The world of cycling is abuzz with a shocking revelation: Ineos Grenadiers, a renowned team, is under the spotlight for their use of a potentially dangerous technique, carbon monoxide rebreathing, which has sparked a heated debate in the cycling community.
A Controversial Practice:
According you a recent report by The Sunday Times, Ineos Grenadiers initiated the use of carbon monoxide rebreathing in their training regimen this season, just days before the UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale) implemented new rules restricting its use. The team's decision to employ this technique, which involves inhaling controlled doses of carbon monoxide, has raised eyebrows due to its controversial nature and potential health risks.
The team allegedly started this practice at a training camp in Spain in February 2025, despite cycling's governing body strongly advising against it at the time. The frequency and setting of these tests were not in line with the soon-to-be-enforced UCI regulations, which now explicitly prohibit such practices.
But here's where it gets intriguing: Ineos Grenadiers claims they have always followed UCI rules and regulations, even though their actions seem to contradict this statement.
A History of CO Rebreathing:
Carbon monoxide rebreathing in cycling gained attention during the 2024 Tour de France when it was revealed that several top teams were using this method for testing. These teams admitted to having access to specialized equipment but denied utilizing it for performance enhancement, despite its potential benefits in optimizing altitude training.
The technique, developed in the 1980s, enables precise carbon monoxide dosing into the lungs, aiding medical and scientific research. However, its application in sports, particularly cycling, is a double-edged sword. While it can help monitor blood values and enhance training, carbon monoxide is also a highly toxic substance, making its use a delicate balance between potential benefits and lethal risks.
The Ethical Dilemma:
The controversy lies in the timing and frequency of Ineos Grenadiers' tests, as they seemingly took advantage of a loophole before the UCI rules were enforced. This raises questions about the team's ethics and the potential impact on fair play in the sport.
And this is the part most people miss: Should teams be allowed to push the boundaries of what's considered safe and ethical in the pursuit of victory? Is the potential gain worth the risk, especially when it involves a substance as dangerous as carbon monoxide?
The story unfolds as a complex narrative, leaving the cycling community divided. What's your take on this controversial issue? Are the benefits worth the risks, or should such practices be banned altogether?
