[Closed] the world of professional cycling... what a mess

Well outsiders are ignorant of the reality, cycling is at least making an effort to catch the cheats, thats why these stories keep cropping up. Football, rugby etc are justy burying their heads in the sand and pretending the problem does not exist, what programes they do have are about protecting the sport not catching the cheats.
And as much as I love football, I have no doubt that cycling is a cleaner sport, especially the downhill, unless its been raining.

John Terrys dad has been handed a suspended sentence for supplying Cocaine, what example is that to set to the former England captain.

Takes balls to ban the no1 ranked rider in the world. Could you imagine FIFA banning Lionel Messi, Kaka or Ronaldo?

I'm not sure comparing cycling to football/rugby is the best comparison

Athletics would be a better comparison

Uplink - why not?

Operation Puerto included the names of a lot of cheese rollers and tennis players. None of them have been named or had any action taken against them. I have heard that those 2 Greek runners who fell off their motorbike during the Athens Olympics were attempting to avoid a test by driving a motorbike that no one has ever seen and a car that was never driven in a town that never existed.
Didn't an American rounders player get handed something like a 20 minute ban for testing positive for steroids?
The only reason that cycling gets a lot of bad publicity is that they're doing something about drugs unlike pretty much amy other sport - especially no American based sport anyway.

why not?

Cycling has more in common with athletics
you can't be subbed if you're not doing well etc.

To turn it round
why not compare it to athletics?

[i]The only reason that cycling gets a lot of bad publicity is that [s]they're doing something about drugs[/s] there's a lot of cheating bastards[/i]

Fixed that for you.

Road racing is full to the brim with drugs cheats. Why? because the chances of getting caught are close to nil, and the rewards are huge. As long as you bear that in mind when you watch it, then it's less worrisome I find.

Cycling has a huge element of skill in it as does football and it's a team game a lot like cycling. Compare it to athletics if you want - nobody is saying that is not a good comparison...

Im not totally convinced footy has that many drug issues to be honest.

I remember near the start of the decade all the juventus players quite quickly got quite bulky and Im pretty sure that someone got caught for drugs, cant remember who.

I also remember Del Piero was one of the players who seemed to put some more muscle/mass on. It also co-insided with some bad form and his goal per season dropped.

Then he seemed to get a bit thinner again and return to his original shape and he started to play better again.

Could be coincidence but I do think its harder to find the correct drug to help with football, you've got to be fast, strong, nibble, great reflexes and be technically good all at the same time I think its more difficult to see how drugs can improve your performance.

On the other hand Im sure football is awash with recreational drugs esp Cocaine as mentioned which may have more of a psychological effect.

Also it has to be said the current best player in the world Lionel Messi was on human growth hormone though out his teenage years (because he had a defficency).

I'd have imagined the doctors made sure he got a good wack of it and he does seem to unbelievably quick considering hes a runt. But again his game is mainly based on technique and its difficult to measure how drugs would effect reflexes coordination etc. Although they do say men are better at these skills and ALL racing drivers are male which suggests exposure to testosterone at a young age can improve these skills as well.

I think the biggest upset will be when they find Armstrong guilty. That'll be the end of pro cycling, certainly from the general publics POV.

I'm sure there are drugs in all sports to some degree or another. See beta-blockers for snooker players, they'd have no benefit to bulking up but keeping their calm will bag them millions.

you've got to be fast, strong, nibble, great reflexes and be technically good

what's nibble fot to do with it? 🙂

If you're looking at drugs in other sports, don't forget that it's often about recovery as well as enhancing performance.

Football is played at a ridiculous pace these days and three games a week for most top players, the tennis season is never-ending and the game is faster and more powerful than ever, rugby players get bigger and faster (and less skillful) every year, etc.

Cycling is at least trying to clean up its act.

If Armstrong is ever caught they should just have an amnesty for all riders and get it all out in the open then start again. Sadly I think there are too many vested interests for this to happen.

ALL racing drivers are male which suggests exposure to testosterone at a young age can improve these skills as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danica_Patrick

no they're not........

PEDs are more about being able to train harder, than improving performance with the same amount of training.

If Lance ever does fall, all the American money will disappear from the sport, I reckon Europe would keep going though, since it's used to the whole drug scandal thing.

Valverde was banned on the basis of evidence gathered four years ago, a lot has changed in the time since then with regards to things like the biological passport and new tests for CERA. Of course, the dopers will have moved onto something else.

The thing that bothers me most, is all the recent talk about motorised doping.

ALL racing drivers are male which suggests exposure to testosterone at a young age can improve these skills as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danica_Patrick

no they're not........

NASCAR is not motor racing.

I would have thought football would be ripe for a bit of illicit drug enhancement.

1. The players have to be able to handle a lot of running in a match in short sharp efforts (wasn't Beckham tracked as running 10miles in a match?)so need great powers of recovery. Being half a stride slower than another player and you might as well not bother.

2. The end of a match tends to be most crucial as teams get tired and you can't sub the entire team.

3. They play so frequently so recovery between matches is vital.

4. and by far the most important.....financial gain in football makes cycling seem like a trivial pastime. Both personal gain and pressure to perform and corporate need to survive and prosper are immense by comparison. How many cyclists get paid £150K a week or teams are in debt to the tune of £700m?

Also, Nickc is way off the mark when he says it's rife in cycling because the chances of getting caught are close to nil. For every high profile (by that, read the public at large might has heard of them) cyclist you could name from the modern era who has never been caught/ rides clean, I reckon I could name another one who has had his career ended or at least curtailed for a couple of years - chances of getting caught seem a lot bigger than "nil" to me.

Pro cycling is so far removed from what I do, I regard it with as much interest as I do Formula 1 'motorsport' and football.

i.e. none at all.

ALL racing drivers are male

NASCAR is not motor racing.

Danica Patrick is racing in the Indycar series

Susie Stoddart & Katherine Legge race in DTM

Dougal - NASCAR is not motor racing

???, if there's more than one on a pre defined circuit and they have wheels and engines then surely it's motor racing 😯

flange -I think the biggest upset will be when they find Armstrong guilty

will that happen? isn't he the most tested sportsman in history?

I'd say the racing drivers are all male thing is a mainly nurture over nature thing. Yes testosterone makes men physicaly compettative, but how many girls are given race car beds relative to men?

Ah yes, the alleged Spanish doping circle hushed over by the Spanish authorities... I wonder if Alberto Contador will be next.

lance's days are numbered if the UCI decides it wants rid of somebody who is bigger than cycling itself, after all if you beat cancer and win the tour 7 times you are a superhero and marketing mans wet dream.
the info about lances doping is out there it's just not acknowledged by the media for obvious reasons.
the UCI are weak and don't want to upset the applecart. if proven guilty it will be by the federal investigation because of the US-postal team funded by the state (i.e. using government money to commit sporting fraud)
but if you believe in conspiracy theories then it will be covered up as not in the government/public's/sport's interest.

The thing that bothers me most, is all the recent talk about motorised doping.

Ha Ha 😆

[i]For every high profile (by that, read the public at large might has heard of them) cyclist you could name from the modern era who has never been caught/ rides clean, I reckon I could name another one who has had his career ended or at least curtailed for a couple of years[/i]

Really? Go on then. First off, who said anything about high profile? I've heard of whole French or Italian teams in really nondescript regional races suddenly withdraw all their racers because the UCI have decided to turn up to do random tests... Doping in cycling is endemic. End of. Look at how many have been caught through testing vs how many have been caught because they were stupid or through more regular police tactics. Testing catches almost no one if you consider how many professional cyclists there are.

nickc - Really? Go on then. First off, who said anything about high profile? I've heard of whole French or Italian teams in really nondescript regional races suddenly withdraw all their racers because the UCI have decided to turn up to do random tests... Doping in cycling is endemic. End of. Look at how many have been caught through testing vs how many have been caught because they were stupid or through more regular police tactics. Testing catches almost no one if you consider how many professional cyclists there are.

come on nickc, i love a good argument but i'm struggling to find anything factual in what you are saying. if you're going to use words and phrases like "endemic" and "end of" then you need to back it up with facts 😕

The evidence from Operation Puerto which saw the likes of Basso and Ulrich banned also existed for top tennis players and top footballers too (virtually the whole Barcelona and Real Madrid squad were implicated at the time). The same evidence (from the same clinic even the same doctor) yet it was only ever the cyclists who were made public and punished the other sports stars were never named and the relevant sporting authorities didnt want to know.

I have heard that those 2 Greek runners who fell off their motorbike during the Athens Olympics were attempting to avoid a test by driving a motorbike that no one has ever seen and a car that was never driven in a town that never existed.

WTF?? 😕

nickc - Who said anything about high profile - well, I did! The original post was about the number 1 rank cyclist in the world and there was further discussion about footballers. It would seem a reasonable assumption to compare premiership footballers (as I was in my first post) with their equivalent ilk in the cycling world not some group of nobodies playing in the little leagues.

I am with you however in thinking that there will still be significant drug use in cycling today, I just object to your daily mail style inflammatory throwaway comments. The use of "close to nil" as your chances of getting caught is just plain wrong. Are you more likely to get away with it than get caught, possibly with the right back up. Are the chances of getting caught close to nil - well you would have had to have your head in the sand for the last 5 or 10 years to miss all the scandal and high profile named riders that have been caught to think that. If the chances of getting caught were "close to nil" then it stands to reason that we would not be having this discussion now as there would have been no scandal and no one would have got caught - it would all be just hearsay and rumour.

I have no idea of your background and how serious you are about your sport. You could be a hitter on the mtb scene or an overweight armchair pundit or somewhere in between. When I was still proper competitive (triathlon) I used to knock around with some elite triathletes and through them some top end cyclists and runners. I have seen the faff of filling in their whereabouts forms online and been round their houses when the Wada testers come a knocking. It freaked the hell out of me and I wasn't even the one getting tested! To say the chances of getting caught are close to nil is misinformed.

hora - Member

Ah yes, the alleged Spanish doping circle hushed over by the Spanish authorities... I wonder if Alberto Contador will be next.

I think you need to understand how the Spanish think, they will try to get away with something until they are caught,. Even at a more local level there is doping, see Liberty Seguros.

I think Contador has a different reason for his success, and a reason that might be applied to Armstrong. Through their respective health problems they have a different understanding of pain and death. How can you compare the level of suffering while climbing L'Angliru with chemotherapy. I think Lance is even quoted as sying something along the lines of nobody died from a bit of pain!!

Operation Puerto implicated 49 cyclists and 200 other footballers, tennis players and various other athletes. Whole investigation was stopped for unexplained reasons by Spanish authorities. Cycling stuff got out because there was a sort of reporting system with the none Spanish cycling governing bodies. It's been stopped because of money and the fact that there are some real big names involved, there are even rumours that footballers close to the uk are involved.

Drug cheating has been endemic in cycling but has improved, the fact it has improved is what makes it different from other sports. Drugs are used all the time in sports with money to be made, glory to be had and hard training to be done.

Athletes are all just human like the rest of us, temptation and peer pressure is just the same with them.

Surely road cycling was pretty much fuelled by amphetemines until at least the mid seventies

Obi_Twa - Member
Takes balls to ban the no1 ranked rider in the world. Could you imagine FIFA banning Lionel Messi, Kaka or Ronaldo?

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/3984989.stm ]Some big name footballers that have had drug bans[/url]. Some just for missing a test.

I don't think footballers need drugs to perform at top level though, they don't improve free kick taking, crossing, dribbling, finishing etc, and 10 miles a match with 3 days recovery is manageable with a certain level of fitness.

Pro-cycling and athletics are both sports where the result is based much more on an individuals level of fitness, which is why drugs are more of a problem in those sports. Pro-cycling makes a rod for it's own back by asking the superhuman of these guys (100+miles for 21 days in the Alps?!). They should put some techy rooty sections in to help the tubby guys 😆

Takes balls to ban the no1 ranked rider in the world.

No it doesn't. That's why there are rules and policies in place, so no-one has to "muster the courage" to ban someone, the tests are automatic, the results are laid down in a book. This is what happens if you're caught.

If you, like me, tend to follow cycling more than footie it is easy to think there is BIG money in cycling. And to be honest to the likes of you and me there is. But come on, compared to Football cycling really is small fry. Lance is probably the only cyclist who even starts to get near to the earnings of top football (and tennis to be fare) players.

I for one think that the reason that cycling is so prominent in the publics awareness of sport doping because it tends to wash it's dirty laundry in public. As most european media really love footy I really doubt that any positives for doping would get aired quite so publicly. Footy sells a LOT of newspapers. How many people do you know buy the Sun/Mirror/Star and read it from the back? They're almost daily footy magazines. No newspaper could last more than about 10 minutes if a large part of it's income came from customers buying them for cycle race coverage.

Drugs in footy. There are HUGE rewards to being and even average player, especially in the Premiership and it's equivalents. Footy is a skill game but do a test for yourself. Carry out some sort of "skill test" on yourself that you can do fairly well. Then run up and down, on and off for 90 plus minutes. Do the test again. Were your results as good, did you find it harder to do cos you were tired. While EPO/blood modification won't improve skill, greater aerobic/anaerobic fitness will mean that your ability to maintain your skills at close to their best will have improved. As an example I am a fairly crap technical rider. When I am fresh I can make technical moves reasonbably well. Do a few laps and get tired and I find it much harder to do the same move on the same obstacle and also if I'm knackered my bottle goes too.

There is surely more than enough money in Footy to pay for performance enhancement and when you look at the difference in performance between the top 4 premiership teams and the bottom 4, you surely have to wonder. Or do you think people like John Terry etc are such pillars of virtue that they would never consider doing something that would enhance their performances?

I know I have picked on Footy. Really just as an example rather than a downer on any one sport. People are people and will always cheat. Cycling is small fry and easy to pick on, especially when it does so much to incriminate itself. There are far too many vested interests in bigger sports though for the same sort of witch hunt.

As for Lance - my greatest concern now is the damage to the good work he has done around/outside cycling. As much as I have admired his exploits on the bike I will be some what upset if it's [b]proven [/b]he has doped, but it will hardly be the end of the world.

As for motorised "doping" - too many acid flashbacks? Was this begun on April 1st? It's obviously someone from outside cycling who has seen the powermeters on the pro peloton bikes and thought "ooh they've got wires and they are big and cumbersome so they are probably really motors". Just imagine that you have invented an electric motor that will fit in the centre of a chainset and weigh a few hundred grams, plus some super small batteries that are able to help out on a bike that will be running for 200 plus km in a day without stopping. Now lets think, should I revolutionise the world of powered transport and make billions or make some stealth units to fit on a few dozen pro cycling bikes and make a few hundred thousand? Get real.

some big name footballers? what, like zidane? who just took 'creatine'. yeah right.

look at the sports where people get banned. how much money is there in them? and what about sports like football? how much more money is there in them? there's your answer right there.

and 10 miles a match with 3 days recovery is manageable with a certain level of fitness.

I'm not so sure. I run 10miles most mornings no bother, but I don't do it as 150 sprints! The skills bit is very true although you need to have run someone else down to have the ball to do the skills bit or got your heart rate under control to take the free kick. Drugs use in biathon was as much about controlling heart rate for the shooting as it was performance on the skis. With or without drugs you need to be flipping fit to do any of these sports are the top level, the drugs just give you that extra 1%.

sadly cdrug cheating is endemic in pro cyccling it has been from the early days. These days I think we have genuinely clean riders - this means not taking anything illgal but probably still taking lots of concoctions to improve performance/recovery. The dope always seems to be ahead of the test and I suspect this will continue. In its defence the sport does seem to be trying to stop this but it is a near impossible task.

The typical pacey forward won't cover anywhere near the distance of a slower midfielder - it's not required and they'll injure themselves more over a season if they try - drugs or not.

Beckham and other high mileage midfielders jog, run, then walk. Then they have a 15 minute tea-break followed by 45 minutes of jogs, runs, and walking.

(John Terry barely needs to break out of a jog, and if you watch him try and catch a forward, it's laughable. He's good at standing in the right place though, and positional sense is another huge skill required in football and other team sports that drugs don't help.)

I'm sure there are footballers at the top level that do take drugs (there are always cheats), just trying to provide another viewpoint as to why it's more of a problem in cycling & athletics.

Junkyard +1

As for motorised "doping" - too many acid flashbacks? Was this begun on April 1st? It's obviously someone from outside cycling who has seen the powermeters on the pro peloton bikes and thought "ooh they've got wires and they are big and cumbersome so they are probably really motors". Just imagine that you have invented an electric motor that will fit in the centre of a chainset and weigh a few hundred grams, plus some super small batteries that are able to help out on a bike that will be running for 200 plus km in a day without stopping. Now lets think, should I revolutionise the world of powered transport and make billions or make some stealth units to fit on a few dozen pro cycling bikes and make a few hundred thousand? Get real.

You are making the error of thinking that this motor/ battery setup would be running all the time. Think of it like the kers system in F1 a year or 2 ago. The ability to add 30 or 40 Watts to your power output for just a few seconds here or there to ride away from other riders when everyone is on the limit would be a massive advantage. I've been doing a bit of work with electric motors recently and the size of motor and battery supply needed to do that is pifflingly small. When you take into account the silly UCI weight limit for bikes which mean you would not be carrying much of a penalty in terms of weight for the rest of the ride and you can see how it would be theoretically possible. The clever bit would be the internal integration of the drive with the bikes human powered systems without adding drag when not in use.

I think the biggest upset will be [b]when[/b] they find Armstrong guilty

Speed + Strength + endurance + skill = A possible drug enhanced performance improvement.
"If you take this once a day for a few months you will be world class instead of just very good". Tempting for some. At some point in many good sports peoples careers (and coaches) they have that question asked of them. What would you do?

Take last year, 2009. How many tested (pro semi pro and so on) cyclists are there in just Europe alone? 5000? 7500? How many cyclists were caught? 16 One of those was Tom Boonan for Coke, so 15, and one was Thomas Decker for a test he'd taken 2 YEARS before.., so that's 14. as a percentage of just 5000 that's 0.28%

Under any-ones estimate, that's "close to nil..." sorry.

true nick but Armstrong has never failed a drug test has he yet he managed to beat a field made up entirely of drug cheats. probleme is even when peopel test clean doubts are still raised sadly

[quoteJunkyard - Member
true nick but Armstrong has never failed a drug test has he yet he managed to beat a field made up entirely of drug cheats. probleme is even when peopel test clean doubts are still raised sadly

Sadly, that's not exactly true. Armstrong has failed two drug tests in the past, but they're swept under the rug IIRC it was around 91-92. That and his connections with Dr Ferrari.

Why aren't cyclists being caught? Because they're not taking the drugs that show up in tests. EPO became popular because it gave all the benefits of blood doping but without all the associated risks of shoving blood in your veins. You can't test for blood doping it doesn't show up. At all. Cycling is full of blood dopers from regional 2nd division no bodies in France and Italy all the way up to the "premier" league. People like bruneel and Riis are knee deep in this. They think the problem is getting caught not the doping. As long as those people are running teams it'll carry on. Any one who thinks Armstrong hasn't taken drugs is deluding themselves TBH. Cynical moi?

Whilst I agree with the tone of your post Nickc I think some facts are probably needed before stating that Riis et al are championing doping.

But yeah, as much as I want to believe that Lance is clean, all the evidence points to the contrary. However, Trek bikes, Radio Shack, cycling in general not to mention the TDF reputation will be ruined if it comes out that Lance is on the fix. I honestly can't see anyone bar the federal thing pinning it on Armstrong, theres too much to loose

I think you are the only person here fixated on "tested" as the only way of getting caught. You can get done for murder without a CSI team "testing" you and achieving some sort of genetic match. Similarly cyclist get caught by being stupid (Millar keeping his old syringes for example) or implicated by others. It's all still cheats getting caught.

Also, I think most normal people will agree that the level of scrutiny will vary considerably as you go down through the field. I think that the fact that most of the people would get caught in cycling by testing are names, ie riders for a recognised pro team is partly because they will be tested more and partly because it is only really at the top end where it is worth it. At the top end where the differences in performance are marginal a 1% performance boost is worth it. Lower down, a 1% boost means you are still a nobody. A good thorough drugs program might set you back £10K a year and knowing what some friends that tried their hand in the continental little leagues lived on in terms of cash, paying for drugs would have been way out of their league. Sometimes they were strapped for enough cash for food - but as they say, eatin' cheatin'!

Finally on subject, have a little look at this who's who of the cycling world. [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling ]wiki[/url]. If I was a top pro thinking about using drugs I'd swallow hard if I saw that list of those that had gone before me and wouldn't be thinking "close to nil".

convert - that list is truely shocking. Pretty much all the riders I followed as a teenager have tested positive at some point or another. No surprise but you really have to ask the question as to who is actually clean - there can't be that many

You can't test for blood doping it doesn't show up

Nickc - You obviously live in some sort of 'perfect-world' bubble. Maybe we should just leave you in there.

you're right sorry, Homologous Transfusions are detectable, autologous are undetectable. So that's score 1 to the testers...I out of all those cyclists.

[i]nickc - You obviously live in some sort of 'perfect-world' bubble[/i]

Not sure what you mean by that TBH, I'd love to live in a world where professional cyclists AREN'T taking drugs, but it's my belief that it's endemic in the sport, if that's your definition of a perfect little bubble, then I'm at a loss to understand your point.

The sport is a joke !

I think you are the only person here fixated on "tested" as the only way of getting caught

I think I said earlier that testing is about the least effective method there is for catching drug cheats

[i]Look at how many have been caught through testing vs how many have been caught because they were stupid or through more regular police tactics. Testing catches almost no one if you consider how many professional cyclists there are. [/i]

Convert, I'd love to agree with you, I love watching road racing the tactics the pageantry the colour the spectacle, all fantastic, it's just I happen to think the sport is rife with doping, and the evidence that I'm right just piles up and up TBH

I think we are pretty close on what we think about this. My only point with what your have said is that you can't use phrases like

and the evidence that I'm right just piles up and up TBH

what must outsiders think of our sport.

Personally, I like Mountain Biking. Couldn't care less about this anal boring roadie nonsense...

Its not a joke - at the end of the day, drugs or no drugs, competing at the level they do requires a degree of fitness that I and most other people on here could never get near. However there are some (or most as it appears) that need that extra edge over the rest and are therefore willing to use banned substances to do so.

Pro cycling is like sausages; I like sausages, but I don't want to know how they're made....

The use of PEDs in cycling is a problem, but I can't get too exercised about it these days, it definitely goes on, and needs the control of drug testing, but it doesn't detract from the spectacle as far as I'm concerned.

To me the greatest "crime" of doping is that even though I like to think that Cancellara is clean, when he rode away in Flanders/Roubaix the little cynical part of my brain instantly thought there must be something going on, whether pharmaceutical or mechanical. And that is what I really hate. That doubt.

It still looked amazing to me though.

The bare stats of pros vs caught doesn't take account of where the testers are concentrating. Its only the top 2-300 riders who are getting serious attention, and of these I'm sure the team leaders/prolific winners are being tested more. If you consider this and then look at the list of grand tour podium finishers and classic/mountain stage winners who have been caught, the testing starts to look far more effective.

Eg in this year's giro many of the top riders have been sanctioned in the past
Basso: Caught
Scarponi: Caught
Vinokourov: Caught
Stefano Garzelli: Forced out of 2002 tour.

[i]There would be no "evidence piling up" if no one was getting caught therefore QED the chance of getting caught can't possibly be nil (or even close to it!). [/i]

Depends on your level of cynicism I suppose. You can either believe that lack of cheats being caught through testing is either a) no-ones cheating, or b) they've devised a way of getting round the test...

It seems to me that the cycling press also perpetuates the 'its OK to drug' view. They still hold up as heroes people who were known (and died from) the drugs they used when competing, with the feeble excuse 'well, they all did it then'. The cycling press have not genuinely moved on, not in their heart of hearts. Tom Simpson dying on a hill of dehydration and drugs is not the heroic subject for celebration t-shirts, yet you still see them and similar items reviewed and for sale in the cycling press with every encouragement to wear them. Writers cycling up the hill where Simpson died, still write that they stopped to show respect. Respect? for someone who fanatically cheated and drugged himself to death?

There seem to be less drug related issues in the women's cycling but women's road cycling, so you would think it was worth promoting as a cleaner area for more positive publicity, but it still seems largely ignored by the press - where are the magazine supplements listing the competitors in the women's version of the Tour de France or those of other countries, or even of our own? I have never seen a single one.

Personally I hope cycling does get torn apart by the latest accusations as the gradual rebuilding of a shattered sport over the years might give us a better sport and a decent, sincere set of governing bodies.

I was discussing this with a workmate a while back who is far more into his road cycling and follows it quite closely…

His point of view/contention seemed to be it’s really only the less prepared teams and riders that get caught at the moment and that the general principle of juicing riders has changed in recent years, dosing them up in the middle of the TDF or Giro is a no go now, He reckons “Smart” drug use is primarily going on during out of season training to help riders “optimise” their preparation; build muscle mass or improve oxygen absorption, seeing as many pro’s now target their training towards one or two big races they can basically use drugs in concert with training to mean they hit “peak” output for certain events, by which time the drugs have done their job and are well out of the racers system but the changes in physiology have happened, effectively they’re getting 4 months worth of training results out of 3 months combined training/drug use, or so the theory goes…

It’s an interesting idea not sure how true it is, but then it opens up another debate, if a racer is getting results with no drugs in their system throughout the competitive season, but basically building fitness off-season, using drugs, outside the reach of the UCI, is it still actual cheating?
A subtle point and I think the answer has to be Yes but I can see the angle, crafty buggers these team Doctors eh…

I think Testing is perhaps only catching those who are a bit “Behind the times” with regards to performance enhancing drugs and their use…

What a waste of web space.
So what?
It confuses me how bunging some things into your body is cheating but others are allowed. Often neither are something that occur naturally. Who cares? and more to the point why?