From: kipper@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kip Ingram)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing
Subject: Re: Cyling [sic] and Doping
Date: 27 Dec 92 16:21:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: ut-emx.85855
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Dec27.071550.27901@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>
>OK, let's see some evidence that caffeine is a performance-enhancing drug.
>This entire line is simple BS since most of the laboratory monitored effects
>are performance destroying (increased heart rate, enhanced dehydration,
>irregular nerve firings etc.) Coffee's (caffeine's) effects are virtually all
>social.

This is garbage.  How can you fly in the face of *facts* and calmly assert that
you're being honest?  Facts, like the fact that caffeine behaves as an
amphetamine by stimulating the central nervous system, increases the body's
capacity for muscular work by releasing stored fats into the system for energy
(this spares carbs for hard efforts).  

According to Edmund Burke (Cycling Healh and Physiology, p. 214), a study in
the late 1970's found that cyclists who ingested 330 miligrams of caffeine one
hour before exercising at 80% of their max aerobic capacity could pedal 19.5%
onger than control subjects that didn't use caffeine.

There is no question that caffeine is a touchy drug that can hurt you as well
as help you.  But there is *no* question that used properly it can enhance
performance.

>
>The only excuse for banning high levels of caffeine is because people who
>_think_ that they get performance enhancements may use very high levels and
>such is known to cause strokes and heart failure. Or that the caffeine
>effectly masks other real performance enhancing drugs.
>
>If you are terrified of racing against mad caffeine addicts I would
>suggest you not race at all.
>

This isn't the point.  The point is that the members of the cycling community,
*as a group* have decided that they do not wish to have to use performance
enhancing drugs while competing.  A level playing field is a level playing
field, and there's simply no reason to feel compelled to move that level field
up to a slightly higher performance level through drug use.  The only way you
get an advantage through drug use is to be the only one using them.  What you
seek to do is to eliminate competition by forcing out the riders who have 
enough sense to be scared to death of using dangerous performance enhancers.
What's the matter, are you afraid to face them on equal terms?  You must not
be much of a cyclist.  A true sportsman loves nothing better than a fair fight.
The fight is fair if we're both on caffeine, or if neither of us is.  WHAT'S
THE DIFFERENCE?

I say to you, if you are so terrified of racing without the advantage of 
caffeine, I would suggest that you not race at all.

>OK, you don't like coffee. But don't give us all of this false justification
>of the evils of the "drug". Maybe you ought to have rules that limit the 
>amount of time you could train each week. AFter all, those who can train
>longer hours obviously have an unfair advantage on you.

This has nothing to do with "liking coffee".  As has already been pointed out,
the rules specifically allow reasonable coffee consumption with no danger of
disqualification.  This is an empty argument put forth by a man who feels the
weakness of his position.

And this garbage about having rules that limit training time.  Sure, we know
you're being sarcastic.  But you are also missing the entire point of the
noble side of athletic competition.  In the final analysis, what sports are
all about is honoring the achievements of a well-developed body, and the hard
work and dedication that it takes to produce that body.  If a man has the
grit that it takes to get out there and cycle 400 miles a week and build a 
winning body, that's noble and worthy of our respect and honor.  Anybody can
pop pills or guzzle a gallon of coffee.  That's not noble, honorable, or any
other good thing.  It takes no work.  Athletics is all about rewarding the
hard work it takes to win.

Your problem here is that you obviously value the money and the public
admiration that comes from winning more than you do your own pride in a job
well done. Sure, winning via drugs can get you that money just like winning
via work can, and unless you're caught the public will never know the
difference; you'll still be their hero.  But I for one couldn't enjoy that
position knowing that I hadn't really been the best.  I remember the first
time I nipped the fast guy in my little work cycling group, after having
very deliberately gone out and done some speed work.  It's an exhilerating
sensation, watching your front wheel ease past the other guys.  But it was
wonderful to me *because I WORKED for it*, not because I popped a pill prior
to the ride.  What an empty win that would have been.

Oh well, I feel like I'm talking to empty air.  If you can't see the difference
that I'm referring to, then you're pretty much a hopeless case anyway.  But 
just remember the next time you pop your caffeine and win.  

You didn't really win.  Your bike may have crossed the line first.  The crowd
may be cheering.

But *you* lost.  You beat yourself before you ever even started to ride.

Kip Ingram
kipper@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing