Performance-enhancing methods. This is a term we hear so often in cycling; it refers to the practice of using products or processes that elevate your performance beyond what you could naturally do. It is a terribly complicated matter for the fans, and I can only speculate as to how complicated it is for the professionals who do or do not participate in the practice. Doping occupies an indelible place within our sport; faire le métier means “to do your work” in French. In a greater context, it means to conduct yourself as a professional. Within the narrow scope of cycling, faire le métier means to dope. It seems the practice of doping is so deeply embedded in our great sport that the two can hardly be separated.
I recently read K2: Life and Death on the World’s Most Dangerous Mountain, by Seattle mountaineering icon Ed Viesturs. Ed was the first American to summit all fourteen mountains over 8000 meters and only the fifth climber to do so without relying on bottled oxygen. The book focuses specifically on the history of the attempts to summit the world’s second-highest peak and details the circumstances surrounding the various accidents that have resulted in the loss of life during those attempts.
A recurring theme in mountaineering is the effect that being at high altitude has on the body and mind. Being at high altitude has various physiological complications – some of which can be treated, like muscle deterioration and cerebral edema, and some of which that can not, like death. The lack of oxygen to the brain diminishes cognitive capabilities with the unfortunate effect of increasing risk of accidents through making poor decisions in an environment where the margin of error is often already greatly diminished due to external factors. Using bottled oxygen can help alleviate many of these problems; it improves a climber’s health at altitude and improves their ability to reason, reducing the risk of errors made through lapses in judgement. Climbers like Viesturs who are able to summit the highest peaks without using bottled O2 are rare; for most they are impossible to reach without oxygen.
The first successful summit attempt on K2 was made by an Italian team in July of 1954. The circumstances that surrounded that summit bid have fed a fifty-year debate in the climbing community, the salient point of which is that the summit team claimed to have reached the summit without using supplemental oxygen, while photographic and circumstantial evidence suggests that they did.
The controversy sounded a lot like that surrounding doping in cycling and it got me wondering what it is, precisely, about riders using performance-enhancing methods that bother us so. After all, the use of supplemental oxygen amounts to the same thing as does doping: athletes are using an external method to enhance their performance on the world’s highest peaks. “Performance-enhancement” in this case may mean “staying alive”, but never-the-less, being alive does represent a pronounced performance enhancement over being dead and it is the use of an external method that makes the feat possible, or at least more healthy and less risky.
It surprises me that few, if any, in the climbing community consider the use of bottled air to be doping. Debates rage over the purism of it’s use, but those swing wide of labeling the practice as cheating. Looking at the matter objectively reveals little difference between supplementing blood with red-blood cells in order to compete in a three-week bike race and using supplemental oxygen to reach a mountain top. Both techniques utilize an external mechanism to improve the body’s ability to get oxygen to it’s muscles and thereby improve performance. Some doctors have even gone so far as to state that racing a Grand Tour is dangerous for most riders and have justified their involvement in doping practices by claiming that the use of EPO and other drugs make the sport of bike racing more healthy and less risky for the athletes.
There is a void in my brain at the spot where I’m supposed to store the justification for why using EPO and blood transfusions in cycling is labeled as ‘doping’ while the use of supplemental oxygen in mountaineering is not. It appears, however, that in mountaineering we have two conditions that work together to justify the use of the practice: the mountaineers are transparent about whether or not they use supplemental oxygen, and the community largely agrees with the assertion that it’s use is required in order to accomplish their feats. In cycling, neither of these conditions are met: cyclists are not transparent about whether they dope or not, and the public disagrees with the assertion that it is unhealthy to participate in races like the Tour de France without the use of performance-enhancing products or methods.
I think many in the professional peloton believe they need to dope in order to compete in a Grand Tour. The public, by and large, disagrees. Frankly, I don’t think either party has the data to justify their claim. Such data would need to come not from a lab, but from data collected from the professional riders in a three-week stage race. The difficulty in accumulating this data is that we are evidently pretty bad at figuring out if a rider is doping or not, and as such it would be difficult to say whether such data is valid or not. If we somehow overcame that obstacle and definitively found that either yes, it’s dangerous, or no, it’s healthy, then we could start to build an objective case for or against using these processes – both inside the peloton and with the public – and start dealing with the matter rationally. For doping to stop, the riders have to believe they can do without their use. And if a three-week race can’t be done in a healthy and safe way without using performance-enhancing methods, then public needs to accept they are required in order for the athletes to safely accomplish their feats. Their use should then be regulated and used in a medically safe way.
What it comes down to is the acceptability of a method through the justification of it’s use, and cycling community has failed entirely in building that justification. That leaves us with a terribly complicated matter on our hands which few are equipped to handle appropriately.
I know as well as any of you that I've been checked out lately, kind…
Peter Sagan has undergone quite the transformation over the years; starting as a brash and…
The Women's road race has to be my favorite one-day road race after Paris-Roubaix and…
Holy fuckballs. I've never been this late ever on a VSP. I mean, I've missed…
This week we are currently in is the most boring week of the year. After…
I have memories of my life before Cycling, but as the years wear slowly on…
View Comments
@JarvisYou make some very elegant points here. Very subtle and clear distinctions; and far more effectively than my longwinded, emotional rants!
Yes, you bring up Cavendish, and I was just thinking of him in this context this morning. Yes, he can be a douchebag, but at least he has a personality, and he has balls, and a bit of the flamboyant, which I really appreciate. I also appreciate Millar. It's also the reason (like Frank) that I hold Jan Ullrich and Pantani in such high regard... they were not robots. Which gets back to my earlier point, which I have been thinking of more and more. Take golf, for example. There was a time on the PGA tour - say pre-Jack Nicklaus, when golfers "trained by racing" so to speak - they played, got blasted on martinis after, and drove to the next venue and did it again. You had a bunch of personalities. Things were not "specialized."
Take Eddy Merckx and the riders of his day: they trained by racing. The reason that everyone (except Lance fan boys) knows that Merckx is the best cyclist ever, by far, is because he didn't just train - specialization - for one race a year. He raced his ass off, and won most of them. This is incredible. Then, sometime in the 80's - Fignon fingers Lemond for this, which is unfortunate (but perhaps true) because I like Lemond, but this idea - in accordance with the new exercise science info - of "specialization" and focused training started to take off. People no longer "trained by racing" and just focused on a few events that -- well, as we like to laugh about -- they "peaked for."
This idea of uber focused, rationally planned efficiency, became the norm in tennis, golf, cycling and other sports, and with these "advances" in training and specialization, came even more advances in doping - the so-called EPO years up to the present. I guess I'm just kind of grasping at a bigger picture here. I'm grasping for what has happened to the "spirit" of some of the sports that I've loved and played. While doping - in our sport - has played a part in it, so has the money factor, and the ruthless training efficiency and specialization.
Yes, Jarvis, the Armstrong years were indeed tedious (except for my intense hope that Jan might win), because he was the epitome of this kind of thing that I am railing about: ruthless, terminator-like efficiency, whether it is in training, or, apparently, doping, as well as training that was about as specialized as possible in our sport: The Tour de France only. This is why Lance, 7 Tour wins not withstanding, is no Eddy Merckx.
Maybe I'm also thinking about this because after getting VO2 max and lactate threshold tested at a sports performance lab recently while developing a training program with a coach, with the goal of doing some racing next year, I've been really focused on "training properly" lately, rather than just riding for the love of the sport. And I'm not sure that I'm really enjoying that, or whether it's even a worthy goal for me, after all, does the world really need another 40 year-old Cat3/4 racer?? I'm not really loving my riding lately because I'm focusing on my cadence, on my intervals, etc, etc. I'm trying to be - like the pros - more efficient to be more competitive, but I'm losing the spirit of it.
So, now I'm thinking that maybe like Ty Webb in Caddyshack, I should "measure myself against other men by height, rather than by keeping score." Somehow all of this is tied into finding the inner "spirit" of the sport, which I tongue-in-cheek dub Velomingnosticism...the inner, intuitive, spiritual side of the ride, rather than the external focus, which could include anything from externally used PEDs legal or illegal, looking at the cadence meter more than the trees, or even too much obsession with bike technology and upgrades (hence the sage advice "Don't buy upgrades, ride up grades").
I think, essentially, I am grasping to define a particular ethos, and there is something about the work of the Velominati that absolutely resonates with that ethos. Hence, here I am working all this shit out and undoubtedly driving some people crazy with my lengthy "broad spectrum" posts. No emoticons, but please bear with me....
Sorry to Frank - I'm not really addressing your medical perspective on EPO and other PEDs. Need to think about that.
It seems that the gold standard in climbing has always been to summit w/o the use of supplemental oxygen. Why is that? Those that do are the hardmen of the sport and all successful summit bids are noted as being performed with or w/o oxygen. Its hard to say what the analogy to cycling is, but I have a hard time calling some twiggy armed pharmaceutical experiment a hardman.
@Jarvis
True, but the mountaineers are choosing to climb a mountain, as well. It's no different. No one is putting a gun to anyone's head and saying, "Climb this mountain, or else." I don't think the "choice" argument has any relevance to the question of whether why bottled 02 is justified but doping isn't.
I agree, though, that the notion that doped racing is better or more exciting is totally flawed. Undoped, or at least less doped, is much more exciting. Again, I'm not justifying doping. I'm a broken record, but I just want to see people lay it on the road. I felt that '07's Giro was one of the best, even though it had some positives. The '08 Tour. This year's Tour. This year's Spring campaign was awesome. Nothing was worse than the Pharmstrong years. '95, '96, '97, '98, and '99 all had different winners. That in itself was good racing, even if it was EPO-fueled. When was the last time we had five different winners of the Tour in five years?
Merckx, that was the shit. Hinault, et al - that was great racing. Of course, they were doped as well, but it was a different kind of doping; none of this donkeys winning Tours business.
Cavendish is unlikable for me not for his skill or ability to race; he's a douchebag. That's all. He's got a personality, that's good. Too bad it's crap.
It's an interesting observation, by the way, that two of the guys with the cleanest reputation in the sport - Sastre and Evans - both finished way down on the GC. They were 1-2 in '08. It's also interesting that they finished alongside Pharmy in the 20's or 30's or where ever they were. In light of the allegations, did Pharmy race clean this year? Did his name always belong way down the list? Just wondering.
@pakrat
Absolutely, 100%, spot-on.
OK, ignore the "choice" issue and return to the fact that the O2 is there to prevent people dying, doping - and don't forget this includes more than just blood manipulation - isn't needed at all.
Great article Frank, and great posts by everyone. There is not too much to add, there are valid points made by all.
Kit, I hear you on the 'training taking away the fun' aspect. I haven't used a HRM or cadence computer for god-knows-how-long, as it became too much of a focus and did my head in. I think the turning point was reading that Ned Overend didn't use any electronic data devices in his training, but went by feel.
My good friend Mike and I were both training for the Karapoti Classic mtb race in March, and when I found out he had spent a large amount on a program, and a Garmin, and was so focussed on the sub 3 hour goal, I thought I'd run a little experiment by training by feel, and using my own knowledge picked up over the years. Whether or not my methods were better, or he overtrained, or I just had a better day, I was a happier chap at the end of the race. The previous year I had spent a large sum on altitude simulation training, basically sitting in a room breathing rarified air for an hour 5 times a week. I would've been better off riding my bike, and Mike had a better day that year.
Re EPO, the racing in the 90's seemed to be a bit more even still, than the Armstrong years. Even when Indurain was dominating, guys like Pantani would have days where he'd be dropped in the mountains, then come back and smash everyone the next day. Mig would still have days where he'd just mark his rivals, maybe because he couldn't dominate them totally. Armstrong was always, always at the head of the race, and his rivals never, never had an answer. That made his era of dominance a lot more tedious for us to watch, whereas Migs era there was still exciting racing, even if the final result was in little doubt. Plus (Lance) having a team of potential 'leaders' all juiced up and driving it for hours on end didn't hurt.
EPO really can turn donkeys into thoroughbreds. Landis was a mediocre mountain biker even at US National level, so when he was suddenly riding at the front of the Tour I couldn't really comprehend it. Whereas Cadel, he was at the front of World Cup mtb races when he was a teenager... he had a natural talent, whereas Landis made an amazing step up. And that's what grates me about Armstrong... that he was a great talent, but a talent in one-day races, and was never going to be a Tour GC contender. Never. Great drug, that one...
Well written. Stop thinking about it - it's time to get your sponsorship. :-)
Good article and points lads.
I'll randomly add my two cents to some of them...
* I postulate that when you boil it down to the nth degree, training is "performance enhancing" (as is drinking water, eating sugar, etc). It will always be a grey area as to what is and isn't ok to use. It comes down to value judgements that will be driven by - to greater or lesser extents - riders, administrators, sponsors, fans and the media.
* I think the point of it being "ok" to use oxygen for climbers is similar to it being "ok" for riders to be able to refill their water bottles (a relatively recent rule change) and for them to be able to finish a stage in different kit to that in which they started (a mind-bogglingly ridiculous rule from an era when they could start at dawn in the mountains and finish a few hundred km away at the end of a hot summer day). It was/is detrimental to their health to manage without. It's not really an ethical question.
* It is possible to finish Grand Tours clean, and to be healthy afterwards. Statistically it must be so. We haven't had THAT many premature deaths/strokes/heart attacks, and we have had over a thousand (thousands?) of riders finish Grand Tours since the 70s. There is no way they all doped. Paul Kimmage for one will personally be hunting you down if you so much as HINT at that. So the hypothetical argument of "for your health" falls on it's arse with the slightest breath.
* Douche is a douche, but he's like the "heels" in pro wrestling. He definitely adds a certain something to the sport. We just need someone to step up as the good guy. Anyone else excited by Cav vs Greipel next year? "My grandmother could sprint faster" was one of the great Greipel lines (I think! Heard it from someone who heard it from someone who read it somewhere...)
* To me at the end of the day, doping in sport is not okay because of the so eloquently described "donkey to thoroughbred" issue. And the chain of knock-on effects as far as people receiving funding from sports bodies for places, sponsorship dollars, making teams, making semis or finals (in other sports like swimming and athletics particularly), getting to stand on podia, etc.
I think that's about it. And cycling is WAY cleaner than ANY other sport I'd reckon. The talk from your esteemed selves about it's inherently dirty aspect is saddening to me when seeing the big changes to results, tactics and racing that we've seen in the last couple of years. It's undoubtedly still dirty, but cleaning up more, and faster than any other sport.
"Contador's case bears little comparison to that of table tennis player Dimitrij Ovcharov..."
Seriously! They dope in ping pong too? That's an after school let's go down to the rec. center game that eventually turns into a university let's put a bunch of full beer cups on one end of the table and see who has to drink the most game.
@Marko
What? You didn't secretly train for hours in order to pound as much free beer as you could? I wish I'd thought of performance-enhancing drugs to complement my training regimen. I was unstoppable in that game (the university game, not the after school rec. centre kind).
Re. Ovcharov: dude can serve. Clenbuterol didn't invent that. The man's an artiste. If he was a cyclist, he'd have the sweetest stroke. We'd be calling him "Honey" it would be so sweet.