# New doping product?



## DrSmile

Any idea what it is?

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/an...d-in-light-of-operation-aderlass-information/


----------



## duriel

... and where can I get some!


----------



## KoroninK

Good question. Will be interesting to see what comes from the retests. They were already doing retests of 2016 and 2017 seasons due to better testing for several subsistence they already knew about but couldn't test for before. Now they are superficially testing 2017 Tour riders for a specific substance. Although it did also say targeted and obviously related to the Alderass case.


----------



## Alaska Mike

It just as well could be markers for an existing doping substance/combination that they discovered as a result of Alderass. Some sort of signature that indicates doping that they hadn't seen previously. I'm sure once they started learning about the ring's protocols, finding red flags became that much easier.

Been a while since a real name has popped positive, so I'm hoping there's something here. When only small fish are getting caught, it makes you wonder where the big ones are swimming.


----------



## Alaska Mike

Well I was wrong about the new doping drug.
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/operation-aderlass-investigators-discover-new-doping-product/

It's interesting with travel restrictions in place how many favorites fell off the results page at the Tour. You can blame it on lack of racing or training camps, but it is... interesting. Historic doping hotspots in the EU were locked down pretty hard.

Maybe this is all coincidence, but it is... interesting.


----------



## Wookiebiker

Alaska Mike said:


> Well I was wrong about the new doping drug.
> https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/operation-aderlass-investigators-discover-new-doping-product/
> 
> It's interesting with travel restrictions in place how many favorites fell off the results page at the Tour. You can blame it on lack of racing or training camps, but it is... interesting. Historic doping hotspots in the EU were locked down pretty hard.
> 
> Maybe this is all coincidence, but it is... interesting.


I do find it interesting that three of the top cyclists in the world right now are from the same country of roughly 2 million people (I'm including Sagan in the three) ... even more interesting that nobody from that country has won the TDF, yet the top two places were riders from that country.

Things that make you go Hmmmm.


----------



## burgrat

Wookiebiker said:


> I do find it interesting that three of the top cyclists in the world right now are from the same country of roughly 2 million people (I'm including Sagan in the three) ... even more interesting that nobody from that country has won the TDF, yet the top two places were riders from that country.
> 
> Things that make you go Hmmmm.


Sagan is from Slovakia, not Slovenia. 

How about Sam Bennett? Grew up in Carrick-on-Suir, the same town as Sean Kelly. Only about 5,000 people there, but they produce 2 Green Jersey winners! FYI, I don't think that's due to doping, just a neat statistic.


----------



## Alaska Mike

> I do find it interesting that three of the top cyclists in the world right now are from the same country of roughly 2 million people


So the odds of me making the Tour podium are one in a million?


----------



## DrSmile

How long do they keep the blood samples now under UCI rules? Will they retest, is there even a test for this?

Given this year's performances I prognosticate that a major scandel is bound to break next year at the latest.


----------



## dcb

There's this story about testing 3 year old samples. I think I've read about testing of samples older than this as well but I'm not quite sure.

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/an...d-in-light-of-operation-aderlass-information/

This is from another sport but maybe still relevant to how long these labs might keep samples: https://olympics.nbcsports.com/2019...doping-charges-against-russian-weightlifters/

On this subject in general: I just assume any cyclist who's a GC contender in a grand tour is doping. Are there clean riders/teams? Probably. They are probably the lower budget teams who go for stage wins, breakaways, etc. They aren't competing for the overall titles. Doping adds to the expense of competing and some teams and athletes probably don't have the money to do it. There's also probably a natural level of talent needed before investing in the added expense and risk of doping even makes any sense. The less talented riders could probably be doped to the gills and still not compete for a GC title. 

This is a cat-and-mouse game. The anti-doping agencies are always a step or two behind the latest PED and it takes them a while to catch up with what's going on because they have to develop tests to do it. Those tests are probably expensive to develop and conduct.

I like watching pro cycling but I've never been under any illusions about what's going on behind the curtain. Would it be great if they were all clean and we knew it? Yeah! But that's never going to happen in cycling and many other pro sports. Just enjoy it for what it is............or don't if it bothers you that much.


----------



## KoroninK

DrSmile said:


> How long do they keep the blood samples now under UCI rules? Will they retest, is there even a test for this?
> 
> Given this year's performances I prognosticate that a major scandel is bound to break next year at the latest.


They can retest and remove results for at least 10 years. Remember Spain's Courts didn't get around to allowing WADA to have the Operation Puerto blood bags until after the 10 year limit was over. I think that number is greater now, but I could be wrong.


----------



## SNS1938

Originally Posted by *DrSmile* 
_How long do they keep the blood samples now under UCI rules? Will they retest, is there even a test for this?

Given this year's performances I prognosticate that a major scandel is bound to break next year at the latest.


I'm in the same boat. Really seems that there's a heap of doping going on, and we're being told to just believe the performances again, like they always have.
_


----------



## KoroninK

SNS1938 said:


> Originally Posted by *DrSmile*
> _How long do they keep the blood samples now under UCI rules? Will they retest, is there even a test for this?
> 
> Given this year's performances I prognosticate that a major scandel is bound to break next year at the latest.
> 
> 
> I'm in the same boat. Really seems that there's a heap of doping going on, and we're being told to just believe the performances again, like they always have.
> _



Last year when they striped Cobo of the 2011 Vuelta and gave it to Froome they also tested Cobo's 2009 stage win sample and striped him of his stage 19 win. Not sure if they officially gave the stage win to Valverde yet or not.


----------



## SNS1938

KoroninK said:


> Last year when they striped Cobo of the 2011 Vuelta and gave it to Froome they also tested Cobo's 2009 stage win sample and striped him of his stage 19 win. Not sure if they officially gave the stage win to Valverde yet or not.


Doesn't quite seem right to give the stages/titles to Froome and Valverde. They're not riders I'd bet money on being clean. Valverde was part of the blood doping (Puerto?), and Froome had the massive inhaled drug ... + came from the TUE loving Sky team with Freeman still going through proceedings.

What a mess. Even some riders who I'd have really thought were clean, have turned out to dope (Hincapie etc). I think the "there was no winner that year" line should be followed.


----------



## KoroninK

SNS1938 said:


> Doesn't quite seem right to give the stages/titles to Froome and Valverde. They're not riders I'd bet money on being clean. Valverde was part of the blood doping (Puerto?), and Froome had the massive inhaled drug ... + came from the TUE loving Sky team with Freeman still going through proceedings.
> 
> What a mess. Even some riders who I'd have really thought were clean, have turned out to dope (Hincapie etc). I think the "there was no winner that year" line should be followed.


Valverde had his ban and had several wins/podiums taken away from him in 2010. However, as all of his results before that stand, including the overall of the 2009 Vuelta, by removing a stage win from Cobo, Valverde finished 2nd on that stage and can be handed that stage win. He'll never lose those results. Remember Valverde served his time for Operation Puerto. They can't do anything else to him for that. Hence the reason why when the Spanish courts finally released the rest of those blood bags, his response to the question if he was worried was, I already served time for that they can't do anything else to me.


----------



## Rashadabd

None off this surprises me at this point. I really wanted to believe in this sport once upon a time, but reality has beat that hope out of me. All I can say now is doping is part of the culture in pro cycling. It has been systematized and operationalized over a number of years. Even as a number of riders make concerted efforts to ride clean, there are always going to be riders and teams that are willing to take the sauce to win because history has convinced them that the benefits outweigh the risks (at least that's how it has been thus far). 

As for Froome and Valverde, the history speaks for itself. We can make whatever justifications we want, but one is a confirmed doper and has been riding in his forties like he's in his mid twenties just like Horner was at the end of his career. The other won the most competitive race in the world over and over and is part of a team that had a really questionable practice of over using TUEs for marginal gains and is part of the same team that has a suspicious story about a jiffy bag being delivered to star rider during an important race. Believe what you will, justify what you like, but neither of those guys (or the others like them) are heroes for how they handled all of that in my opinion.


----------

