ANALYSIS: The Controversy Surrounding Carbon Monoxide Use by Riders Like Tadej Pogacar and Jonas Vingegaard
In the high-stakes world of professional cycling, where the margin between victory and defeat can be measured in seconds, athletes and teams are constantly seeking innovative ways to gain an edge. The use of cutting-edge technology, training methods, and even controversial practices is nothing new in this sport. However, a new debate has emerged over the alleged use of carbon monoxide (CO) by top riders, including Tadej Pogacar and Jonas Vingegaard, to enhance performance.
This revelation has sparked widespread scrutiny, raising ethical questions about fairness, safety, and the limits of physiological manipulation in cycling. To understand this controversy, it’s essential to delve into the science behind carbon monoxide’s effects, the rationale behind its use, and the broader implications for professional cycling.
—
Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas that is typically associated with air pollution and considered highly toxic to humans. When inhaled, CO binds to hemoglobin in the blood, forming carboxyhemoglobin. This reduces the blood’s capacity to carry oxygen, which can lead to hypoxia (a lack of oxygen in the body’s tissues) and, at high levels, death.
Despite its known dangers, carbon monoxide has a peculiar physiological effect that has intrigued scientists and athletes alike. Studies have shown that exposure to controlled, low doses of CO can trigger a process called “hypoxic preconditioning.” This process essentially tricks the body into believing it is operating in a low-oxygen environment, prompting it to produce more red blood cells and improve oxygen delivery to muscles.
This effect is similar to the benefits of altitude training, where athletes train in high-altitude environments to stimulate the production of erythropoietin (EPO), a hormone that boosts red blood cell production. However, CO offers a shortcut: instead of weeks spent at high altitudes, the body can achieve similar effects in a matter of days or hours through controlled CO exposure.
—
The use of carbon monoxide in sports remains a gray area. Reports suggest that some riders may use devices that emit small, controlled doses of CO as part of their training or pre-race preparation. These devices are designed to deliver just enough CO to induce hypoxic preconditioning without causing significant health risks.
While there is no concrete evidence implicating riders like Pogacar and Vingegaard, rumors and whispers have surfaced about top teams experimenting with these methods to gain a competitive edge. In a sport where performance-enhancing strategies often operate at the cutting edge of legality, the idea is not far-fetched.
—
The potential use of carbon monoxide raises critical ethical questions.
1. **Health Risks**
Even in small doses, carbon monoxide is a dangerous substance. Prolonged exposure can lead to long-term health complications, including neurological damage and cardiovascular issues. By experimenting with CO, athletes may be putting their health at significant risk in pursuit of marginal gains.
2. **Fairness in Competition**
The use of CO blurs the line between legal performance enhancement and outright doping. While hypoxic preconditioning itself is not banned, the method of achieving it could raise eyebrows. If some teams have access to CO-emitting devices while others do not, it creates an uneven playing field.
3. **Sporting Integrity**
Cycling has a long and troubled history with doping scandals, from Lance Armstrong’s infamous downfall to the widespread use of EPO in the 1990s and 2000s. The potential use of CO could be seen as yet another way of skirting the rules, further eroding trust in the sport.
—
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has not explicitly banned the use of carbon monoxide. However, the organization’s code prohibits any substance or method that:
1. Enhances performance unnaturally.
2. Poses a health risk to the athlete.
3. Violates the spirit of sport.
While CO-induced hypoxic preconditioning may not technically violate WADA’s rules, it arguably conflicts with the spirit of fair play. WADA has acknowledged the growing interest in CO and is reportedly monitoring its use in professional sports. However, regulating a naturally occurring gas presents significant challenges, especially when detection methods are still in their infancy.
—
Top cycling teams like UAE Team Emirates (Pogacar’s team) and Jumbo-Visma (Vingegaard’s team) are known for their meticulous attention to detail and willingness to adopt innovative practices. These teams employ sports scientists, nutritionists, and physiologists to explore every possible avenue for improving performance.
It’s plausible that some teams are experimenting with CO as part of their broader training strategies. However, without concrete evidence, it’s impossible to confirm whether these methods are being used. Team officials have largely remained silent on the matter, likely to avoid drawing unwanted attention.
—
Cycling is one of the most physically demanding sports in the world, with riders pushing their bodies to the limit for hours on end. Marginal gains in performance—whether through improved aerodynamics, nutrition, or physiological adaptation—can make the difference between winning and losing.
Hypoxic preconditioning is not a new concept in cycling. Altitude training, simulated altitude tents, and even hypoxic chambers have been widely used by professional teams. Carbon monoxide represents the latest evolution in this trend, offering a quicker and potentially more effective alternative to traditional methods.
However, the risks associated with CO far outweigh those of altitude training. While training at altitude is a natural and well-studied process, CO exposure is inherently dangerous and raises significant ethical concerns.
—
The potential use of carbon monoxide has not gone unnoticed by fans and media. Many have expressed outrage at the idea of athletes risking their health for the sake of performance. Others argue that CO use is just another example of the lengths to which professional teams will go to win.
Cycling, already struggling to rebuild its image after decades of doping scandals, risks further damage to its reputation if the CO controversy escalates. Transparency and regulation will be crucial in addressing these concerns and restoring trust in the sport.
—
As the controversy unfolds, cycling’s governing bodies must take proactive steps to address the issue. WADA and the UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale) need to clarify their stance on carbon monoxide and invest in research to develop reliable detection methods.
Teams and athletes, meanwhile, must weigh the potential benefits of CO use against the risks to their health and reputations. In a sport where every decision is scrutinized, the stakes have never been higher.
Ultimately, the controversy surrounding carbon monoxide highlights the broader challenges of regulating performance enhancement in cycling. As science and technology continue to advance, the line between innovation and unethical behavior will only become more blurred.
For now, the world of professional cycling remains at a crossroads—one where the pursuit of victory must be balanced with the values of fairness, safety, and integrity.
