# Lawyer claims 90% of pro cyclists are doping



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

You have to take this with a grain of salt given his client’s situation, but....

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/...cent-doping-says-stefan-denifls-lawyer-448411


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Regardless of the clients "Situation", he is likely to know better than any of us how many people in the Pro Peloton are not clean, having trained, ridden and been on teams with other pro's. 

In the world of sports ... name a sport, any sport, and you will find dopers. At the pro level, the instance of doping is incredibly high, and most have just come to terms with it. It's easier to watch it as entertainment, than it is to believe all sports figures are clean.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

am so over professional sports of all flavors.

too many dopers, ego-maniacs, whiners, thugs...

it's all just a show...watch for entertainment, never bet on an outcome.


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

Wookiebiker said:


> Regardless of the clients "Situation", he is likely to know better than any of us how many people in the Pro Peloton are not clean, having trained, ridden and been on teams with other pro's.
> 
> In the world of sports ... name a sport, any sport, and you will find dopers. At the pro level, the instance of doping is incredibly high, and most have just come to terms with it. It's easier to watch it as entertainment, than it is to believe all sports figures are clean.


I guess I have to ask why you feel so comfortable saying he knows better than the UCI, race organizers, testing agencies, other racers, former racers, etc. None of them are saying that 90% of the peloton is doping either. Only the guy whose client just got busted. Why are you so eager to bank on his number then? Clearly doping/cheating is occurring. I just don’t know about the 90% part.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Rashadabd said:


> I guess I have to ask why you feel so comfortable saying he knows better than the UCI, race organizers, testing agencies, other racers, former racers, etc. None of them are saying that 90% of the peloton is doping either. Only the guy who’s client just got busted. Why are you so eager to bank on his number then? Clearly doping/cheating is occurring. I just don’t know about the 90% part.


Why … History for one!

Second ... because people like Lance, Ulrich, Basso, Contador, etc. were able to dope for years and years without the UCI, Race Organizers, testing agencies, etc. never catching them. All the riders in Operation Puerto still are not known.

The riders know each other, know what it takes to get to that level, all ride together, share the same doctors, share doping regimes even … riders know what's going on, everybody else is just guessing. When somebody tells you who they are, believe them … when somebody who is associated and knows the ins and outs of their business (and it's just that, a business), believe them.

It's the "Head in the sand" non-believers that keep the doping going and going and going … if enough people believe the crap those covering up their misdeeds, eventually those cover up statements become the truth (at least to the believers).


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

So in this world where 90% of the peloton is doping that you describe, is it systematic? Are the teams in on it? Are the sponsors? What about the race organizers? You do realize what it took for Lance’s team and others you mentioned to get away with what they did don’t you? Who is orchestrating all of that now? Surely, if you are so confident it’s occurring, you must at least have a theory on that part???


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

Here’s some science that presents a bit of a problem for your theory. 

https://fansided.com/2018/07/07/tour-de-france-2018-big-problem-doping-cycling/amp/


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

More:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/26/sports/cycling/doping-tour-de-france.amp.html

Again, I 100% agree that cheating and doping are still a problem in cycling. I just don’t buy the 90% argument.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Rashadabd said:


> So in this world where 90% of the peloton is doping that you describe, is it systematic? Are the teams in on it? Are the sponsors? What about the race organizers? You do realize what it took for Lance’s team and others you mentioned to get away with what they did don’t you? Who is orchestrating all of that now? Surely, if you are so confident it’s occurring, you must at least have a theory on that part???


You can try and dismiss it all you want ... history would show you wrong.

At this point, it's not team driven as USPS team was, but it is systematic. Team doctors are there to make sure they don't test positive, if they might, they get a "Stomach bug" and drop out of a race.

They are sent to specific doctors who are willing to continue "Omerta" and the status quo of cycling and it's doping culture.

In the United States, aging clinics are a good place for athletes to go. They look the other way and have access to any number of performance enhancing drugs.

It's so bad in cycling, I personally know several Masters level riders (and it's far from limited to the ones I know) that are going to their doctors and aging clinics to get testosterone boosts, just to stay up with the younger guys.

Just watch the show Icarus on Netflix, or read the Outside Magazine article about the masters level doper working with an aging clinic doctor to dope for a year in preparation for a specific event.

It's not hard to get, if you have the desire and money. Teams know who to send their riders to to make sure they are not "Associated" as a team so they don't lose sponsors, however the implicit need to take PED's is passed along to the riders when they sign their contracts.

Pro football players that are trying to perform clean, many times get told this way ... "Are you doing everything you can to help this team?" The implication is if you are not doping, your performance can improve and help the team more. Then doctor recommendations are made to help that happen.

This isn't hard to figure out like Quantum Physics ... it's been going on as long as sports have existed, and will continue to go on as long as sport exist. The dopers will ALWAYS be ahead of the testers, it's just the way it works.


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

Wookiebiker said:


> You can try and dismiss it all you want ... history would show you wrong.
> 
> At this point, it's not team driven as USPS team was, but it is systematic. Team doctors are there to make sure they don't test positive, if they might, they get a "Stomach bug" and drop out of a race.
> 
> ...


I think I rest my case lol. You are clearly just making this stuff up. And I am not trying to minimize anything. It’s not that deep. I just don’t think it should be exaggerated either. I am also pretty sure nobody has said that to an NFL player for at least thirty years lol.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Rashadabd said:


> I think I rest my case lol. You are clearly just making this stuff up. And I am not trying to minimize anything. It’s not that deep. I just don’t think it should be exaggerated either. I am also pretty sure nobody has said that to an NFL player for at least thirty years lol.


Good to know ... you may be one of 10 people in the world that believe less than 90% of the Pro Peloton is actually clean.

There is still plenty of evidence out there how people get a hold of doping products, and people that will supply information on how to properly use them ... if there is money, there are people willing to go as far as needed to get that money.


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

Wookiebiker said:


> Good to know ... you may be one of 10 people in the world that believe less than 90% of the Pro Peloton is actually clean.
> 
> There is still plenty of evidence out there how people get a hold of doping products, and people that will supply information on how to properly use them ... if there is money, there are people willing to go as far as needed to get that money.


I am guessing you didn’t read the articles huh. :thumbsup:


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Rashadabd said:


> I am guessing you didn’t read the articles huh. :thumbsup:


Nope ... why bother? You, and a few holdouts appear to be the only one who believes Pro Cycling (or sports in general) to be mostly clean.

Everybody else has been burned by that old cliche to many times to care.


----------



## Jwiffle (Mar 18, 2005)

While 90% may be hyperbole, it's still more correct than the opposite extreme, like saying only 10% dope. It's also very high in other sports, too, I'm sure. Just doesn't get as much press because people who watch those sports just don't care if their favorite players or teams are doping. 

I just assume they're all doping and enjoy the show.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

I'm not sure.

At this point, riders are mostly on their own when it comes to doping. Teams need to have some semblance of deniability, even if they make "suggestions" and "introductions". A team-wide doping program would be too risky in the current environment, because one positive or a "talkative" doper could bring the whole thing down. If they're doping under the team structure, it's probably targeted at a couple of their riders. Now, they may use the internal "anti-doping" program to fine-tune the detectability of the team, but it's not quite like the EPO heyday.

There are probably a handful of serious, doctor-directed rings, which probably charge some serious money. They probably run along the same lines as Aderlass. Might even be another Ferrari running a ring and giving training advice (if Michele himself isn't still in the game). Running a doctor-supervised transfusion/doping ring and keeping it quiet is probably a tough proposition, because you're only one positive from being exposed.

More likely the current trend for your average doper is hitting the black market for various prohibited substances and Googling your own protocols. It's all out there now. The key is not to go supercharged and light up your passport, so there's probably a lot of off-season and out of competition build/recovery phase doping going on. Eastern Europe, Asia, Central America, and South America are probably the hotbeds of this sort of thing.

90%? I doubt it, unless you count the gray-area stuff like Ketones. 

Clean? Hell no. But better than it was.

Plus, Bjarne apologized and everything.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Alaska Mike said:


> There are probably a handful of serious, doctor-directed rings, which probably charge some serious money. They probably run along the same lines as Aderlass. Might even be another Ferrari running a ring and giving training advice (if Michele himself isn't still in the game). Running a doctor-supervised transfusion/doping ring and keeping it quiet is probably a tough proposition, because you're only one positive from being exposed.


In case you were wondering (another rider, Alexey Lutsenko from Astana, is also tied into this):

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/jakob-fuglsang-allegedly-connected-to-banned-doping-doctor-ferrari/



> Jakob Fuglsang allegedly connected to banned doping doctor Ferrari
> 
> Astana team leader Jakob Fuglsang is allegedly being investigated for possible links to banned doping doctor Michele Ferrari, according to a report published in the Danish news outlet Politiken. The allegations are based on intelligence gained in an investigation commissioned by Cycling Anti-doping Foundation (CADF).
> 
> Astana have declined to comment on the allegations stating that they have not been formally contacted by the UCI or CADF, according to the Politiken. In addition, Ferrari has not responded to Politiken's phone calls and text messages regarding the CADF investigation.


----------



## Finx (Oct 19, 2017)

There is no way 90% of pro riders are doping. Not in this age of social media and an internet connected camera phone in everyone's pocket. 

Based on the few positive identifications, it seems to be mostly limited to riders who are maybe a little older, and away from their team recovering from a serious injury, and trying to remain relevant.

There are too many potential innocents involved. People like team staff, soigneurs, nutritionists, chefs, mechanics, etc.. If 90% of riders are doping, some of these people would be talking. And teams and sponsors have too much to lose to risk being involved in scandal.


----------



## KoroninK (Aug 9, 2010)

Didn't we just learn from the new anti-doping bust in Barcelona that in Spain it's still 100% legal for athletes to dope? Remember in that case Spain's anti-doping authority literally said that once all names are handed over to them they will turn all the non Spanish names over to WADA but will take care of all Spanish riders internally. They also specifically stated that buying PEDs in Spain is legal and using PEDs in Spain is completely legal. The only penalty for Spaniards is what any specific sports governing body does about it. The Spaniards on this bust won't be turned over to those either. Remember this particular ring had been operating in Spain for 10 years. 
Is 90% of the pro peloton doping at this point. Who knows. I do think after all the busts in the early/mid 2000's doping dropped, but there are major signs that it's back in full force again. I wouldn't be shocked if 90% are doping at this point.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Wookiebiker said:


> In case you were wondering (another rider, Alexey Lutsenko from Astana, is also tied into this):
> 
> https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/jakob-fuglsang-allegedly-connected-to-banned-doping-doctor-ferrari/


Yeah, that's kinda what I was alluding to. I wouldn't put it past any of them, but Ferrari is a pretty risky proposition. Sure, the man knows his stuff like few others, but even being seen in the same cafe with him would lead to a ban. If he is still in the game, it would probably be some pretty covert, dark web sort of stuff. Most riders aren't smart enough to navigate those waters. It could get pretty unwieldy pretty fast, but it's not out of the realm of possibility with the right enablers.

I forgot Spain in my list of doping hotbeds. Too many riders live there for the um... riding.


----------



## KoroninK (Aug 9, 2010)

Alaska Mike said:


> Yeah, that's kinda what I was alluding to. I wouldn't put it past any of them, but Ferrari is a pretty risky proposition. Sure, the man knows his stuff like few others, but even being seen in the same cafe with him would lead to a ban. If he is still in the game, it would probably be some pretty covert, dark web sort of stuff. Most riders aren't smart enough to navigate those waters. It could get pretty unwieldy pretty fast, but it's not out of the realm of possibility with the right enablers.
> 
> I forgot Spain in my list of doping hotbeds. Too many riders live there for the um... riding.



It's not even live there. It's most of the teams have training camps in Spain. Even funnier the one Spanish World Tour team is the one that doesn't have training camps.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

I'd say 90% sounds about right.

They may not be doping all of the time, but I don't doubt that these guys are still doing targeted doping, doping for an race, micro-dosing (almost impossible to detect), and being creative with TUE's (which in my book is a form of grey-doping). When the doctors and coaches, (and even the UCI during Lance's era), are in it, why else would anything think that these guys wouldn't dope???


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

KoroninK said:


> They also specifically stated that buying PEDs in Spain is legal and using PEDs in Spain is completely legal. The only penalty for Spaniards is what any specific sports governing body does about it. The Spaniards on this bust won't be turned over to those either. Remember this particular ring had been operating in Spain for 10 years.


Lets not forget about Columbia and their riders getting busted left and right ... home of Bernal, Quintana, Anacona, Gaviria, Chaves, Henao and Uran ... just to name a few.

Nothing like holding an early season stage race in a country known for doping, and easy access to doping supplies.

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/reputation-of-colombians-affected-by-doping-cases-says-egan-bernal/



> Egan Bernal believes his reputation has been damaged by a spate of recent doping cases in Colombia, but insists his home country is “improving” when it comes to the fight for clean cycling.
> 
> Bernal hit the headlines in Colombia a couple of weeks ago when comments made in an interview with French newspaper Le Monde were read as a criticism of the Colombian Cycling Federation and its anti-doping efforts.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

Even at the height of the Armstrong era, the sport was at like 87% for top performers and probably a significantly smaller number for guys that stunk (or else Lance’s teams don’t end up dominating like they did do they?). That period was basically the Wild Wild West as far as doping was concerned. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/lance-armstrong-doping-tour-de-france-2015-1?amp

Today, with the biological passport, improved testing, bans, civil trials that have literally cost people millions, etc. it is highly unlikely that we have MORE doping than at the height of the US Postal saga. 

Yes, doping is still occurring, yes abuse of TUEs has become one of the new approaches to cheating, but it’s hard to argue from an evidentiary standpoint that only 10% or less of the pro peloton is riding clean. There’s just no real evidence to support that plain and simple. Carry on though... OR take a little time to actually read up on the topic. 

https://newrepublic.com/amp/article/109212/cyclings-secret-it-may-be-the-worlds-cleanest-sport

https://www.outsideonline.com/2324136/tour-de-france-pro-cycling-boycott-lance-armstrong


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Rashadabd said:


> Even at the height of the Armstrong era, the sport was at like 87%


Since you seem to want iron clad citations ... please inform us where you came up with "Like 87%" for the top performers. Did you just pull this out of the air? Did you poll the pro peloton? Do you know Dr. Ferrari?

Also recognize that many riders over the years have been lower tier riders that got busted, along with the upper tier riders ... so, it wasn't just the top guys. 

Just curious.




> That period was basically the Wild Wild West as far as doping was concerned.


The only difference between now and then is the process of doping has become much more complex, systematic in dosage (micro dosing), and uses in other ways such as TUE's.

It's not far from the Armstrong guys as far as the wild west goes ... just harder to detect. Ask any testing agency this question: Is it easier or harder for testing to stay up with new forms of doping? 



> Today, with the biological passport


This is where team doctors come into play ... they monitor each athletes levels on a regular basis to make sure they are going to pass the biological passport, which really hasn't been that effective. I remember reading articles where the Pro's were tested during the TDF and their levels stayed virtually the same through the entire race ... they didn't drop off as the race went on and riders fatigued as one would expect ... however, they met Bio Passport regulations, so all was good.

A testing method is only as good as the testers reading the data and the agency willing to take the chance to bust riders. If they can't put an IRON CLAD case against a rider, they will lose on multiple levels because riders can then just call out WADA for bad testing for every positive they turn up. This makes it harder to actually go out and implicate a rider for doping.



> improved testing


As quickly as testing improves, doping abilities improve faster ... dopers are ALWAYS ahead of testing.



> bans


Unless it's lifetime, it's useless!



> civil trials that have literally cost people millions


For a few riders ... sure! For the rest, not so much. Most of that comes down to which country you live in.



> it is highly unlikely that we have MORE doping than at the height of the US Postal saga.


Not really ... more sophisticated, yes ... less doping, not so much.



> Yes, doping is still occurring, yes abuse of TUEs has become one of the new approaches to cheating, but it’s hard to argue from an evidentiary standpoint that only 10% or less of the pro peloton is riding clean. There’s just no real evidence to support that plain and simple. Carry on though... OR take a little time to actually read up on the topic


. 

I have kept up on it and read about it for 20 years now. 


Things never change, when money and fame are high, cheating will take place. 
When you have less than a high school education and have a way to make several hundred thousand euros a year, you take chances. 
When it's your way to a better life for you and your family, you take chances.

As they say: Fool me once, shame on you ... fool me twice, shame on me. Cycling has attempted to fool the general public over and over since the inception of racing bicycles took place! Doping is ingrained in the sport and isn't going to change ... just the drugs they are taking and the methods of which they take them.


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

Wookiebiker said:


> Since you seem to want iron clad citations ... please inform us where you came up with "Like 87%" for the top performers. Did you just pull this out of the air? Did you poll the pro peloton? Do you know Dr. Ferrari?
> 
> Also recognize that many riders over the years have been lower tier riders that got busted, along with the upper tier riders ... so, it wasn't just the top guys.
> 
> ...


It’s in the linked article you just skipped over to type your novel. Read first, then we’ll talk maybe.


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

And believe whatever floats your boat honestly. I am just pointing out that you haven’t posted one shred of anything that supports your contention that 90% of the pro peloton is dirty. Saying it over and over again with more emphasis really doesn’t mean much either. I guess that’s all I have to say about that. Again, as you were... :thumbsup:


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Rashadabd said:


> And believe whatever floats your boat honestly. I am just pointing out that you haven’t posted one shred of anything that supports your contention that 90% of the pro peloton is dirty.


Outside of the fact you have a rider, that's been in the pro peloton, knows other riders, knows other teams, etc. stating the fact that it's 90% dirty.

First hand knowledge appears to be irrelevant to you, you seem to only believe the testing agencies in that they have "Cleaned" up the sport.

Please explain why the speeds of the peloton, the climbing rates, etc. have not really decreased since the doping hay-day's of Armstrong, Team USPS, Telekom, etc. If they were "Doped to the gills" why are they not slower? Please don't tell me "Marginal gains", better equipment or better nutrition as those re red-herring arguments. The power, speed and recovery are all at similar levels as the Armstrong era.

This is a "VERY" strong indicator that things haven't changed as far numbers of riders using ... just methods, dosage, and new drugs have changed.

Again ... fool me once ... shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. How many times will people fall for the "Cycling is cleaner than ever"? When time and time again, it proves to be dirty, just like all other sports.


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

Wookiebiker said:


> Outside of the fact you have a rider, that's been in the pro peloton, knows other riders, knows other teams, etc. stating the fact that it's 90% dirty.
> 
> First hand knowledge appears to be irrelevant to you, you seem to only believe the testing agencies in that they have "Cleaned" up the sport.
> 
> ...


I am done wasting my time since you clearly aren’t going to take five minutes to make sure you are correct about something before posting it. Here’s an article on the speed issue. You are basically wrong about that too and that’s not even factoring in how bikes have become more aero etc. But, hey it makes for good conversation, right? Of course we should believe you over all the people interviewed for these articles too lol. My bad...

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18921784


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Rashadabd said:


> I am done wasting my time since you clearly aren’t going to take five minutes to make sure you are correct about something before posting it. Here’s an article on the speed issue. You are basically wrong about that too and that’s not even factoring in how bikes have become more aero etc. But, hey it makes for good conversation, right? Of course we should believe you over all the people interviewed for these articles too lol. My bad...
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18921784


I read your links (except the NYT article since I don't have a subscription) ... and LOL ... they are all opinion pieces with no real direct evidence pointing to a substantial decrease in doping within the peleton. The only stats that were really there are numbers for positives and comparisons with other sports that are notorious with doping ... of which, cycling was still on top.

As far as speeds of the TDF go: Tour de France | areppim's chart of Tour de France winners average speeds

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeau...c_average_speed_of_tour_de_france_winner_and/

A drop off after 2006, then an increasing trend in the speeds of the TDF again:
https://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tech/bike-racing-speeds-increase.html

There is little variation in overall speeds, outside of two small dips after the Armstrong era, and the slower races tend to be years where they were extremely climb heavy.

The speeds are similar or higher than the true "Wild West" of cycling in the 90's when they didn't have testing for EPO and riders were up at 2am on their rollers during the TDF because their blood was so thick from EPO overproduction. 

When you get some "REAL" articles showing "REAL" decreases in doping, get back to me ... opinion articles are not exactly proving your point, and they even state in the articles that they can't prove whether the sport is actually cleaner than in the past, or if riders are just better at passing doping controls.

Seriously ... LOL :lol:


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Rashadabd said:


> Even at the height of the Armstrong era, the sport was at like 87% for top performers and probably a significantly smaller number for guys that stunk (or else Lance’s teams don’t end up dominating like they did do they?).


I still haven't seen where you got: "At like 87% for top performers"

The closest I found to that statement in the articles is this (bold and underline for emphasis):



> Sports Intelligence published an article which stated that during the time period 1998 to 2013, 12 stage winners have been found to be drugs cheats. *With 65 percent of the riders who finished in the top 10 of the Tour between 1998 and 2013 were either found guilty of doping or admitted to doping while competing in the event.*


----------



## KoroninK (Aug 9, 2010)

There's that as well. Unlike Spanish riders who aren't getting anymore positives than other Europeans, Colombia always has a bunch.


----------



## KoroninK (Aug 9, 2010)

For about 2 or so years now I've been feeling like we're getting close to being back to the pre Operation Puerto/Dr Ferrari case days. For me it just has that feel to it. We've now had two small cases break over the past maybe 2 years. I'm still expecting big case to break at some point that caches several top riders like those two cases did.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

KoroninK said:


> For about 2 or so years now I've been feeling like we're getting close to being back to the pre Operation Puerto/Dr Ferrari case days. For me it just has that feel to it. We've now had two small cases break over the past maybe 2 years. I'm still expecting big case to break at some point that caches several top riders like those two cases did.


I think the Biopassport greatly reduced doping for a short period of time ... then, riders/doctors/teams adjusted and adapted their doping programs to beat the Biopassport.

The end result, the same level of riders doping as there was pre-Biopassport, they are just doing it differently than in the past.

Dopers always adapt and adjust faster than the testers can ... WADA is "ALWAYS" chasing down the new ways doping is taking place and will never be ahead of the game. Just the way of the world.


----------



## KoroninK (Aug 9, 2010)

Wookiebiker said:


> I think the Biopassport greatly reduced doping for a short period of time ... then, riders/doctors/teams adjusted and adapted their doping programs to beat the Biopassport.
> 
> The end result, the same level of riders doping as there was pre-Biopassport, they are just doing it differently than in the past.
> 
> Dopers always adapt and adjust faster than the testers can ... WADA is "ALWAYS" chasing down the new ways doping is taking place and will never be ahead of the game. Just the way of the world.


I don't disagree with you.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

The claim is completely ridiculous.







It's way closer to 100%! :7:


----------

