# Di Luca confesses to doping mistakes



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/di-luca-confesses-to-doping-mistakes


----------



## parity (Feb 28, 2006)

His only mistake is that he got caught. The guy didn't learn anything after the Oil for Drugs suspension. When they have these guys by the balls, then they are contrite and remorseful. Until then they deny, evade and appeal.


----------



## moabbiker (Sep 11, 2002)

Should have a lifetime ban & all his victories stripped from the day he started. This guy gets caught twice, robbed so many other legitimate riders out of their glory.


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

moabbiker said:


> Should have a lifetime ban & all his victories stripped from the day he started. This guy gets caught twice, robbed so many other legitimate riders out of their glory.


 +1 :thumbsup:


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Odds of being busted the 3rd time? Care to place yer bets?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Di Luca's history of doping, and terrible excuses, is really stomach turning. 

When he was was taped talking to Santuccione about his doping regime his mother came out to say good old Carlo was their f_*amily doctor*_. The same one that Danilo has been using since he was a little kid. The fact that Santuccione was one of Conconi's doctors, Along with Ferrari and Cecchini, when they doped Moser to the hour record meant nothing. That Santuccione was embroiled in the "Oil for Drugs" scandal was ignored.

I am not for lifetime bans but for the absurdity of his excuses alone Danilo should be sitting for longer.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

moabbiker said:


> Should have a lifetime ban & all his victories stripped from the day he started. This guy gets caught twice, robbed so many other legitimate riders out of their glory.



Names? Proof? The general consensus around here seems to be that nearly all pros are dopers. There are those who have been caught and those yet to be...

Trust me when I say this....I would love to find that there are competitive pros riding the grand tours that are clean today. If I were a betting man, I would put my money on the general consensus.

Yes, I do know that many members here disagree and still believe in the idea of clean (ped free) riders standing on podiums at the elite levels.


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

I trust you rydbyk


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

thank you for such an honor rubbersoul. i just don't want to sound like a pessimist that "hates" all pros sort of thing...


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

rydbyk said:


> Names? Proof? The general consensus around here seems to be that nearly all pros are dopers. There are those who have been caught and those yet to be...
> 
> Trust me when I say this....I would love to find that there are competitive pros riding the grand tours that are clean today. If I were a betting man, I would put my money on the general consensus.
> 
> Yes, I do know that many members here disagree and still believe in the idea of clean (ped free) riders standing on podiums at the elite levels.


I do not agree that all Pro's dope these days, but you are correct about the podiums. Hard to think of any who I would say are clean. David Moncoutié has won multiple KOM's at the Vuelta and placed 8th, but he is far from the podium.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

I meant "international" pros. Educated guess says that even the guys hanging on for dear life at the back of the peloton are doped on something. Why would a team just dope up the top rider(s) when the rest of the team is equally necessary/important? Just because someone finishes last in a grand tour does not mean that they rode it clean......not at all IMO.

IMO, today you have to be freakishly talented or doped on something just to survive the tdf etc etc, let alone place top 10.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

rydbyk said:


> I meant "international" pros. Educated guess says that even the guys hanging on for dear life at the back of the peloton are doped on something. Why would a team just dope up the top rider(s) when the rest of the team is equally necessary/important? Just because someone finishes last in a grand tour does not mean that they rode it clean......not at all IMO.
> 
> IMO, today you have to be freakishly talented or doped on something just to survive the tdf etc etc, let alone place top 10.


I disagree. Speeds and output have dropped dramatically in the last 5 years. It is possible to compete clean and there are riders doing it. I have friends who are Pro's and work as staff on ProTour teams, they tell a completely different story about the pervasiveness of doping currently as compared to the past. 

The risk and expense are too high to have team wide programs anymore. The strange thing is that the ProTour teams are perhaps cleaner then the smaller teams and U23 teams because of the heavy testing.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Earlier this year I went for a long ride with a friend of mine. He was a Pro in Europe for 8 years and still lives over there working as a liaison with the Pro Teams for a manufacture. The guy knows the sport as good any anyone and is still deeply connected with it. 

We had a wide ranging conversation. We are friends and he would have no reason to lie to me as we talked openly about doping, who was doing it, who was not.....many on the teams he worked with. 

The topic turned to one rider who was a neo-Pro who was having a great year. The rider came from a part of the world were the sport is questionable at best and was riding for a team that is also questionable. I thought (and still think) the rider was dirty. His opinion was that a guy who can make that transition to a ProTour team and still perform has a good chance of being clean. He talked of how todays testing was so intensive that it was difficult for the riders to dope without getting caught. 

His point was not that there was not doping but that the expense of a full program was so large that a Neo-Pro could not afford it. He was convinced that more riders are riding, and winning, clean. Given that Fuentes bills out at $100,000++ per year he has a point. 

I think there are pockets of cleanliness in the sport. I went to my first GT in the early 80's as a young teenager. I have seen dozens of stages up close over the last 3 decades. I was at the Tour this year with some friends and we were all shocked at how shattered the fields were. Not only were they suffering but there were huge gaps and multiple small groups....It was not 1996 when 60 guys went under 45 minutes up Alp d'Huez.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

It's a defense mechanism. Say everyone is a doper, and you'll never be disappointed. At least, that's how I watch Pro cycling these days. I think if I got blindsided by another Festina or Floyd, I'd probably just stop watching racing altogether. What's the point? It's not like the Continental or lower ranks would be any cleaner. For instance, if I assume Jens is doping and he gets busted, I'll likely be more forgiving because there was no illusion shattered there. If I believe he's clean and he gets popped, suddenly I'm more let down and I might be less forgiving. I want to like and respect the racers, even the "unlikeable" ones. Some make it harder than others.

There are clean racers, but it's extremely hard to know the clean from the doped unless the dopers do something superhuman. Racers are using every legal approach they can to gain an advantage, just like they always have. Some drift across the line farther than others.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I disagree. Speeds and output have dropped dramatically in the last 5 years. It is possible to compete clean and there are riders doing it. I have friends who are Pro's and work as staff on ProTour teams, they tell a completely different story about the pervasiveness of doping currently as compared to the past.
> 
> The risk and expense are too high to have team wide programs anymore. The strange thing is that the ProTour teams are perhaps cleaner then the smaller teams and U23 teams because of the heavy testing.



Hmm. Good to hear. Can all forms of doping be detected today?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

rydbyk said:


> Hmm. Good to hear. Can all forms of doping be detected today?


No, of course not....but what is undetectable is either of questionable benefit (HGH) or expensive and logistically challenging (Transfusions)


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> No, of course not....but what is undetectable is either of questionable benefit (HGH) or expensive and logistically challenging (Transfusions)



I guess what I was implying is that possibly they are doped on something that you and I don't even know exists yet. Maybe it is just me and the groups that I train with, but we don't always know what is out there at those levels until someone gets popped for it the first time.

Seems like there has always been a constant pursuit of newer, better, undetectable (for the moment) peds/methods etc out there..

My question to you was not meant to be interpreted as a smart ass question btw...just seemed like you had some insider knowlege is all..


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

rydbyk said:


> I guess what I was implying is that possibly they are doped on something that you and I don't even know exists yet. Maybe it is just me and the groups that I train with, but we don't always know what is out there at those levels until someone gets popped for it the first time.
> 
> Seems like there has always been a constant pursuit of newer, better, undetectable (for the moment) peds/methods etc out there..
> 
> My question to you was not meant to be interpreted as a smart ass question btw...just seemed like you had some insider knowlege is all..


You make a good point. It is certainly possible that there is something new out there. Armstrong was successful in getting access to drugs that were not available to the rest of the field so it is certainly possible that some of todays top riders have found something new, unapproved, and untestable.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You make a good point. It is certainly possible that there is something new out there. Armstrong was successful in getting access to drugs that were not available to the rest of the field so it is certainly possible that some of todays top riders have found something new, unapproved, and untestable.



Lets hope that what your buddy told you is accurate. I would love to see that be the case...


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I disagree. Speeds and output have dropped dramatically in the last 5 years.
> 
> Not according to this:
> 
> ...


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Yes, Speeds have dropped. 









But we are not discussing the front of the field. At the front of the field is not where you will see the greatest change. In 1996 60 riders broke 45 minutes on Alp d'Huez, in 2008 only 17 did. 

At the front of the field doping is still rampant, but there are plenty of clean riders. They are not all doing it, the playing field is not level by any means.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

*Hmmmm.....*

Didn't know we were discussing the avg. speed of a portion of the peleton.

According to the link posted, the Avg. speed of the RACE has again, not changed significantly for a real. Long. Time.

96' vs. 07' as discussed in other threads has been debated over and over and over. 
There are so many other factors that play into every edition. 

When the stage happened in those years - Early vs. Late.
Length of the stage
Wind/Tailwind.
Wheel tech.
Tire tech.
And yes, supplements/drugs.

Even participants in the particular editions - Lot's of strong climbers for a mountainous race or was it one of the more-flat editions.

It is nowhere near as black & white as you'd like it to be....


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DMFT said:


> Didn't know we were discussing the avg. speed of a portion of the peleton.
> 
> .


You may want to read our posts. We agreed that front of the field is as dirty as ever but I am not of the opinion that all riders dope, especially today.

The playing field has never been level and Di Luca is a great example of this. He has been working with one of the top doping doctors in the sport, Carlo Santuccione, since he was a teenager. He has been the media darling in Italy since he was a U23. His long term involvement in doping has been almost comical at times....but often ignored by the Italian media as he has been a fan favorite for a decade.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yes, Speeds have dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I knew there was a difference between the '96 Alp d'Huez stage vs the 2008 stage, but man, I had no idea it was that significant.

Even with fresh legs, tailwind etc etc, the difference could not be that big sans PEDs...no way. We are talking about a 43 rider increase...not 15. Answer: PEDs. Now....lets discuss those 17 that broke the 45 minute marker in 2008:thumbsup:


----------



## AdamM (Jul 9, 2008)

If you buy the current Landis story as being close to the truth, the team infrastructure required to dope at the ProTour level (effectively) and not get caught is pretty significant. It would be moreso now with the Bio-Passport. Although folks say some of the bio-passport #'s are comical (every measure coming in bullseye "normal"). I think that's what we're seeing reflected in the speeds. It's still possible (and happening), but doing it is much more difficult, limiting who is able to dope and what they can get away with.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

*Kweshin*

Dumb question perhaps, but is the biopassport being used 100% of the time with all int. pro riders in grand tours etc now?


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

rydbyk said:


> Dumb question perhaps, but is the biopassport being used 100% of the time with all int. pro riders in grand tours etc now?



http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI2/layout.asp?MenuId=MTU4ODY&LangId=1

Which riders have a passport? 

In 2010, the following riders participate in the passport program:

• all riders registered with a UCI ProTour team, 
• all riders registered with a UCI Professional Continental Team which is granted a Wild Card Label, 
• all riders registered with a UCI Professional Continental Team that has been refused the Wild Card Label but has decided to participate in the biological passport programme, paying the full cost of the programme per rider in the team, 
• other riders as determined by the UCI.


----------



## flateric (Jul 1, 2003)

If 60 riders climbed up Alpe d'huez in 1996 it would have been impressive considering it wasn't even included in that addition of the Tour!!!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

AdamM said:


> If you buy the current Landis story as being close to the truth, the team infrastructure required to dope at the ProTour level (effectively) and not get caught is pretty significant. It would be moreso now with the Bio-Passport. Although folks say some of the bio-passport #'s are comical (every measure coming in bullseye "normal"). I think that's what we're seeing reflected in the speeds. It's still possible (and happening), but doing it is much more difficult, limiting who is able to dope and what they can get away with.


Certainly during the period that Landis talks of, 2003, 2004, it was common. T-Mobile, Kelme, Postal, Fassa, ONCE, all had programs. Today I would say that this is much less likely. Even Fuentes in 2006 only worked with 50% of the LS team. Since then the risk and cost for a ProTour team has only increased. I hope I am wrong but I do not see teams running team aide doping anymore. 

The BioPassport has reduced doping amongst the masses, but the top guys can still get the best gear.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

flateric said:


> If 60 riders climbed up Alpe d'huez in 1996 it would have been impressive considering it wasn't even included in that addition of the Tour!!!


Sorry, I meant 1997. Pantani set record that year. Erik Breukink was 60th @ 7.44. Another 20 riders were within 2 minutes of Breukink.....amazing.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*DiLuca confesses to doping*

Sky confesses to being blue


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

atpjunkie said:


> Sky confesses to being blue


And having a better bus than GC prospect for the Tour [zing]


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

DMFT said:


> Didn't know we were discussing the avg. speed of a portion of the peleton.
> 
> According to the link posted, the Avg. speed of the RACE has again, not changed significantly for a real. Long. Time.
> 
> ...


Pretty much. It's rare that a stage is even the same route from year to year. 

I think to a certain extent, I've heard people like Jens complain that the field has gotten lazy and nobody wants to work. I mean, there's no bigger prize for winning with an average speed of 25mph or 21mph. It's still the guy who crosses the line first. If you're not winning the race, all you need to do is make it before the elimination time. 

There's obviously a lot more to it than just average speed. We'd need to go back and check power readings, power to weight, etc. 

Given that we could check for EPO in 2005, the peloton obviously didn't get caught. I think that says something right there.


----------



## biobanker (Jun 11, 2009)

The stat is interesting but it does not mean that 60 riders in 2008 were not capable of riding up that hill that quickly, or 100 even.

Maybe they just didnt need to blow their brains out?


----------

