ANALYSIS: Why are riders like Tadej Pogacar and Jonas Vingegaard using carbon monoxide?
Cycling
Cycling, like any other professional sport, sees riders and teams constantly experimenting with different training methods, dietary plans, and supplements, all to find the extra 1%. But in a sport where the smallest of margins can make the difference between a grand tour victory, and dropping like a stone on the first climb, there is a constant flow of new products and methods that fall in a grey area between legal and illegal. Cycling’s past is one riddled with shady characters, and words such as EPO and blood doping are dark clouds that still linger over the sport.
In 2024, the new controversy is carbon monoxide. Back in July, the two main protagonists of the last five Tour de France, Tadej Pogacar and Jonas Vingegaard, both confirmed they had used it previously - although it's unclear how much and if it had any effects. At this stage, it is still legal, but whether this is simply a training revolution or another dark path for cycling (which could definitely do without any more dark paths), remains to be seen. Cycling fans naturally get suspicious of any performance-enhancing mechanism, especially those that they may not understand. So, we want to look at what the benefits are of carbon monoxide, and how teams are using it to create performance gains.
Should it be illegal in sport? This article may not answer that question, but it will hopefully help you to understand why it is becoming more popular in cycling, and why some riders and experts have their concerns.
What is carbon monoxide?
Stay with us, its about to get scientific, but we’ll break it down and find out its relevance to cyclists shortly.
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colourless, odourless gas produced by the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing materials. In the human body, CO is generated during the breakdown of heme by the enzyme heme oxygenase. At low concentrations, CO functions as a signalling molecule, influencing various physiological processes.
In the context of athletic performance, particularly in endurance sports like cycling, CO has gathered attention for its potential to enhance oxygen delivery and utilisation. When inhaled in controlled, low doses, CO binds to haemoglobin, forming carboxyhaemoglobin. This binding reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood, simulating hypoxic conditions similar to those experienced at high altitudes. The body responds by increasing the production of erythropoietin (EPO), stimulating the generation of red blood cells and then elevating total haemoglobin mass. An increase in haemoglobin mass can improve oxygen transport to muscles, potentially enhancing endurance performance.
Ok, confused? Yep, we are too, so here’s a more concise explanation: By mimicking the effects of high-altitude training through controlled CO exposure, athletes may boost their red blood cell count, leading to better oxygen delivery during prolonged physical activity. Beyond cycling, other endurance sports have explored CO inhalation for performance benefits, particularly any where maximum aerobic capacity is a priority.
Are there any risks?
While controlled CO exposure may offer performance advantages, it carries significant health risks. CO has a high affinity for haemoglobin, binding more readily than oxygen and forming carboxyhaemoglobin. Elevated levels of carboxyhaemoglobin can reduce oxygen delivery to tissues, leading to symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, and, in severe cases, loss of consciousness or death. Chronic exposure, even at low levels, may result in cardiovascular and neurological complications. So, like other dark paths cycling has gone down in the past, carbon monoxide certainly has health risks to even the fittest athletes.
The margin between a potentially beneficial dose and a harmful one is narrow, making precise control essential. Unsupervised or improper use of CO inhalation poses serious health risks, which highlights the need for medical oversight and for riders and teams to strictly follow safety rules.
What have the riders said?
During the 2024 Tour de France, the use of carbon monoxide rebreathing techniques by top teams, including UAE Team Emirates and Team Visma Lease a Bike, sparked discomfort within the peloton. These teams employed CO rebreathing to measure haemoglobin mass, and whilst this is not illegal, it was viewed with a raised eyebrow by many within the media and cycling fans. Riders like Tadej Pogacar and Jonas Vingegaard defended the method, emphasising its role in assessing training efficiency rather than performance enhancement. This is different to other performance enhancing drugs of the past, as it is an assessor of current fitness levels, rather than a fitness boost.
In an interview with Eurosport, French cyclist Romain Bardet expressed awareness of CO inhalation practices, acknowledging the ‘arms race’ amongst teams to have the most advanced mechanisms to boost performance. He highlighted the ethical considerations and the need for clear regulations, noting that in a highly competitive environment, reliance on individual ethics is insufficient in the constant battle to keep things fair.
The use of substances or methods that enhance performance while remaining within legal boundaries is not unique to cycling. In sports like athletics and swimming, techniques such as hypoxic training (simulating high-altitude conditions) and the use of supplements like ketones have been tested and used to gain a competitive edge. These practices often spark debates about fairness, health implications, and the spirit of sport, highlighting the ongoing tension between innovation and regulation in athletic performance.
What do the governing bodies say?
The introduction of carbon monoxide rebreathing as a performance-enhancing method has raised critical questions regarding the boundaries of what is deemed ethical in professional cycling. Governing bodies like the UCI and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) face significant challenges when addressing innovative methods that fall within legal limits but hang on the edge of what might be considered fair competition. The debate often lies not in whether these practices are allowed under current regulations but in whether they align with the spirit of fair play that sports organisations aim to uphold.
Historically, sports authorities have had to adapt to new scientific discoveries rapidly, balancing the need to maintain a level playing field with the understanding that advancements in training and recovery are inevitable. Like Formula 1 cars are constantly getting faster as technology improves, cyclists also get faster as their training, diet, and resources become more advanced.
The case of carbon monoxide rebreathing places the UCI and WADA at a crossroads: should they wait for conclusive evidence of harm or unfair advantage before acting, or take a proactive stance to preserve the sport’s reputation from any more harm?
Can fans handle more cycling controversy?
The impact of carbon monoxide rebreathing extends beyond the peloton and into the realm of public opinion and media scrutiny. Cycling, still damaged by past doping scandals, remains under intense observation. The mention of new, unconventional practices often triggers scepticism among fans, who fear that the sport is playing a dangerous game once more. This reaction is magnified by the media, which frequently positions such stories within the larger narrative of cycling's troubled history with performance enhancement.
The media portrayal of carbon monoxide usage can sway public opinion on the topic, framing it either as a clever, legal method of maximizing athletic output or as another potential scandal in the making. High-profile endorsements or criticisms from riders and teams play a crucial role in shaping these narratives. For instance, when Tadej Pogacar and Jonas Vingegaard admitted to using CO rebreathing, the conversation shifted to whether this represented forward-thinking training or an ethical grey zone that could lead to future bans.
Understanding public perception is key to predicting how long methods like CO rebreathing will remain part of competitive cycling. If widespread backlash grows, it may push governing bodies to re-evaluate and potentially ban the practice. As such, public and media reactions act as unofficial watchdogs of what practices are acceptable, influencing the direction of sports regulation and the evolution of training methodologies.
Someone should do this: create a cycling news site that is free with no ads. Watch the subscriptions like up. Then carefully and slowly introduce ads. I might do it myself. Sites like CUTD are poorly conceived and consequently a mess. Readers will leave as soon as there is a better alternative.
The reason you don’t see these type of websites often and certainly not in cycling might be that they die before you find them. But tell us about it when you’re done I’ll visit to check it out.
Might be bit isn't. The reason is actually that no one wants to work for free. But that's my point. Incur the costs for a year, make clear that ads are coming and see if it works. No one else has tried this in cycling.
Most cycling sites in English are behind a pay wall. And I assume they do not show you ads then. I also would live to see all news for free and no ads. Not sure then how they will pay all writers. Or maybe they also work for free. Just because they love cycling. That would be perfect 😀 And hope the server provider also is a huge cycling fan, so they can get that for free too. 😉
Surely the question should be what else are they using as they smash climbing records? Records that have stood since the EPO era.
Is it only me or new style/format of cyclinguptodate.com is really bad? Too small font in news titles and at the same time everything seems to be so streched that you need scroll and scroll...
Bad for us, good for them, indifferent for newcomers. When a bank offers you 50 to open an account is that good or bad? Good for you, bad for existing clients paying for it who received nothing when they joined, indifferent for future new clients who might get 100.
This may very well be is the least germaine comment I've ever read online.
By definition an analogy is always GERMANE, tganjs for pointing out the obvious and revealing you don’t understand its purpose.
A good analogy is germane; a bad analogy isn't. You could say the strength of an analogy can be judged by its germaneness. I thought the bank account analogy was rather germane indeed!
Just in
Play for FREE! Fantasy Paris-Roubaix
Subscribe to our Daily Newsletter today!
Popular news
Latest comments
- By the way, try to specify details a little deeper next time, I know lengthy text is unpopular but often it’s very useful, like to distinguish between a cobble having the effect of many little hills or a cobbled section :-)Mistermaumau13-04-2025
- Sorry thenMistermaumau13-04-2025
- They made the mistake of asking Kopecky to wait for Lorena and also work for her. Typical Sdworx fail. Kopecly should have been sole leader with Lorena playing foil like Vismaabstractengineer13-04-2025
- these french guys are such petty jealous whiners i can’t stand Madiot.mij13-04-2025
- More crying from a failing team boss with no winsCrashjames13-04-2025
- (I was really replying to the other person...) In Paris Roubaix, the bits with the cobbles are slower than the paved sections, so wind resistance is less than it otherwise would be on a "flat" road, though as I keep pointing out, these are equivalent to a bunch of little hills. While momentum will help one maintain velocity given resistances, you aren't taking into account that one had to get that extra mass up to speed in the first place, which costs more power. So, you do get back most of the extra power you've put in, but that's not helpful. The less rolling resistance (and climbing over the bumps) of less mass will always be more helpful than having more mass, all else held equal. Actually, this could be easily demonstrated with a cyclist on cobbles, 2 runs, start at the same velocity, do the same power, have a backpack full of foam on run 1, then full of rocks on run 2 (ensuring the PSI was perfected for both) and see which run went faster. And when we think about it, we know which one will be faster intuitively.acem8213-04-2025
- Yes, you did say that but what is the point of stating the obvious when obviously a lighter rider won’t be able to avoid reality which is that above a certain speed rolling resistance becomes insignificant compared to wind resistance, so it pragmatically all things being kept equal is irrelevant for them in their task. Momentum is what you’re left with after overcoming resistances, and that’s what going to help you keep up your speed except on a longer hill where weight will slow you faster.Mistermaumau13-04-2025
- Yes ok, but then what were the exact details then, did he cross the line, did his team not ask the stewards committee if they thought it was an exceptional case? He got the time but not the ranking, not even the last ranking, which suggests it was looked at and decided but explain why you feel it wasn’t right? There are only two cases it doesn’t apply, team time trials and summit finishes, so flat or not makes no difference.Mistermaumau13-04-2025
- Rolling resistance goes up with weight. Also, I did specify "all else held equal".acem8213-04-2025
- Even light rain is tricky as it has been dry since ages and the normal roads will be covered in smeary dust that won’t get washed off fast enough. Not sure how many of the cobbled sections are open to heavy traffic during the year so that’s a different problem.Mistermaumau13-04-2025