I love the thought of the mental gymnastics that would rationalise drafting but be outraged at the thought of HGH, testosterone or epo

I will say that drafting is at least as problematic in the pro ranks as doping. Because it's clearly endemic. And it clearly impacts race results. And it's cheating, plain and simple. There are good, hard-working pros that are missing out on prize money, bonuses, sponsorship opportunities, and more because of drafting.

In some ways, I feel like the solution is the same - lower the threshold for catching someone and reduce the penalty... Right now, in both cases, it's just too easy to get away with "it."

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I think this is a total fantasy - see Dev's thread but transmission rates of HIV and Hep are now the same for steroid use in the UK as they are for IV drug users - thats just for looking good

how many 40-50 year old single men are hitting up their doctor for testosterone supplementation?

doping in AG cycling has widely been thought to be endemic in the UK, so all things being equal, given there is no difference between drafting and doping the jump from one to another is not that great

I've done 2 tri's this year, one half and one full and drafting was rife, I cant believe that people think one, drafting, is ok but doping is somehow different

The girlfriend is in Utah. Aren't the Mormons down with that kind of thing?

---

***

i'm looking for PTU to state 1-and-out for the classes of drugs that alter anatomy (blood boosters, hypertrophy); and that they waive the right to a good night's sleep with exceptions (last 2 days before a race, not more than 2 consecutive nights or 3 nights in 7). then i'll be more impressed.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Are you kidding? How do you explain someone dropping $2500 on race wheels to finish 632 instead of 651 at a IM?

Really? A sport where people are willing to spend thousands of dollars on equipment, train for over 10 hours a week and spend a lot more money travelling to races, sometimes in a multi-year, desperate bid to qualify for Kona. In an era where you can order EPO over the internet, and similarly learn about how to micro-dose, all the while knowing there is basically zero chance of being tested, except actually at a race, maybe...

Recall the recent story of the "Brothers Utah" who were only caught because of the paper trail back to them from their online EPO purchases. Or the Cat 3 racer who got popped when Gran Fondo NY suddenly decided to invest in some surprise testing a few years ago. These stories offer a glimpse at what is really going on.

You are being very naïve if you think there is not much doping in the AG ranks, sadly.

I know, somehow, dropping 1000 on a tri-rig alpha, 400 on a wetsuit, whatever a Shiv or SP, Ventum or Dimond costs, then 300 on a helmet to save 0.000X watts, 5k on wheels but somehow there's not enough of an incentive to do drugs

I could do it the other way, drop a quarter of all that on a bottom range tri bike and have enough cash less over to buy PED's for the next 5 seasons :)

Of course if you've got the cash to drop 5, 10 or 15k on kit, then the drugs are a drop in the ocean

I see your point, but to me dropping $2500 on race wheels is probably more about being a gear junkie than finishing a little higher as you described. Every hobby out there has guys dropping absurd money on inconsequential things. That's the nature of being a dude. haha!

I don't know, knowingly taking dangerous drugs into your system for such little return seems to be in a different realm vs buying absurdly nice gear. The only reason to dope is to win, increase performance, but what are you really winning?...like you said, finishing 632 vs 651? There are lots of reasons to have cool kit and gear and it's common (if not the norm) across all hobbies.

I'm sure there are AG guys doing it, but i'd be surprised if there were more than a few.

I have so often heard this argument. It has different forms, but all basically say "why should I dope? I don't do this for a living." or "what incentive is there to dope when there isn't any money in it?"

Why does the money change anything?

If you have a moral position on whether it's ok to cheat or not, how much money would make you change that position?

Even if your "price" is millions, does that mean it wasn't really a moral position at all, but just a cost-benefit analysis?

I posit that if there is some degree of leeway on whether it's personally "ok" to do it, then it existed way before there was even the chance that doping could "pay off".

This points to basic inner motivations on why a person does a sport, or why a person competes.

Interesting (if old) read.

http://stevetilford.com/...ters-outs-danielson/

I remember the guy who got popped at Gran Fondo NY was quotes as saying the EPO and whatever he was doing was ~$1200/mth habit to be the Cat 3 phenom that he was.

I think that if the Kona winner were to be busted today for EPO, that that would be considered a "shoe dropping". If you recall, this exact thing happened only 10 years ago, and was not major news. I like to think that a Nina Kraft repeat would create bigger waves today.

I say this in a humorous and lighthearted way, but thanks Captain Obvious.

its not the first time I have been the Captain

I don't care and it's not important enough for me to invest that degree of effort in to it but I'm not at the pointy end, i'm also not sure how much more I'd care if I were , though I suspect that the closer I got, the greater the incentive and obvious associated benefits of taking them become - I'm still pretty certain I wouldn't care

I think for the most part, the sports populated with extremely competitive, well off smart individuals with access to resources both financial and knowledge based that could assist them in their quest to dope

I think if people are willing to take steroids, hgh and other drugs just to improve their looks, if they're willing to have plastic surgery, botox to treat lines, and dye their hair to maintain an image, some of them would sure as shit be willing to investigate the improvements in performance that come with a doping program

I'm certain that there's a group that dopes, a group that drafts and dopes and a group that drafts and it wouldn't surprise me at all that there are people in both the drafting and doping group that would say they'd never "draft / dope" and have some sort of distorted mental rationalisation as for why

I think a lot of it would depend on the athlete. I think it would be a bigger impact if it was a male athlete than a female athlete. And I think it would be a bigger impact if it was an "established" athlete than a relative newcomer. But I can certainly imagine a scenario much like what happened with Kraft where the impact would be about the same.

There is a limited amount of outrage to be had - http://fusion.net/...p;utm_campaign=wired

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Well, maybe Horner can win Utah now. That would just be perfect.

---

Suffer Well.

It has nothing to do with money. I have money to buy anything I want in the sport. I can podium in small/medium races for my AG. Big races top 10. No doubt I could podium in those if I doped. Even if you told me I would never get caught (which is probably already true) ,I would never dope. Even if you told me there would be no risks to my health to dope, I would never dope. It is a moral compass issue IMO.

*I'm not the moral police, just pointing out that this has nothing to do with money

i completely agree with you and I believe that there are people at the front who wouldn't do it the same as people at the back, but there are people that would

my point was not that its money related, my point was that as a group people are happy and have the money to spend to go faster so its not a huge leap to believe that a subset of them would not draw the line at a set of Flo's

+1. The "high threshold/high penalty" system has been failing miserably for decades now. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Agree with that aspect...I guess dope is not cheap!

Reminds me of the 4 gallon puzzle in Die Hard with a Vengeance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVtQNK_ZUJg

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

It's not just the prize money to take into account here, it's the money in the whole sport. That's where triathlon is different from cycling. Cycling is big business. Big name teams with multi-million pound budgets, and huge corporate sponsors. 5 million spectators or something at the Tour de France. Big TV deals. There are an awful lot of people who aren't cyclists who make their living from cycling. That's where a lot of the pressure to dope comes from. You want to make a career out of cycling you need to get on a team. If the team decides that it needs to dope in order to get the wins it needs to keep the sponsors happy and retain it's World Tour place, then suddenly you have a young rider who is having to make an active choice to stay clean and will likely lose his job as a result.

Triathlon is different because for the most part it's an individual sport where athletes tend to hire coaches rather than vice versa. Sure, there are some training teams but they still compete as individuals. It seems like in triathlon it would be much more the case that an individual would have to make a conscious decision to dope (I'm sure many do) whereas in cycling they had to make a conscious decision not to (at least for certain teams in the 90s and 00s that certainly seems to be the case).