win. So why should Armstrong be allowed to keep his tour wins if the others have been punished for the same offence?
71Fish wrote:
If you look at tours winners, they show no top podium finisher for his 7 wins.

This is just one source.
http://www.cyclingstage.com/tour-de-france-2015/winners-tdf/
jamma10 wrote:
Sorry I see what you mean. But even so, I don't agree that Armstrong should have his wins reinstated. You would have to reinstate the results...
Sorry I see what you mean. But even so, I don't agree that Armstrong should have his wins reinstated. You would have to reinstate the results of every single rider who got banned over the years. Despite how many of them were doping the fact is they all broke the rules, while others didn't.
I can guarantee you the ones who are not shaded out just didn't get caught that year. There have been accusations against all of them. In cycling, guilty until innocent means something. Google their names with "doping" after, you'll see.
timlake
Posts
157
Joined
10/19/2012
Location
GB
3/10/2015 5:50am
Doping is a stupid topic.

There is such a massive grey area over what is classed a PED.

Ok, so EPO amongst many other hard drugs are banned, but strip back to the question of what is a performance enhancing drug and you're left with a minefield.

What's the betting that Kenny was drugged right up on pain killers before Daytona practice at the weekend? If they are enablinghim to ride at a higher level, then surely they should be classed as a PED too.

You will NEVER get a clean sport, and you will never get a fair sport, simple as that. People will always try to bend the rules as far as they can, and some people will find a grey enough area that they can exploit and never get found out.

TUE's are another grey area. Going back to the JS7 scenario, and you have a rider who is suffering from a pre-existing medical condition and has drugs prescribed to combat that.
Are they improving his performance? Yes.
Are they prescribed for his, and other riders safety? Yes.
Is it exploited and over-presribed? Maybe, we'll never know.

I had a long debate with the road topic with a high level road cyclist from the UK who spent a lot of time around the tour scene in Lances years and before. He told me you'd have to go back to 25-30th place to find people that were not using at least some kind of PED.

Beating the topic to death is not going to improve anything, but instead will just pull an even darker cloud over the sports concerned and turn off public interest.
71Fish
Posts
1794
Joined
11/29/2011
Location
Ogden, UT US
3/10/2015 6:02am
timlake wrote:
Doping is a stupid topic. There is such a massive grey area over what is classed a PED. Ok, so EPO amongst many other hard drugs...
Doping is a stupid topic.

There is such a massive grey area over what is classed a PED.

Ok, so EPO amongst many other hard drugs are banned, but strip back to the question of what is a performance enhancing drug and you're left with a minefield.

What's the betting that Kenny was drugged right up on pain killers before Daytona practice at the weekend? If they are enablinghim to ride at a higher level, then surely they should be classed as a PED too.

You will NEVER get a clean sport, and you will never get a fair sport, simple as that. People will always try to bend the rules as far as they can, and some people will find a grey enough area that they can exploit and never get found out.

TUE's are another grey area. Going back to the JS7 scenario, and you have a rider who is suffering from a pre-existing medical condition and has drugs prescribed to combat that.
Are they improving his performance? Yes.
Are they prescribed for his, and other riders safety? Yes.
Is it exploited and over-presribed? Maybe, we'll never know.

I had a long debate with the road topic with a high level road cyclist from the UK who spent a lot of time around the tour scene in Lances years and before. He told me you'd have to go back to 25-30th place to find people that were not using at least some kind of PED.

Beating the topic to death is not going to improve anything, but instead will just pull an even darker cloud over the sports concerned and turn off public interest.
In reality, you'd have to go back to the guys who drop out before the first week to find someone not (recently) using.

You bring up pain killers. In cycling, and I'm guessing SX/MX since WADA is involved, any medication needs to be on the approved list. KR94 probably was on some serious prescription pain meds. I know when I compete in a Jiu Jitsu tournament, I'm maxed to the gills on ibuprofen. Anything to get ahead.

.
Skuzzy29
Posts
848
Joined
7/28/2014
Location
Central CA, CA US
3/10/2015 8:06am
Radical wrote:
If it's true that 90% of cyclists are doping, then Lance Armstrong won on equal footing and should be given his medals back. The rules need...
If it's true that 90% of cyclists are doping, then Lance Armstrong won on equal footing and should be given his medals back.
The rules need to be fair across the board. Either get tough with everyone or no one.
71Fish wrote:
That's what I've always said and why I have no issues with him using PEDs and boosting. Him being an asshole is a different story, but...
That's what I've always said and why I have no issues with him using PEDs and boosting. Him being an asshole is a different story, but the dude can ride a bike better than anyone and that's what I like about him.
jamma10 wrote:
Many of his closest competitors were caught and banned, so they were stripped of their opportunity to win. So why should Armstrong be allowed to keep...
Many of his closest competitors were caught and banned, so they were stripped of their opportunity to win. So why should Armstrong be allowed to keep his tour wins if the others have been punished for the same offence?
I wish I had it at hand right now...but there was a Bicycling issue that had a huge article on doping when Armstrong was still considered 'clean'. Though the article insinuated he wasn't and at the time I agreed. No way could he be clean because almost every rider up to around 15th place during that era had been caught. I wasn't shocked at all when it all finally came out.
It's hard to say his wins should be reinstated...but he was the best when most of the peloton was dirty together.
SLO1667
Posts
337
Joined
11/27/2014
Location
Chicago, IL US
3/10/2015 12:44pm
LA was the best on the same playing field. Can't deny that. He exploited the system too, but still badass.
Walter
Posts
375
Joined
8/21/2008
Location
Tucson, AZ US
3/11/2015 5:41am
Fraser wrote:
Also the point about widespread abuse of TUEs in cycling..
Radical wrote:
If it's true that 90% of cyclists are doping, then Lance Armstrong won on equal footing and should be given his medals back. The rules need...
If it's true that 90% of cyclists are doping, then Lance Armstrong won on equal footing and should be given his medals back.
The rules need to be fair across the board. Either get tough with everyone or no one.
The report said sources reported 20-90% are doping. Even that was anecdotal.
hvaughn88
Posts
8361
Joined
6/19/2013
Location
Conway, AR US
3/11/2015 5:47am
Fraser wrote:
Also the point about widespread abuse of TUEs in cycling..
Radical wrote:
If it's true that 90% of cyclists are doping, then Lance Armstrong won on equal footing and should be given his medals back. The rules need...
If it's true that 90% of cyclists are doping, then Lance Armstrong won on equal footing and should be given his medals back.
The rules need to be fair across the board. Either get tough with everyone or no one.
Walter wrote:
The report said sources reported 20-90% are doping. Even that was anecdotal.
Boy, they really went out in a limb there! I'll go ahead say that based on all of my research, I can without a doubt conclude that between 0-100% are doping.
3/11/2015 7:07am


Reading this right now. It blows my mind what these guys were doing to just stay up front.
3/11/2015 1:06pm Edited Date/Time 3/11/2015 1:07pm
Doping, whether is happens or not...has little effect on the results in MX.

Take RC4, have him sit on the couch and eat donuts for two years and blow up to 200#.
Take Alberto Contador, at his best elite form, and dope him up with EPO and Test.
Then have them race 10 laps at Red Bud.

Who will win?

RC...because AC does not know how to ride a damn dirt bike!

If the underlying skill is not there, it does not matter how good of shape you are in. Even at the pro level, 50% of the field would be better of hiring a riding coach to hone their skills than worrying about being in the 99.9th percentile of physical condition.

Only a few guys in the world could run a single SX lap as fast as RV. Just a single lap. If you can not run a single lap at top speed, the problem is not your condition, it is your skills. Saying the top guy is winning (whoever that may be a the time) because he dopes when no one can run a single lap at his speed is nonsense.

DV has pointed this out over and over, but most people still don't get it....and keep harping on doping doping doping.
Hower131
Posts
14
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
US
3/11/2015 7:48pm
Doping, whether is happens or not...has little effect on the results in MX. Take RC4, have him sit on the couch and eat donuts for two...
Doping, whether is happens or not...has little effect on the results in MX.

Take RC4, have him sit on the couch and eat donuts for two years and blow up to 200#.
Take Alberto Contador, at his best elite form, and dope him up with EPO and Test.
Then have them race 10 laps at Red Bud.

Who will win?

RC...because AC does not know how to ride a damn dirt bike!

If the underlying skill is not there, it does not matter how good of shape you are in. Even at the pro level, 50% of the field would be better of hiring a riding coach to hone their skills than worrying about being in the 99.9th percentile of physical condition.

Only a few guys in the world could run a single SX lap as fast as RV. Just a single lap. If you can not run a single lap at top speed, the problem is not your condition, it is your skills. Saying the top guy is winning (whoever that may be a the time) because he dopes when no one can run a single lap at his speed is nonsense.

DV has pointed this out over and over, but most people still don't get it....and keep harping on doping doping doping.
Doping itself will not give you the skill or raw talent needed to be competitive...no...you still need to train and prepare like any other world class would have to. The difference and real need for doping comes in when you and your rival (be it a guy you're competing for a contract with, a championship or maybe needed to hold on to what you once were for a little longer) are even with each other in performance.

5th-20th at the nationals are only separated by 4-5 seconds/lap in timed practice with the 5th-10th place guys usually being able to make a great living on amazing factory bikes while the 17th-20th place guys are privateers with zero budgets making peanuts. That 4-5 Seconds is worth everything. Think about that and why someone in 5th-10th might want to take a PED.

Also SX/MX aren't 1 lap races, so condition does come into play, you can be the fastest guy out there for a single lap, but if you can't hold it for an entire main event/moto, it doesn't mean squat on payday.
Fraser
Posts
780
Joined
9/12/2008
Location
Leics GB
3/12/2015 1:01am
Doping, whether is happens or not...has little effect on the results in MX. Take RC4, have him sit on the couch and eat donuts for two...
Doping, whether is happens or not...has little effect on the results in MX.

Take RC4, have him sit on the couch and eat donuts for two years and blow up to 200#.
Take Alberto Contador, at his best elite form, and dope him up with EPO and Test.
Then have them race 10 laps at Red Bud.

Who will win?

RC...because AC does not know how to ride a damn dirt bike!

If the underlying skill is not there, it does not matter how good of shape you are in. Even at the pro level, 50% of the field would be better of hiring a riding coach to hone their skills than worrying about being in the 99.9th percentile of physical condition.

Only a few guys in the world could run a single SX lap as fast as RV. Just a single lap. If you can not run a single lap at top speed, the problem is not your condition, it is your skills. Saying the top guy is winning (whoever that may be a the time) because he dopes when no one can run a single lap at his speed is nonsense.

DV has pointed this out over and over, but most people still don't get it....and keep harping on doping doping doping.
Hower131 wrote:
Doping itself will not give you the skill or raw talent needed to be competitive...no...you still need to train and prepare like any other world class...
Doping itself will not give you the skill or raw talent needed to be competitive...no...you still need to train and prepare like any other world class would have to. The difference and real need for doping comes in when you and your rival (be it a guy you're competing for a contract with, a championship or maybe needed to hold on to what you once were for a little longer) are even with each other in performance.

5th-20th at the nationals are only separated by 4-5 seconds/lap in timed practice with the 5th-10th place guys usually being able to make a great living on amazing factory bikes while the 17th-20th place guys are privateers with zero budgets making peanuts. That 4-5 Seconds is worth everything. Think about that and why someone in 5th-10th might want to take a PED.

Also SX/MX aren't 1 lap races, so condition does come into play, you can be the fastest guy out there for a single lap, but if you can't hold it for an entire main event/moto, it doesn't mean squat on payday.
Exactly. And if you have 2 factory riders that can match each other for pace, but one takes a PED that allows him to maintain that pace for the whole race but the other starts to fade two laps from the end? Big advantage
WeiserGuy
Posts
717
Joined
3/5/2012
Location
Over the hills & far away, OH US
3/12/2015 7:24am Edited Date/Time 3/12/2015 8:21am
Doping, whether is happens or not...has little effect on the results in MX. Take RC4, have him sit on the couch and eat donuts for two...
Doping, whether is happens or not...has little effect on the results in MX.

Take RC4, have him sit on the couch and eat donuts for two years and blow up to 200#.
Take Alberto Contador, at his best elite form, and dope him up with EPO and Test.
Then have them race 10 laps at Red Bud.

Who will win?

RC...because AC does not know how to ride a damn dirt bike!

If the underlying skill is not there, it does not matter how good of shape you are in. Even at the pro level, 50% of the field would be better of hiring a riding coach to hone their skills than worrying about being in the 99.9th percentile of physical condition.

Only a few guys in the world could run a single SX lap as fast as RV. Just a single lap. If you can not run a single lap at top speed, the problem is not your condition, it is your skills. Saying the top guy is winning (whoever that may be a the time) because he dopes when no one can run a single lap at his speed is nonsense.

DV has pointed this out over and over, but most people still don't get it....and keep harping on doping doping doping.
Hower131 wrote:
Doping itself will not give you the skill or raw talent needed to be competitive...no...you still need to train and prepare like any other world class...
Doping itself will not give you the skill or raw talent needed to be competitive...no...you still need to train and prepare like any other world class would have to. The difference and real need for doping comes in when you and your rival (be it a guy you're competing for a contract with, a championship or maybe needed to hold on to what you once were for a little longer) are even with each other in performance.

5th-20th at the nationals are only separated by 4-5 seconds/lap in timed practice with the 5th-10th place guys usually being able to make a great living on amazing factory bikes while the 17th-20th place guys are privateers with zero budgets making peanuts. That 4-5 Seconds is worth everything. Think about that and why someone in 5th-10th might want to take a PED.

Also SX/MX aren't 1 lap races, so condition does come into play, you can be the fastest guy out there for a single lap, but if you can't hold it for an entire main event/moto, it doesn't mean squat on payday.
Fraser wrote:
Exactly. And if you have 2 factory riders that can match each other for pace, but one takes a PED that allows him to maintain that...
Exactly. And if you have 2 factory riders that can match each other for pace, but one takes a PED that allows him to maintain that pace for the whole race but the other starts to fade two laps from the end? Big advantage
Agree with all 3 posts. Great points.

Bottom line life isn't fair and when there's an extra edge to be gained someone will. Especially when there's a lot of money at stake and their careers are so short. Every day through out the world people look to gain an advantage if they can and some are willing to do WHATEVER it takes. Ever heard that one before?

I know two fast local guys that attempted to qualify @ nationals and supercross with no luck. They were convinced (by sucessful folks) if they took HGH they could be 10-15th but unfortunately it didn't go as planned. Only one of them made two mains over a couple year span. They were fit as they come but the cold reality was the speed wasn't there to get 10th -15th.

Had someone came to me @ my make or break point & convinced me this was the ticket to the top, I would've done it.

Post a reply to: Circ report into doping in cycling

The Latest