This article was originally published in Issue 6 of the Sports Performance and Tech Magazine.
As soon as the modern bicycle was created racing quickly followed and Cycling became so popular it was included in the first Olympic games in 1896 in Athens, Greece. Since then it may not seem like the sport has transformed all that much to the novice fan who occasionally tunes in during the Tour de France. A two-wheeled machine with brakes and handle bars is still powered by a pair of legs and the most physically fit Cyclist who can endure the most pain usually wins the race. But while the fundamentals and visuals of Cycling are the same, the sport has actually leveraged scientific and technological breakthroughs (some legal, some not) to become a finely tuned and fiercely competitive test and display of human limitations.
An argument could be made that Cycling has relied on technology more than any other sport because it entirely exists because of the bicycle; which now numbers around one billion worldwide and has remained one of the most effective and efficient methods of transportation since its invention in the 19th century.
Today, technology is at the forefront of the sport of Cycling more than ever before. Every millimeter and ounce of a racing bike is precisely engineered and every aspect of a rider’s training and recovery regimen are analyzed using GPS devices, mobile apps and numerous hi-tech gadgets with one common goal in mind: speed.
Strong and Light
Major technological shifts that the bike itself has undergone in recent years have made it stronger and lighter. In the early 2000’s bikes built from carbon-fibre became a major advancement that would change Cycling forever. This material was originally used in the aerospace industry but was a perfect fit for the cycling world (when the tech advanced enough to bring manufacturing costs down) because it has a superior strength to weight ratio.
Carbon-fibre and other lightweight materials were so effective in making bikes lighter and faster that the world governing body for sports cycling, the International Cycling Union, actually made a rule in 2000 that bikes could not weight any less than 6.8 kilograms (14.9 pounds). This regulation was put in place in order to make sure the structural integrity of the bikes being manufactured remained safe and to ensure that all athletes were competing on a level playing field.
However, in the tech world fourteen years is a very long time and since the 6.8kg limit was instituted in 2000 technology has outgrown this restriction. Many athletes and their teams at recent Tour de France’s were actually adding small fishing weights to their bikes to make them heavy enough to meet this outdated weight regulation. This acted as a sure sign that technology has advanced quicker than the International Cycling Union was able to and is evidence that advancements in engineering are impacting the sport of Cycling at an increasingly rapid pace.
Hi-Tech Devices and Methods
In addition to innovations in the material that the bike is constructed from, there is a slew of high-tech devices and methods that cyclists use to track, analyze and improve performance. Smartphone apps and wearable devices provide Cyclists real-time feedback that calculates their pace so they can know when to step on the gas or ease up in order to meet their time goal. Other apps and GPS tracking devices can show riders their race path and how far they deviated (deviation can be just a few feet or inches) from the path that would allow the course to be completed the fastest.
But perhaps the biggest advantage that technology has provided elite cyclists is the ability to detect and mitigate drag. Pro Cycling races are so competitive amongst the elite athletes that a few hundredths of a second shaved off of each mile over the course of a 1,500-2,000 mile race like the Tour de France can be the difference between a yellow jacket or a missed opportunity. As a result, companies are specializing in analyzing cyclists on their bikes in wind tunnels to calculate how to reduce drag. They do so by making changes (sometimes on the microscopic level) to the surfaces of cyclists and their bike and gear. This makes an important difference because the human body is not exactly aerodynamic so lots of expertise and money is needed in equipping riders with the gear that will make them cut through the air with the least resistance.
Technological practices like this have had a huge effect on Cycling. The fastest average speed of the Tour de France winner in 1903 was 15.9 mph. In 2013 it was 25 mph.
Doping, Tech and the Thin Line
Like the relationship between the bicycle and racing over the last century or so, blood doping and its use by cyclists has remained the same in concept but continued to be advanced by science and technology. Even though advances in technology drastically increased speed and efficiency over the history of racing, riders have still looked to gain an extra edge with doping.
Doping is the use of banned performance enhancing drugs and there have been numerous cases and methods in some form throughout the history of Cycling. None more publicized than the blood doping saga with Lance Armstrong which cast a dark shadow over the sport of Cycling and put the successes of all riders into question.
Blood doping works by increasing the number of red blood cells in the bloodstream in order to enhance an athlete’s ability to deliver oxygen from the lungs to muscles. This allows muscles to perform at higher rates and increase an athlete’s overall endurance.
It is no secret that Cycling’s reputation was damaged by the use of performance enhancing drugs in recent history and many cyclists who took these drugs, Armstrong most noticeably, were banned from the sport and were labeled as cheaters and frauds.
But there is a very thin line between doping and using technology to gain an advantage. A line that is worth further examination.
Cyclists who doped received an unnatural and artificial performance boost. However, one could argue that technological advancements are just as artificial with boosting athletic performance and may also be unfair when money determines access to technological resources.
Even though injecting technology into the sport of cycling is not physically harmful or as morally unsettling when compared to injecting PED’s into cyclists, one should stop and think about the performance enhancements that are made possible by technology. It can certainly be argued that the aforementioned technological advancements give athletes the same unfair advantage that doping does. So will there ever be a point where technology propels cyclists to a level that is deemed unnatural or unfair because it creates a level of physical performance too far beyond that of a regular human being? Society in general and the International Cycling Union certainly believes this to be the case with performance enhancing drugs. But why not technology? Why is a breakthrough in carbon fiber technology that allows a bike to be lighter and stronger, therefore making it faster, not looked down upon in the same way that a new type of performance enhancing drug that allows athletes to deliver more oxygen to the muscles is?
The difference is that doping has very serious health risks for those who use them. The best arguments against doping highlight the adverse side effects that it causes in athletes and the problems it poses for youth when Cycling role models are taking illegal substances. But the argument against doping does not seem to be only derived from the physical maladies they cause. After all, the proverbial “asterisk” that accompanies doped up athletes does not demonstrate that an athlete doped and accepts the physical consequences. Instead, the asterisk symbolizes that they competed unfairly and labels them as “cheaters” and “frauds” and says that they are performing “unnatural” acts to athletically advance.
But if we truly followed this “unnatural” approach then all athletes would have an asterisk next to their name because all athletes are guilty of using technology and science to get the most out of their innate abilities.
Ultimately, both tech and doping propel athletes to physical levels that they could not achieve on their own but society is okay with one because it does not cause physical harm to the user. Cycling happens to be the perfect sport to examine uses of technology and doping because it is an extreme endurance sport reliant on a machine that tests humans capabilities. The slightest edge over an opponent is of utmost competitive and financial value and tech and doping can each provide it.
So the next time you watch Cycling or see a cyclist on the side of the road, think about the changes the bicycle has undergone throughout its history and the sport it created that simultaneously reflects our ingenuity and moral ambiguities.
With its true technological breakthroughs and the shadow of PED usage, Cycling is the ideal sport to examine this conundrum and reflect on what we as a society consider an acceptable scientific or technological advancement.