[Stubbs]

Just a news report showing that a team had drugs that aren't something that could legally be given by a doctor for an ailment. Steroids (anabolic or otherwise), testosterone, EPO, blood transfusions: these are the mainstay of the drugs used in cycling and other sports.  I quite like the idea that bigpharma would spent the time and money to come up with drugs (i assume though randomised trials etc.) just to give to a few wealthy athletes, rather than spend their resources coming up with ones that they can market to hospitals and doctors worldwide.

I'd love to read your treaty, is it like the treaty of independence?

[mark s]

I have no idea what planet u lot are on? Of course he was given the best drugs he was the best rider, why wud u give someone comin in 47th place the best stuff?
There is no such thing as a level playing field ever!
This starts when little johnny shows a bit more potential for football than someone else, when little daisy wins a beauty pageant for standing upright. It's all driven by ego, yours or someone else's

Bobbins dense.  You're being dense.  Lance is famous for being shit before his post cancer comeback.  He even admits it in his book.

There's no possible reason to assume that the best rider would get the best dope.  In fact, the motivation is less for that rider, innit?

Let's take another.  Hmm, first doper I can think of... I know, Ben Johnson.  So, clearly, when on drugs he was the best.  1987, 1988, two world records on dope.  Boy was like a rocket when on roids.

In 84, when not on roids or on shitter ones he came 3rd.  His PB around then was the canadian record at 10.12 - clearly way behind Lewis even in 81.  So wikipedia tells me.

So Ben Johnson was on the best shit in 87, and 88 - but prior to that wasn't the best.  Or wasn't on dope.  But either way, you can't say he was the best.

None of that proves that, if you lined up all the sprinters, Johnson wouldn't be the best, if there weren't any on dope.   But the converse isn't necessarily true either.

All you can say is that Lance was the best cheater.

steroids are good but they dont turn a good athlete in to a champion.they are not a magic potion.to get results from them you have to put in the hard graft

[Stubbs]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/bdff9f60-a1b9-11e0-b9f9-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz26l9LVjxI

Our cod arrives – plus Millar’s side order of chips and a second bottle of wine – as he tells me about the effects of EPO, taken for a few weeks before competitions, far enough in advance that it isn’t detectable during races. In short, the drugs do work – they can “turn a donkey into a racehorse”, as one of his teammates put it – but they also killed any sense of satisfaction.

[dave]

Funny how people still want to call Armstrong the greatest athelete, yet I suspect would not call rich simpson the greatest climber? I bet Lance can throw a bike pretty hard.

[mark s]

people have seen lance power up the big climbs.the only vid ive seen of simpson is getting whapped in a boxing match

[bigd942]

For me one of the most interesting comments was one Jonathan Vaughters made on the Cycling News forums as follows

"Here's a fun example: So, Tommy D... Here's a guy that has used o2 vector doping, and with some success. But when you test him, without o2 vector doping, you quickly see this guy has massive aerobic ability. O2 transport isn't the limiting factor with his body/mind. However, he is not a mentally strong athlete. He succumbs to nerves and pressure very easily.

So, in looking at his physiology and psychology, the rate limiting factor is the latter, not the former. So, working on that makes huge strides. Giving him o2 vector doping is akin to putting a bigger engine in a car with a flat tire, because you want it to go faster. yes, it will make the car with the flat tire go faster, but you could just go ahead and fix the flat tire instead?

This isn't true with with lots of guys. Imagine a psychologically strong athlete that has great tactical sense, and is muscularly very strong as del, but who doesn't have a great o2 delivery system. This athlete benefits perfectly from o2 vector doping, and it would be difficult for them to perform as well without it. So, as a manager, i need to know that going in.

With Tommy D, I knew I could get great performances out of him, clean, but it would take some unconventional work. This is not always true."

To me the second last paragraph hinted at Lance as he was a muscular rider pre cancer and packed on muscle again easily before the comeback 2.0 but like everyone else I'm reading between the lines.

[a dense loner]

Funny how people still want to call Armstrong the greatest athelete, yet I suspect would not call rich simpson the greatest climber? I bet Lance can throw a bike pretty hard.

Uve lost it dave

[a dense loner]

On an aside Stubbs, I used to go to a gym, a lot, between the ages of say 15-23. This was back in the day, lets say there were 100 regular members, of this figure 6of us weren't on roids. There were many more members than this but let's keep the numbers small for the sake of the exercise. Deca or whatever else was the choice cost the guys £40 a mth for the wimps n about £75 for the beasts, sure it was mth cud ave been wk. do u see where this basic bit of Mathis is heading? I'll leave that in, spellcheck tickled me I obviously meant Maths. This was one gym in one area? Money money money

[Stubbs]

I see there's money in providing juicers a short cut to getting biceps that take the attention away from their beer gut, but I'm not sure the requirements of this relatively small group compares to the medical requirements of the whole world.  I guess the other point is as this is illegal I assume you get your little ampoules in a little brown bag and don't have much idea of what you're getting - hardly pushing research forward.

As an aside I wonder what like roid use is like these days now that less people think it would be cool to look like Arnold.  I know Mark S pops up every time this is mentioned, but the idea I get is that usage is less?

[Lund]

I see there's money in providing juicers a short cut to getting biceps that take the attention away from their beer gut, but I'm not sure the requirements of this relatively small group compares to the medical requirements of the whole world.  I guess the other point is as this is illegal I assume you get your little ampoules in a little brown bag and don't have much idea of what you're getting - hardly pushing research forward.

As an aside I wonder what like roid use is like these days now that less people think it would be cool to look like Arnold.  I know Mark S pops up every time this is mentioned, but the idea I get is that usage is less?

Dense, Stubbs is totally right.

The development cost, to a pharma company, of a drug is in the billions.  In fact, the average is given as either 1.3 billion dollars, or as 4 billion dollars.

Economics dictates that it would be daft to spend that amount on a drug specifically for body builders and athletes.  It would be far too expensive for all concerned.

Thankfully for Lance and his buddies, there are a lot more sick people and the NHS/medical insurance companies have deeper pockets than there are athletes and national sporting federations.

There is not one single drug out there that has been developed as a sporting enhancer.  They're all accidental, a bit like baby bio in blackpool.

[tomtom]

Though Viagra started as a cardiovascular drug until the interesting side effects were discovered in trial.. And kerching..
(I'm being devils advocate a little.. Sorry)

[dave]

Steady on guys. Lets not let facts and rationalism cloud the issue, which is that lance is a true god among men who's just an awesome all round guy, a true american hero who was forced at gunpoint to get doped off his tits, not that it would of helped him since he's the worlds best athlete anyway and always will be.. and peices of shit like steve redgrave aren't fit to lick the dirty needles of the true cancer-slaying messiah.

[tomtom]

He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy..

[slackline]

Dense, Stubbs is totally right.

The development cost, to a pharma company, of a drug is in the billions.  In fact, the average is given as either 1.3 billion dollars, or as 4 billion dollars.

Economics dictates that it would be daft to spend that amount on a drug specifically for body builders and athletes.  It would be far too expensive for all concerned.

Thats the costs of developing a legal drug not one that can be knocked off on the black market without undergoing rigorous efficacy and safety testing, so if you accidentally discover a drug that has some desirable side-effects for a niche market but know that there isn't any profit to be made going through the legalaise you could cynically suggest that its made and sold illicitly for profit without the research costs.

[Lund]

Though Viagra started as a cardiovascular drug until the interesting side effects were discovered in trial.. And kerching..
(I'm being devils advocate a little.. Sorry)

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/source-roger-clemens-host-athletes-pop-viagra-onfield-performance-article-1.171270

[tomtom]

So anyone here ever climbed on Viagra?

[Stubbs]

[Teaboy]

Thats the costs of developing a legal drug not one that can be knocked off on the black market without undergoing rigorous efficacy and safety testing, so if you accidentally discover a drug that has some desirable side-effects for a niche market but know that there isn't any profit to be made going through the legalaise you could cynically suggest that its made and sold illicitly for profit without the research costs.

But Dense was talking about "companies" spending "millions developing these drugs" so nothing to do with a hypothetical meth farm creating a wonder drug that has never been seen before.

[Nibile]

So anyone here ever climbed on Viagra?

Yes, it sucks, I can't stay close to the rock.

[mark s]

So anyone here ever climbed on Viagra?

Yes, it sucks, I can't stay close to the rock.

i climbed on the back of some fat bird,was like the top out of delstree

[tomtom]

So anyone here ever climbed on Viagra?

Yes, it sucks, I can't stay close to the rock.

:D

[a dense loner]

Dense was talking about no such thing tea boy. It's hard to have a reasoned debate about anything without someone picking apart everything a.n.other has said. What dense was saying in essence was people cheat people use roids people use weed or another drug to get them up a bold gritstone route people used to go to stoney n train on some kind of gear. These things are all bought.
Tbh I've never seen a paper written on how to make heroin, crack or coke. Someone's missing a trick, I'll bet a bit of money could be made from that. No, how would pharmaceutical comps get the go ahead? That's stopped that idea stone dead then, I feel like an idiot again

[slackline]

Tbh I've never seen a paper written on how to make heroin, crack or coke.

I don't think that trio feature, but almost every other conceivable drug and its synthesis are detailed in...

  and

[lagerstarfish]

a 4 year old could make crack (as long as they could reach the microwave - and had the cocaine to start with)

[a dense loner]

Nice one lagers I put that in to see how many posts it wud take to come back with an answer like that. Surprised it took so long tbh?
Since this thread has got so topsy turvy my very original point was that u can't take something away from someone x amount of yrs down the line. Of course if we're saying someone has been stripped of a vc 60 yrs later for lying this is far different from saying 60 guys on a start line 40 of whom are on enhancement, of course both these scenarios are hypothetical.
I actually can't stand roids n think the very idea is cheating but when stupid sweeping statements are made I find it insulting