# Is doping ongoing?



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

I'm realtively new to the doping debate despite having followed cycling for some time. I had read books on it of course - Voet's, Millar's and LA's (not sure if that counts as a doping focussed book) - but until the more recent LA activity I had been under the impression (possibly naively) that whilst the peloton might not be completely clean doping would now be limited to a select few prepared to take the risk.

What I was wondering is if the general feeling is that the peloton is still likely to be using PEDs on a large scale? If so is it as bad as it was? Or is it generally clean but given the stain on professional cycling's reputation is it just going to be a long long time before general opinion accepts that a pro performing well is actually just good?

Reading the forum I've seen comments about Sky and Wiggins in particular and being British I have an interest in them. It would seem unlikely to me that Brailsford would be encouraging activity of that sort given his role in British Cycling as well but I'm fully aware that that's not proof of much. Similarly I've noticed insinuations about Evans having relationships with Ferrari and the implication is therefore that the two favourites for this year TDF may not be doing so clean. I have no opinion on it myself, I don't have the knowledge to either defend or implicate anyone myself but I was just intrigued.

Thanks!


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

I hope not. But probably. No proof, just the realization that dozens of pro teams ALL going from full-to-the-gills doping programs to lilly-white-ness is probably a little unrealistic. 

Doping less, most likely. Now, if a certain 7-time TDF winner would come clean, that might shake things up for the better. . .


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Almost certainly but the tests have become frequent enough and with the biopassport effective enough as a deterrent that I imagine the gains are relatively small compared to what they were a few years ago and especially 5+ years ago.

Might even be possible for someone to win something significant these days without doping, which probably hasn't been the case since EPO came on the scene in the early 90s.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

There has been a huge drop in the outputs and climbing speeds in the last 3 years. Yes, riders are still doping. Top riders have complex, expensive, programs but there are plenty of clean riders in the sport.


----------



## burgrat (Nov 18, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yes, riders are still doping. Top riders have complex, expensive, programs but there are plenty of clean riders in the sport.


I agree with this. As long as there is a large financial incentive to win the big races, there will be those willing to risk it.


----------



## AdamM (Jul 9, 2008)

Yes, without a doubt. 

The "leaked" numbers from the UCI for the 2010 TDF show there is still widespread doping. The bio-passport system seems to have actually made it easier for the dopers with the funds to have complex programs. It creates a situation where all the cards from the anti-doping agencies are on the table and then leaves it up to creative minds to hack the system. With the bio-passport being an early warning of potential trouble. IIRC, Van Den Broeck's trainer responded to the leak showing him as an almost certain doper by saying they'd fix things for the future. Yep.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

It seems to me the biopassport is simply used as a way to even the playing field and ensure riders have "safe" hematocrit levels. As long as you play by the unwritten rules, and don't go overboard, the officials will look the other way.

In all honesty, the rigors of a pro cyclist's lifestyle are such that doping is probably necessary to help maintain health. We are not supposed to ride bikes 4-5 hours a day, with a significant portion of that time at hard efforts. It is too demanding on the body. It reduces testosterone levels. It reduces hematocrit levels. Pro cyclist's bodies don't have enough time to recover naturally. The officials in cycling know this and would rather look the other way in most instances rather than have to face the music and start reducing the demands of competition. $$$ is at stake here.

I'm convinced this is not just a "rider" problem that can be solved by getting rid of athletes willing to dope. It runs much deeper and will take action by much more than riders.


----------



## burgrat (Nov 18, 2005)

Gatorback said:


> In all honesty, the rigors of a pro cyclist's lifestyle are such that doping is probably necessary to help maintain health. We are not supposed to ride bikes 4-5 hours a day, with a significant portion of that time at hard efforts. It is too demanding on the body.


It makes you wonder how the guys used to ride 300k on steel bikes with no derailleurs back in the early 1900's. Those guys were animals!


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*False assumptions*



Gatorback said:


> It seems to me the biopassport is simply used as a way to even the playing field and ensure riders have "safe" hematocrit levels. As long as you play by the unwritten rules, and don't go overboard, the officials will look the other way..


The officials aren't looking the other way with Armstrong and his hematocrit was within 
"safe levels."



Gatorback said:


> In all honesty, the rigors of a pro cyclist's lifestyle are such that doping is probably necessary to help maintain health. We are not supposed to ride bikes 4-5 hours a day, with a significant portion of that time at hard efforts. It is too demanding on the body. It reduces testosterone levels. It reduces hematocrit levels. Pro cyclist's bodies don't have enough time to recover naturally. The officials in cycling know this and would rather look the other way in most instances rather than have to face the music and start reducing the demands of competition. $$$ is at stake here..


Endurance competition is based on attrition.. Avoiding illness and weakness is part of it. Doped or undoped these guys will push to unhealthy limits.



Gatorback said:


> I'm convinced this is not just a "rider" problem that can be solved by getting rid of athletes willing to dope. It runs much deeper and will take action by much more than riders.


Clean riders have to slow down also known as pacing yourself, and that's for 3 weeks. It's important to know one's limits and stay within them. Exceed them at your own peril. AKA cracking. Dopers and pushers will be sanctioned. Simple.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

I guess the peleton is cleaner. I mean, there were only 5 Sky riders at the front on the climb today instead of the 6 USPS use to put on the front.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

The Tedinator said:


> I guess the peleton is cleaner. I mean, there were only 5 Sky riders at the front on the climb today instead of the 6 USPS use to put on the front.


Ha! exactly. There would have been 6 but Sivtsov dropped out

Looking past the absurd show up front what was surprising is the huge time gaps on such a short climb. Huge portions of the peloton were way off the back


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

I don't want to sound naive, but you can see it in rider's faces too. Only the Sky rider's looked like Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones in "Men in Black". The other guys looked like they were dying out there.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

The Tedinator said:


> I don't want to sound naive, but you can see it in rider's faces too. Only the Sky rider's looked like Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones in "Men in Black". The other guys looked like they were dying out there.


woah, hold up, it's just Sky now? Evans and Nibali were there!

I think I preferred thinking it was clean


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

I like to think it's clean, but I know better. Maybe doping in cycling is harder to catch than doping in football and baseball in the USA. I have a hard time believing the current myth that the dopers are one step ahead of the testers. If the regulating bodies can't keep up then that's their own fault. I believe that if a rider passes, then he's clean. I don't really care what LA did or does, but I suspect foul play with the bureaucrats who can't stop trying to catch him. Wouldn't they be better served to live in the present and try to keep sport clean?


----------



## captain stubbing (Mar 30, 2011)

roddjbrown said:


> woah, hold up, it's just Sky now? Evans and Nibali were there!
> 
> I think I preferred thinking it was clean


yeah but you had sky super-domestiques dropping all of the leading GC contenders on a 6km climb!


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

captain stubbing said:


> yeah but you had sky super-domestiques dropping all of the leading GC contenders on a 6km climb!


It was UK Postal out there today. What a farce.


----------



## AdamM (Jul 9, 2008)

> It was UK Postal out there today. What a farce.


+1

Perhaps the second coming of Festina? It's absurd that they'd expect anyone to believe it.


----------



## Buzzard (Sep 7, 2004)

captain stubbing said:


> yeah but you had sky super-domestiques dropping all of the leading GC contenders on a 6km climb!


And then Porte and Rogers still roll across the finish line before many of the strongest climbers in the world. This, after taking huge pulls at the front for Sky.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

I think it would have been different without that big crash the day before, and without the mechanicals of van Den Broeck and Valverde. 

Now if Sky is on something I hope there is no cover up like there was with USPS.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

captain stubbing said:


> yeah but you had sky super-domestiques dropping all of the leading GC contenders on a 6km climb!


...but nonetheless Evans and Nibali were there.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

When people imply that one team are doping and not others I begin to suspect their opinions arise from sour grapes.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> There has been a huge drop in the outputs and climbing speeds in the last 3 years. Yes, riders are still doping. Top riders have complex, expensive, programs but there are plenty of clean riders in the sport.



This is very good to hear.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

roddjbrown said:


> ...but nonetheless Evans and Nibali were there.


Two customers of Dr. Ferrari

What was interesting was how decimated the field was. Huge loses by the GC guys. Very select group. Unusual for such a short climb to do that much damage on the race


----------



## erj549 (Jul 26, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Two customers of Dr. Ferrari
> 
> What was interesting was how decimated the field was. Huge loses by the GC guys. Very select group. Unusual for such a short climb to do that much damage on the race


Are they currently testing for autologous transfusions or blood bag plasticizers? I'm assuming that would be the current preferred method of choice now that EPO and Cera are a bit harder to get by with.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Two customers of Dr. Ferrari


Is or were?
Last time we touched on this I didn't ask for hard facts. Now is the time.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

roddjbrown said:


> When people imply that one team are doping and not others I begin to suspect their opinions arise from sour grapes.


true, that


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

kbwh said:


> Is or were?
> Last time we touched on this I didn't ask for hard facts. Now is the time.


For years Cadel denied ever working with Ferrari, even though most in the sport knew he was. He was introduced by his long time manager, Tony Rominger, who was also a Ferrari customer when he was a Pro.....When Cadel won the Tour Ferrari had to take credit and tossed him under the bus and said that he had done some "testing" with him. 

Welcome to 53x12.com

La Republica ran a story last year that said Nibali, Pozzato, Pelizoti, and Bertagnolli were working with Ferrari. 



> Dr. Ferrari, in the weeks preceding the Tour de France, rode on a scooter between Livigno and Saint Morritz following a number of riders, including Nibali and Pellizotti, with a stopwatch in hand," said Fanini,


They all denied it. Since then Pelizoti, and Bertagnolli have had BioPassport positives and Pozzato admitted working with Ferrari


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

I see where Wiggins took a little umbrage at the observation that Sky's dominance on Stage 7 reminded some of USPS back during Armstrong's tour dominance.

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/3994776-post13.html


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

I think I can understand Wiggins's reaction to that question. IF they are clean (and I have no idea) and have ridden incredibly well (I presume this is still possible without doping) then the last comparison you would want would be with the tainted USPS team. 

As a further question, I was wondering how differences arise in the riders if so many are doping, not just now but in the USPS era too. From my understanding the biological passport system theoretically would allow all riders to boost haemotacrit levels to the same limit, so what causes differences. Why is it for instance that BMC couldn't keep any support up with Cadel on stage 7? Is it their biological construction as I've read that BMC bought strong flat riders to the tour rather than climbers? Similiarly in the USPS era, since several other riders were known or implied dopers what differentiated them from Armstrong? Was it not team-wide doping or was LA simply a better doper than others


----------



## DZfan14 (Jul 6, 2009)

The Tedinator said:


> I don't want to sound naive, but you can see it in rider's faces too. Only the Sky rider's looked like Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones in "Men in Black". The other guys looked like they were dying out there.


Pay no attention to that. Sky's riders were all selected because they are physiologically gifted and they trun a higher cadence than everyone else. They are also on their bikes six hours a day. 

None of the other teams have riders that are as physically gifted, they go on shorter, flatter training rides, turn over big gears that are interrupted by numerous stops for espresso and darling little ham sandwiches. 

Also Team Sky riders have no lactic acid.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

DZfan14 said:


> Pay no attention to that. Sky's riders were all selected because they are physiologically gifted and they trun a higher cadence than everyone else. They are also on their bikes six hours a day.
> 
> None of the other teams have riders that are as physically gifted, they go on shorter, flatter training rides, turn over big gears that are interrupted by numerous stops for espresso and darling little ham sandwiches.
> 
> Also Team Sky riders have no lactic acid.


Oh, has Zabriskie moved to Team Sky now?


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

Fromme & Wiggens performance tody should raise even more eyebrows........decimating the 4X world TT champion Cancellera???WTF....the day after 2 straight days of very hard mountain efforts?

Suspious to say the least.

Len


----------



## ashpelham (Jan 19, 2006)

Pretty sad commentary that none of us can comfortably accept a great performance by a team of individuals on a TdF stage anymore. The sport has more than a credibility issue, I'd say. SKY has ridden well this year though. Nice performance in the Giro TTT. And it is a lot of boys who are exceptional riders in their own right. Maybe nothing is amiss after all. I want to believe


----------



## juno (Jul 18, 2008)

ashpelham said:


> Pretty sad commentary that none of us can comfortably accept a great performance by a team of individuals on a TdF stage anymore. The sport has more than a credibility issue, I'd say. SKY has ridden well this year though. Nice performance in the Giro TTT. And it is a lot of boys who are exceptional riders in their own right. Maybe nothing is amiss after all. I want to believe


I agree.

Unfortunately if something seems too good to be true it usually isn't...especially in the TDF.

I am so sick of doping issues.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

ashpelham said:


> Pretty sad commentary that none of us can comfortably accept a great performance by a team of individuals on a TdF stage anymore. The sport has more than a credibility issue, I'd say. SKY has ridden well this year though. Nice performance in the Giro TTT. And it is a lot of boys who are exceptional riders in their own right. Maybe nothing is amiss after all. I want to believe


Yep. Agreed.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

roddjbrown said:


> What I was wondering is if the general feeling is that the peloton is still likely to be using PEDs on a large scale?


Does a Team Sky rider crap in the woods?


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Len J said:


> Fromme & Wiggens performance tody should raise even more eyebrows........decimating the 4X world TT champion Cancellera???WTF....the day after 2 straight days of very hard mountain efforts?


Don't forget that Fab took it easy yesterday to rest for the time trial. He lost twelve minutes.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Sky has absolutely nothing to worry about.....the whole cycling world is to busy nailing Lance and the rest to the barn wall to be concerned with ridiculous performances by today's riders in the biggest race in the world. Besides, we have until 2014 to determine the winner of the 2012 Tour!


----------



## turbogrover (Jan 1, 2006)

The Tedinator said:


> Sky has absolutely nothing to worry about.....the whole cycling world is to busy nailing Lance and the rest to the barn wall to be concerned with ridiculous performances by today's riders in the biggest race in the world. Besides, we have until 2014 to determine the winner of the 2012 Tour!


Yeah as long as Evans can hang onto 3rd place in this tour, he'll eventually be awarded the win in a couple of years, lol.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

I agree it is a sad commentary that we can't accept Sky's dominance without believing doping is at play, and of course we have good reason to doubt the authenticity of the results from Sky's recent performances... ...but we should always remember cycling is no worse than other sports in its doping problem. Cycling may get more bad publicity, but doesn't have any greater problem than the rest of the sports. Frankly I think the public at large really doesn't care and prefers the issue just be swept under the rug. And the owners and others making huge money is sports would rather keep the status quo and keep earning huge money than really address the problem.

I think there needs to be some honesty across all sports regarding what policies they really want to pursue. Do they really want to eradicate doping altogether? Or do they want to limit it so that athletes are at least in a ''safe zone" with doping? Right now I think there isn't a true desire to completely eradicate doping.


----------



## juno (Jul 18, 2008)

We all know that all it takes to win the Tour in the last dozen years is a superior training regimen.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

And the beat goes on.............

Cofidis Hotel Raided, Di Grégorio Arrested At Tour De France | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

juno said:


> We all know that all it takes to win the Tour in the last dozen years is a superior training regimen.


Do you think there's been no change at all in 12 years? This isn't meant in a stick-poking manner, just genuine interest. There's a lot of talk from far more qualified people than myself about lower power outputs/estimated VO2's in the last three years than before which seems to imply that it's at least reduced. 

I don't know enough to be sure but my thoughts would be that if power outputs etc. are down then the biggest area of doping will be for recovery rather than performance. It doesn't make it any less important or more acceptable, just a shift in emphasis perhaps.


----------



## juno (Jul 18, 2008)

roddjbrown said:


> Do you think there's been no change at all in 12 years? This isn't meant in a stick-poking manner, just genuine interest. There's a lot of talk from far more qualified people than myself about lower power outputs/estimated VO2's in the last three years than before which seems to imply that it's at least reduced.
> 
> I don't know enough to be sure but my thoughts would be that if power outputs etc. are down then the biggest area of doping will be for recovery rather than performance. It doesn't make it any less important or more acceptable, just a shift in emphasis perhaps.


No, nothing so pointed as that. Just a general comment from my doping-jaded ass. How many times have we heard "My new training regimen is why I dominated this year" only to find out the regimen came from an IV drip or by the cc or ml.

I really do hope SKY or Wigg's new training regimen is the reason for the incredible performance.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

juno said:


> No, nothing so pointed as that. Just a general comment from my doping-jaded ass. How many times have we heard "My new training regimen is why I dominated this year" only to find out the regimen came from an IV drip or by the cc or ml.
> 
> I really do hope SKY or Wigg's new training regimen is the reason for the incredible performance.


After Lance's course record in the 1/2 Ironman in Hawaii recently, he attributed the victory/total domination to finally getting his nutrition dialed in. 

Hey, at least he is switching it up a bit


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

roddjbrown said:


> Do you think there's been no change at all in 12 years? This isn't meant in a stick-poking manner, just genuine interest. There's a lot of talk from far more qualified people than myself about lower power outputs/estimated VO2's in the last three years than before which seems to imply that it's at least reduced.
> 
> I don't know enough to be sure but my thoughts would be that if power outputs etc. are down then the biggest area of doping will be for recovery rather than performance. It doesn't make it any less important or more acceptable, just a shift in emphasis perhaps.


For the last 25 years. doping has been aimed primarily at recovery both while training (allowing for more/harder training) and within stage races.......coupled with artificial increases in red blood cells to increase oxygen transportation.

What appears different, at least to me, is that doping went from being pervasive, to only available to a more select few who were able to afford the expertise necessary to "fool" the increased controls. 

Sure training methods keep getting more and more sophisticated, but a.) the incremental gains are very small and b.) there is widespread dissemination of training method information. I think what people are trying to communicate to you is that all (or at least most) of the peloton are genetic mutants that have trained hard all their lives to get where they are......you aren't going to blow the field away because you train harder or smarter (since harder without artificial assistance actually decreases performance beyond a certain threshold) than they do. Add mental toughness differences to the genetic differences to the (more likely than not) minor training differences, and you aren't going to see step changes in performances over a couple of years by an individual...especially one who has been riding professionally for several years. 

Couple a step change in performance in an experienced rider with the history of the sport.......add in the fact that the entire team seems to be outperforming both the rest of the peloton as well as specialists....and it would be surprising if there wasn't skepticism.

IMO

Len


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

rydbyk said:


> After Lance's course record in the 1/2 Ironman in Hawaii recently, he attributed the victory/total domination to finally getting his nutrition dialed in.
> 
> Hey, at least he is switching it up a bit


If the Slowtwtich crowd is anything to go by, the triathlon crowd eat this BS up like it's candy. Going to triathlon Armstrong must feel like it's the early 2000s as far as what he can get away with when it comes to doping.

Some of it is they are so desperate for triathlon to be seen as legit and gain popularity that they are willing to look the other way, lots of them though are just being taken for a ride.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

Thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread, especially FSchleck80. I think I've got my answer


----------

