Why is it baffling to understand that people want to behave young and feel young? That’s how progress has occurred, by not accepting the status quo and wanting something better.
By saying that’s just aging is like saying you have to accept that you got pneumonia and have to accept it.
We have pushed human longevity to the point that it’s double what it used to be a century ago. Aging has been pushed back as well. Even half a century ago, you were old when you got to 50 and 60. Now people are doing much more at those ages and you’re old when you get to 70. At 42 I still feel like I’m ascending.
To be clear, I am against doping and I’m not on anything. However I do understand the other side and I am admitting that it’s not black or white anymore.
Back in the bad old days when there was no test for EPO, a bunch of european amateurs died in their sleep. There was no money on the line, but the assumption is that they were chasing pro contracts. Where are you drawing the line for this no holds barred division (and given that these are competitive people, are you cool with some of them over doing it and killing themselves)?
Also, do you get banned from ever riding in the clean ranks, once you’d ridden in a dirty race? I ask because there are long term benefits to some forms of doping (eg endurance training is cumulative so the extra training done as a young man doped up on EPO and HGH might still be helping someone win many years down the line).
It’s just a massive can of worms, and no race organiser is going to touch it.
First of all, Oscar Pistorius did not have part of his healthy leg amputated to gain an unfair advantage. And Pistorius was admitted to compete with able-bodied athletes, because people weighed the advantages and disadvantages his prosthesis and disability afford him. That is a judgement call when certain medical advances are made. Certain rules will have to adapt. However, I don’t think it’d make sense to allow a future Pistorius compete with a bionic leg.
Perhaps one day if medicine advances so that we can unlock more of our potential without adverse effects, I am open to revisiting these questions. Honestly, I think a lot of those advances will come from a better understanding of nutrition, rest and stress rather than medication. But that isn’t even on the horizon. Even under strict medical supervision, something only pros in some sports can afford, athletes who are doping are still exposed to risk.
I’m curious what you’re basing this on and if your point is that TRT does not impact performance or simply that it differs from cycling steroids? It sounds like you’ve been through this so I’m curious if you think it wouldn’t impact a cyclist’s ability to recover to have a T value of around 700 as opposed to around 150?
To be clear (after your reading later posts) - I agree that it is different from the cycling of steroids, but in general if you have someone with a depressed T number due to training (as is common in endurance athletes) they will recover slower and be able to handle less training volume than if they were able to artificially bring that number up in the normal range. This is a huge benefit to this treatment that would have immediate and over time measurable affects on training and recovery and thus fitness
I think this is a bit of a strawman - does anyone say this? I think what most people are worried about is the possibility that riders competing at the pointy end of their events already would have an unfair advantage over riders not on synthetic steroids and be able to move up a level in the competitive ranks. This could be podiums or higher categories or even moving to national level competitions
I hear you. It’s a complex problem and I don’t pretend to know all the answers but I will throw some out there for discussion.
As far as the nontested division, I know I sign a waiver when I enter races. In the tri world, about 50+ people die during the race. 2 women died on the bike via accidents with cars. In cycling we just had a death in tour of Poland. It’s a dangerous world stepping outside your house. I think people assume responsibility entering that division. I would guess pretty much all of them are physician supervised if they openly enter it. I don’t see the point of using hormones to boost performance and then entering a non qualifying division. I think it’s safe to say that once you enter that division, you shouldn’t ever be allowed to be qualified for awards in any race.
Are we talking about the same thing? OP stated, “Now I get a full panel of bloodwork every year and my testosterone level is fine per the doctor. Trainer counters with fine for health, yes, but is it optimal for strength and endurance.”
I am not addressing those with legitimate low testosterone levels. I am addressing those with normal bloodwork who find dubious methods to obtain access to testosterone and other biological enhancement methods.
If you have normal testosterone levels and your trainer recommends testosterone for strength and endurance, find a new trainer.
Testosterone is a schedule III drug and is illegal to obtain without a prescription.
If you have normal testosterone levels and your doctor prescribes TRT, find a new doctor.
If you are taking prescription medications without a prescription for physical enhancement, then it’s no different than a body builder getting jacked with steroids or a cyclist using EPO.
And to use your condescending tone to drive the point home: If you think what you are doing isn’t bad because it only gives a little boost to rationalize your black and white view of the subject, so be it.
Pistorius is easy. You can see he has no legs. But you can’t see if someone has a knee replacement or hip replacement if clothing covers the scars. And they have rights to medical privacy.
Anyways, I think the advances will come from genetic modifications. Boy, these discussions will be heated when that happens.
Hummm, a particular topic for me, as I have a health issue since my childhood and as a result, my testosterone levels are extremely low. I visited a doctor many years ago, he suggested me to see an endocrynolgist to get a treatment (for general health and, by this time, to lower the risk of hard times to have a child one day). By the time, I struggled to find a specialist and with my natural procrastinational side, I left this topic open. Since I got two wonderful kids and luckily I am rather healty, so I leave it like this. Even though I know very well how much my recovery suffers - I am now 39 years old and with a hard work-family schedule, it becomes more and more hard for me to recover from my rides…
At the other hand, I have a clear mind - I do not dope, even if my competition is strictly limited to a few big sportives, I am not sure how I would feel about it. AND, I do not ask myself if the doctor is not messing up with my natural hormonal balance (maybe far from ideal, but long-term stable for my body)…
Well, maybe with the years counting, I should get a regular check from time to time for the health reasons…true…an inspiration perhaps
It ABSOLUTELY impacts recovery and that single effect is probably what I’ve noticed the most. Even on the T, I obviously don’t recover like a 20 year old (nor should I), but I’m able to absorb more training stress than without.
While most wouldn’t outwardly admit it, I think that the vitriol that accompanies the debate shows how negatively testosterone replacement is viewed by the cycling community in general even out of competition. If what you’re suggesting is true, then why would anyone object to having an “open” class of competition?
Anti-biotics and chemotherapy are anything but performance-enhancing. When used to aid in recovery from illness, they do not provide artificial boosts to performance in the near or long-term. Cycling HGH or testosterone are not required to recover from injury, but they can artificially accelerate that healing and recovery, essentially regaining the recovery of lost youth. Essentially, every training session we do results in micro-injuries to our bodies, and the recovery process from those “injuries” is how we improve. Anything which artificially enhances the body’s ability to recover is a decided advantage over the course of time. I don’t see how anyone can rationalize that as OK for competition. If you want to create a “no rules” division, then by all means have at it.
This is, as I understand it, the primary benefit of nearly all PEDs. It isn’t that they magically transform you into a better athlete, it is that they allow you to push yourself much further in training and thus have much stronger performances. In other words - we agree completely
I am not someone who objects to that so I’m guessing here - but I think the objections are likely from the nuances around an open class as opposed to the fundamental idea. That is to say, can you truly take anything even if it endangers your health in the short or long term? How and where do you draw the lines if there are any?
I’m not talking about day to day micro injuries. I’m talking about someone having neck surgery such as Payton Manning had in offseason. Deer antler spray by Ray Lewis for his injury. Achilles and ACL repairs. There is data out there that shows quicker recovery. But by definition, taking PEDs out of competition, even as a recovery agent from surgery, is prohibited.
Surgery itself is enhancement of recovery yet the drug to help recover is banned. Like I said, there is a taboo over hormones regardless of how it’s used.
Why do we have to regulate everything? People in that division are adults. They are responsible for their own health. Any person signed up for a race could be on anything that isn’t good for him/her. I’m betting some people are alcoholics and that’s way deadlier than anything we are talking about.
An open class of competition is an utter nonsense. Even if those using PEDs are ineligible for podiums/prizes they will still have a bearing on the outcome of the race.
I can’t actually believe, that on this of all forums, there are people trying to legitimise doping. The work that has gone on trying to clean up the image of cycling is absolutely lost here. People that believe any form of performance enhancing drug is acceptable, at any level, have no place in sport.
I’m having a real problem wrapping my head around the rationalizations of this myself. Not the technical side, but the lengths to which some seem willing to go to defend it or suggest alternatives to allow it in competition.
My $0.02 is if Dr prescribes it, they’re doing it for a reason, to get your levels back up to a healthy level. Of course it should be regulated in competition environments, if there are abnormal levels of T due to abuse then yes they should absolutely not be allowed to participate.
By all means, make the barrier to entry even higher for the sport and watch participation dwindle even more as the population ages.
Contrary to how you feel personally, cycling doesn’t drive most people’s daily lives. A ton of other factors enter into the decision of whether or not to begin TRT, so to suggest that a guy shouldn’t get to compete EVEN amongst other “doped” (to use your word) riders because of your arrogant virtue signaling is nonsense.
I will defend your right to a clean sport without equivocation, but your apparent belief that NO FORM of competition can exist for TRT patients is a bridge too far for me.
Anyone who denies that simple truth is full of it.