# Do They All Dope



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

So, OK, lets see some numbers here, I think OH HELL YES, how about you?


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

I believe there are pro cyclists who don't dope.

If you had been more specific (i.e. grand tour or classics winners, etc) I'd have to think a bit harder.


----------



## shades9323 (Apr 30, 2006)

There is no way 100% of pro cyclists are dopers.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*ok*



shades9323 said:


> There is no way 100% of pro cyclists are dopers.


WHY do you say that


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Yes...but to varying degrees. 

Not all get the "Best" drugs or have the "Best" supervision of their program, but I do believe all are doing something to help them recover, build endurance, build muscle, etc. The more the rider makes, the better the program. The more "Potential" a rider shows, the more likely they are to get the good stuff to prep them for the GT's.

For me though...is any of it shocking? Seriously, how many riders need to get caught before it stops becoming a surprise? Riders from the lowest level continental domestic pro teams have been caught, to Masters level amateur racers, to domestique pro riders, to GT winners. All levels, all abilities and all different backgrounds...with one thing in common...Using PED's.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Wookiebiker said:


> Riders from the lowest level continental domestic pro teams have been caught, to Masters level amateur racers, to domestique pro riders, to GT winners. All levels, all abilities and all different backgrounds...with one thing in common...Using PED's.


How interesting, all the riders caught using PEDs have one thing in common...using PEDs. :idea:


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

pretender said:


> How interesting, all the riders caught using PEDs have one thing in common...using PEDs. :idea:


The comment was directed toward the fact that it doesn't matter where they come from, what level they are racing at, how much money they make or what's at stake...PED's are still being used.

Anybody who thinks there are Pro's not using PED's...Your head is stuck in the sand and you are just hoping the Lion licking it's chops will ignore you and move along.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Define doping. EPO? Transfusions? Clembuterol? Testosterone? HGH? Basically anything that is on the WADA list? Lots of levels there, and it isn't so black and white to the riders sometimes.

I honestly don't believe 100% of all pro cyclists dope. That said, I don't make judgements about who is clean and who isn't, because eventually I'm proven wrong. I make the blanket assumption that they all dope, get past it, and watch the race. As long as someone doesn't pull a Ricco and make it completely obvious, I'll live with it. I don't like it, but there is doping at all levels of the sport.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Wookiebiker said:


> Anybody who thinks there are Pro's not using PED's...Your head is stuck in the sand and you are just hoping the Lion licking it's chops will ignore you and move along.


I believe there are many domestic level pros, among the various disciplines, who race clean. I even think there's the odd ProTour racer who races clean, as well. Call me a chump.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

I have used the word "all" many times. Guilty as charged. But, I do think there may a very very small number who do not.

IMO, those would be the guys barely hanging on at the back obviously. In races like the TdF, perhaps they are most likely the ones to drop out around/before stage 15 or so...


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

shades9323 said:


> There is no way 100% of pro cyclists are dopers.



He means that 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% are dopers.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

pretender said:


> I believe there are many domestic level pros, among the various disciplines, who race clean. I even think there's the odd ProTour racer who races clean, as well. Call me a chump.


Well...when I say all, I'm talking about the top level of the sport not necessarily the domestic levels (though there is plenty of doping going on there as well).

I think at the domestic levels riders have to decide how far they really want to go. They can be a long term domestic pro and not dope, but never get to the top levels...or they can decide to take the leap and see how far they can go, but that requires PED's. For some of the domestic pro’s they don’t get to that level without doping…so that’s as far as they are going regardless.

It's a moral dilemma and it's up to the individual rider on which way they go. I do however agree that not all domestic pro’s are doping and would say that it’s actually a fairly small number overall (less than 20% of the riders at that level).


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*excellent point*



Alaska Mike said:


> Define doping. EPO? Transfusions? Clembuterol? Testosterone? HGH? Basically anything that is on the WADA list? Lots of levels there, and it isn't so black and white to the riders sometimes.
> 
> I honestly don't believe 100% of all pro cyclists dope. That said, I don't make judgements about who is clean and who isn't, because eventually I'm proven wrong. I make the blanket assumption that they all dope, get past it, and watch the race. As long as someone doesn't pull a Ricco and make it completely obvious, I'll live with it. I don't like it, but there is doping at all levels of the sport.


Well there you go.

Personally, if you use a product to gain an advantage and your body cant do it naturally, IMO, you doped. PROVISO: Its a substance that was banned, BUT that gets screwed up by excuse makers like Riis, who DECADES later said oh sure..which LEADS TO EPO

As to EPO, yuh, I think its a fantasy to say its illegal now, but before, oh ok. Thats BS. Especially when it gave the same if not worse health risks as now. 

So then , we go down the other road, hyperbaric chambers, reduced O2 environments, training at altitude etc etc, is that doping? Dont think so, BUT, then again, I am sure there are opponents to that. Some argue hey, hyperbaric chambers, insulin blood transfusions hey thats just technology, yuh, thats BS


----------



## shades9323 (Apr 30, 2006)

ttug said:


> WHY do you say that



There are how many thousands of professional cyclists out there? Do you honestly believe 100% of them dope. I would figure that a majority of them dope, but to say that 100% of them dope is asinine.


----------



## shades9323 (Apr 30, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> Anybody who thinks there are Pro's not using PED's...Your head is stuck in the sand and you are just hoping the Lion licking it's chops will ignore you and move along.



Anybody who thinks that EVERY SINGLE pro is using PED's is not being realistic. I don't have my head stuck in the sand. I know there is plenty of doping. Actually I am in favor of making doping legal, but that is for other threads.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*really?*



shades9323 said:


> There are how many thousands of professional cyclists out there? Do you honestly believe 100% of them dope. I would figure that a majority of them dope, but to say that 100% of them dope is asinine.


SO, courses get harder, riders recover faster, speeds increase, doping scandals arise on a near weekly basis and all of this means......that NONE of them dope? Nah

Some of them dope? Nah

A majority dope ?.......close, but ya see, that would mean that there are MASSIVE DNFs on all pro races, not so, not by a long shot. In fact, looking at the last few years in any GT, ever notice that there are PACKS of folks on the tall tall climbs. Thats odd, dont you think?

They ALL dope.....yah

OR how about a super plural majority? close


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*yuh*



shades9323 said:


> Anybody who thinks that EVERY SINGLE pro is using PED's is not being realistic. I don't have my head stuck in the sand. I know there is plenty of doping. Actually I am in favor of making doping legal, but that is for other threads.


Make it legal, because.......they already do it. Pretty much where I go with that.......


----------



## jpick915 (May 7, 2006)

Personally, I chose Hellz Yes in the poll, but do believe that there is a small percentage of clean riders out there, but such a small percentage that it is not statistically significant. So, I just rounded up.


----------



## 1stmh (Apr 7, 2007)

No way to know for certain but I don't think they all dope. I do however think that at least 75% or more dope in some form or another. Most to all of the top riders are probably on a doping schedule, taking multiple peds.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*why NOT???*



1stmh said:


> No way to know for certain but I don't think they all dope. I do however think that at least 75% or more dope in some form or another. Most to all of the top riders are probably on a doping schedule, taking multiple peds.


You mean others dont dope just to keep up? GIVEN that there are as you say, 75% who do???


----------



## shades9323 (Apr 30, 2006)

ttug said:


> You mean others dont dope just to keep up? GIVEN that there are as you say, 75% who do???



It is a statistical improbability that 100% of pros are dopers.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

shades9323 said:


> It is a statistical improbability that 100% of pros are dopers.


Improbability, yes...Impossibility, No.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*why*



shades9323 said:


> It is a statistical improbability that 100% of pros are dopers.


Why do you say that?

Any unborn twins, diabetic dogs,bad steak in your future??


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

C'mon, not all of them. This is not baseball or American fotball, remember?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I agree that there's a given amount of doping, but if one pro doesn't dope, "all" isn't valid. "None" obviously isn't true for sure. 

I just don't think all riders need to dope, namely, a lot of behind the scenes guys.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*The all dope*

WOW, Tyler, Hincapie, Floyd ad hey whose next, does not matter, its systemic, and they all do it


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Last I heard altitude tents were against the rules in Italy. I don't really know where to draw the line since almost everything a pro athlete does is an unnatural act. Are they all hard core LA doped to the gills win or die? No, but I don't think any of them are clean in the sense that people would mean if they were talking about their children (except for TX high school football parents and others of that subspecies).


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

ttug said:


> WOW, Tyler, Hincapie, Floyd ad hey whose next, does not matter, its systemic, and they all do it


So in light of last night's revelation that apparently George Hincapie dopes, which was the only real surprise as hopefully we all already knew that Tyler and Lance doped, you've now decided that this is near incontrovertible proof that every other professional cyclist is doping.

This isn't so much a jump to conclusions as it is a trans-oceanic leap.


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

ttug said:


> SO, courses get harder, riders recover faster, speeds increase, doping scandals arise on a near weekly basis and all of this means......that NONE of them dope? Nah
> 
> Some of them dope? Nah
> 
> ...


the courses don't get harder! And the last Giro stage, which was super hard, the riders came in in tiny groups - the largest I saw was five.


----------



## bruce_wayne (Apr 30, 2010)

Few thoughts...
Maybe doping within each team is a privilege. Not all pros dope; only the best on each team with legit podium chances are given the opportunity. Hamilton seemed to suggest this at one point on 60 Min.

What if I can beat you on a climb when we race clean but (due to body chemistry?) you react more favorably to a given doping program so you finish ahead of me when we both dope. You're the better rider? Guess so...

I've been accused before of being cynical but I wonder what great drug are all the top pros using now that none of the rest of the general public has heard of and no test has yet been devised to detect? Check back in five years to answer this one...

I'm noticing my posts on this forum are taking more and more of a sour tone. Best now that I gracefully remove myself from the discussion


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

I don't think that all Pros dope, so I said no. I do believe that those winning races, GC contenders, etc. are doping.


----------



## elcuevo (Dec 13, 2007)

The elite. The best of the best. They are all superhuman to begin with. Even without drugs, 
the talent is just unreal. Yes I think they all dope, more to give themselves a fighting chance
even if they all preferred not to. They are paid to perform and produce results. This is their lively hood so they do what they must. 
I say legalize the doping and you`ll still see the same champions on the podium that you see now. We give all the credit to the drugs, and although it IS a part of it, it is in my opinion only a small part of it. It is still strategy and timing and just plain riding talent that keeps the top dogs relevant. 
Level the playing field and let all partake in what ever they feel it takes to win. It`s been going on since before the days of Coppi et al, taking amphetamines and what ever else it took to keep them going through a full tour and full season of riding abuse. Its just more sofisticated nowadays.
With ever increasing pressure to win from all sides including we the Tifosi demanding to see the BEST of the BEST, no matter what. It`s no wonder that they look for anything to give themselves an edge. 
So dont criticize your favorite rider when he`s found to have failed the random test. 
Let the UCI test everyone or no one, and let the boys get to the business of racing.
The rest will work itself out.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*oh really?*



PhatTalc said:


> the courses don't get harder! And the last Giro stage, which was super hard, the riders came in in tiny groups - the largest I saw was five.


Have you ever looked at Giro footage from say the late 60's? Or even the 70's? Do you recall GROUPS on the hardest climbs? I dont, not on the steeper portions, and then how about the post stage interviews?

You know, the ones where the guy is just off the bike and a few minutes later in front of the microphones, they dont even breathe hard? 

AND YES, they are harder, the ammount of total climbiong has increased....odd huh?


----------



## waldo425 (Sep 22, 2008)

Not all professional racers dope. I will stick to that. 

What about domestic pros or elite national riders? They dope too?


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*oh no*



SilasCL said:


> So in light of last night's revelation that apparently George Hincapie dopes, which was the only real surprise as hopefully we all already knew that Tyler and Lance doped, you've now decided that this is near incontrovertible proof that every other professional cyclist is doping.
> 
> This isn't so much a jump to conclusions as it is a trans-oceanic leap.


No, it just seems strange that these guys supported a 7 time TDF winner who probably doped and dropped known dopers in the process, its not a great leap here is it?


----------

