Or more like it’s Dr Who, you still can’t get over the shaky sets and charity shop aliens but it’s a different set of actors, directors and staff just the names the same. At some point it moves on.

Yes, they have higher numbers of riders competing in the first place. There must be clean Belgians and Dutch and riders from these nations with no positive tests but some guys caught too. The numbers caught must be high but then historically these nations have a bigger participation in Pro cycling than the UK. That was all I was getting at. Rather than look at gross numbers, it would be interesting to know the percentages

That makes sense but the suggestion is that it only happened once. Cycling hasn’t just done the dirty on us, its slept with the rugby team, bedded our best friends and turned a celibate monastery into sex maniacs. And that’s just the stuff we know about.

Ah, but as a result it’s dirty as hell and does stuff that would make gentertainment stars blush. And we can’t give that up.

That was all I was getting at. Rather than look at gross numbers, it would be interesting to know the percentages

Sometimes I would do the analysis if I was bored but the cricket is on and the tour, but really I just don’t think that you are that interested if it didn’t back your thoughts. So if you want to know then off you go. As some additional analytical stuff I’d suggest a measure of “Generation” as a lot of this stuff is a generational thing. So comparing the events of the 90’s with now might not be the very useful.

Ah, but as a result it’s dirty as hell and does stuff that would make gentertainment stars blush. And we can’t give that up.

I may be watching the wrong channel? 😆

Sometimes I would do the analysis if I was bored but the cricket is on and the tour, but really I just don’t think that you are that interested if it didn’t back your thoughts.

I don’t really care either way. This is a discussion thread so people are having a discussion.

As some additional analytical stuff I’d suggest a measure of “Generation” as a lot of this stuff is a generational thing. So comparing the events of the 90’s with now might not be the very useful.

To some extent yes, but the previous generation don’t magically disappear from the sport. They coach and manage the next generations or have children who continue in the sport. It doesn’t necessarily transfer to mistakes from the past but they aren’t two distinct entities either.

It’s probably something I’d look to the Analysis to tell me rather than assuming it, there could be a couple of shifts over time where things became less acceptable.

I know a former Aussie sprinter who was sick of the drugs everywhere

Is the implication here that the track or road was particularly bad? I’m genuinely interested as it is a good point that you don’t hear too much bad news from the track or from sprinters

track into crit, few years back though – Cycling Australia are clearing out anyone who has had any previous involvement in any kind of doping. Another good move that seems to go unnoticed.

Right.

First up all you saying ‘I think sky are not doping but are pushing the legal stuff to the limit’, deja vu. This is exactly what I thought about Armstrong about tour win #3 or #4. Guess what, it turns out I was wrong. I know, terrible isn’t it.

Second: If you have followed the anti-doping story at all then you would know that a) the BP flagged riders need to checked by somebody, and guess what, Armstrong didn’t get popped on his comeback. You think he did his comeback clean, really? So, to me it looks like it fails. Plus, b) periodically you get riders moaning about the lack of OOC testing. Even Froome on Tiede FFS! And not all samples are tested for EPO…. funny that, not testing for it and they don’t find it…??? ETA: they didn’t even know about microdosing until Landis spilled to Ashenden…

Third: You need an overseeing organisation that is willing to prosecute dopers. Just look how keen the UCI were when USADA was going after Armstrong… They tried to claim it wasn’t USADA’s jurisdiction!!! Phat KNEW Lance wasn’t a doper, etc. Amazing. Definitely anti-doping at its finest. Just exactly how much has changed with Cookson?

Fourth: Cookson previous ties to BC and Sky… defintely no conflict of interest there. No not at all… Nothing to see here, carry on please.

So, we’ve been here before, testing is a joke/IQ test and the UCI aint to be trusted. Yeah, they are obviously all clean… 🙄

Plus, who of you claiming Sky are squeaky but happy to ‘sling mud’ against anybody else, where’s your evidence/proof, etc. If they haven’t been popped then they MUST be clean surely. Or maybe you’re blinded by some wierd patriotic fervour?

I don’t believe things have changed because I don’t see the will for it to change.

I always thought it was crits where doping was truly rife. Tired riders, after all the big tours, being paid to put on a show in some little provincial town and the only way to get through was to be doing it assisted. And little in the way of doping controls to check.

I’ll admit, I’m a Johnny-come-lately to all this; I only got interested in road stuff around the time of Lance so I’m regurgitating a bit based on books like Kimmage’s. But is that still the case or have blood passports and ‘out of competition’ tests put a stop to it there too?

No idea about there, same as most people on here 😉

If I was a young cyclist wondering if I was going to make my future in cycling and to see that if you make it or win something then you have failed the internet doping test would you want to carry on?

Proving a negative is nigh on impossible, and asking all athletes to wash their laundry in public so that we all have access to their power data would be like asking all F1 teams to show where all their mechanical advantages come from.

Its a sport, and the idea is that someone wins, subject to the rules. That means that someone has to be better than the next best person. They will do this by being physically, mentally, physiologically better than the guy in second place taking advantage of all of their natural abilities and enhancing them through training, diet, appropriate medical care, nutrional supplementation etc etc.

Personally, I don’t think that the top guys in pro cycling are doping today. It would be a suicidal tactic. There is too much sniffing around being done, too many potential weak links with suppliers, doctors, family members, coaches, consultants, teammates, etc etc. Doping worked when everyone knew that everyone was at it. Even if there was doping in the peleton today, I think it would be the exception rather than the rule.

Individuals like Brailsford have so much to lose by being involved in doping, and so much to gain by being seen to be the clean champions, that I don’t think a cost / benefit equation would put doping as the right option.

I might be wrong; but I’ll continue to watch the Tour and elite athletics (my favourite sport) taking everyone at their word until there is proof to the contrary. And then I’ll support calls for dopers to be banned for life.

Tour and elite athletics (my favourite sport) taking everyone at their word until there is proof to the contrary. And then I’ll support calls for dopers to be banned for life.

Part of what you say about peer’s and weak links should for the basis for the cleaning up too. If you are offered, got involved etc. you have one chance to fess up. If you come forward you get the lighter penalty, you get named your done. Same as the fact that Drink Driving and not wearing your seatbelt is not accepted by the majority (some still do) but people can stop you. If/When clean is the majority the corner has been turned and the peer pressure to get rid of the cheats beats the one to join to win.

Individuals like Brailsford have so much to lose by being involved in doping

Back to beliefs… but I don’t think someone like Brailsford is daft enough to get involved, but that doesn’t mean to say that an individual and their coach don’t have other ideas. Not limited to SKY by any means, but the message now even from credible stand up guys like Vino is all about riders acting on their own initiative. Take that for what it is worth 😉 but the teams do seem to be trying to put distance between them and the riders when things go tits up… which I guess is pragmatic when the teams have so much to lose under the current rules and sponsorship climate…. but their may also be some truth in it too

Right then, time for some speculation.

Nibali, doped last year, clean this, hence he’s now struggling? Clean for both, full strength field this year so struggling? Clean but getting pressure from Vino to “properly prepare”?

I;m going for the latter for no logical reason at all!

Its a sport, and the idea is that someone wins, subject to the rules. That means that someone has to be better than the next best person. They will do this by being physically, mentally, physiologically better than the guy in second place taking advantage of all of their natural abilities and enhancing them through training, diet, appropriate medical care, nutrional supplementation etc etc

In my opinion, and not wishing to give offense, that sounds a little naive. Teams/sports persons, have to look at the rules to their sport as though they were looking through a template. They look for the areas which are not covered.
I read about certain pro cyclists, declaring they have asthma so as to get to use inhalers. I’d of suggested that if you’re asthmatic, then pro road racing possibly isn’t for you. IANAD.
Loopholes and the ethics of exploiting them, in the context of and under the pressure of competing in top level sport.

So back to my point, when beetroot juice is band, I’d hope the teams who aspire to race “clean” will cancel their supply of beetroot juice. But until then would anyone call a pro cyclist a “doper” for consuming beetroot juice? Yet beetroot juice is widely held as giving an advantage the consumer would not otherwise have had.

It’s a strange situation, you see Team Sky, for example, simply ban the use of needles and you get it, you see what they’re doing. But that doesn’t mean that Mitchell, Kerrison, etc aren’t looking for dietary/methodological advancements to use, until, or if, those advancements are banned. Indeed, I believe Sky came under the spotlight recently for use of pain killers, etc.

Rules tell the honest sports person/team, what not to do, but rules simply can’t cover what a team or person might do next. Therefore rules will always be reactive, can always be updated and revised, but can only respond to whatever “improvement” teams and people believe they can use.

Clean for both, full strength field this year so struggling? Clean but getting pressure from Vino to “properly prepare”?

“Clean” is a relative term but if it means not doped up to the gills then I feel the latter two comments are probably close to the mark

Or last year the tour imploded, the top guys dropped out and everyone thought they would just sweep Nibbles up as they went so didn’t go for the big risks. He wasn’t pushed as hard as some and by the time he was being taken seriously the top riders were gone.
Contador – probably a coincidence that nobody has done the Giro and Tour double since the days of doping and it was reported as one of the most brutal Giro’s in years.

Second: If you have followed the anti-doping story at all then you would know that a) the BP flagged riders need to checked by somebody, and guess what, Armstrong didn’t get popped on his comeback.

What is BP?

b) periodically you get riders moaning about the lack of OOC testing. Even Froome on Tiede FFS!

Why can’t froome moan about testing. You lost me

Fourth: Cookson previous ties to BC and Sky… defintely no conflict of interest there. No not at all… Nothing to see here, carry on please

So the person running pro cycling has to have no links with any pro team or any national squad. What do you sugest a bike shop owner?

Plus, who of you claiming Sky are squeaky but happy to ‘sling mud’ against anybody else, where’s your evidence/proof, etc. If they haven’t been popped then they MUST be clean surely

Well Contador served a ban and Nibali is on a team with positive tests. Oh and the fact that they have tightened up on Astana and he is now slower doesn’t really undermine the idea that doping control might be having some effect

But that doesn’t mean that Mitchell, Kerrison, etc aren’t looking for dietary/methodological advancements to use, until, or if, those advancements are banned.

Why would you ban a dietary advance?

Contaminated pork meat is a really good dietary advance, I’ve heard it be said.

ampthill – Member

Why would you ban a dietary advance?

Depends on one’s interpretation of the “advance” in question, ie, is that advance to promote health, or performance, etc, etc.

Then as a sport’s governing body you’d be on the look out for the use of anything which may provide an “advance” in performance, but might also bring with it a risk to health. As we see in modern, top level sport.
Some would appear to be ready to risk their health for reaching the top step.

Why would you ban a dietary advance?

Weight loss, losing weight over very short time frames, maintaining low weight without losing power, etc is a massive advantage. Sometimes chemicals help this delicate balance and sometimes these chemicals are banned. They don’t all just eat organic salad every day to look skeletal. Cortisol for example can be obtained under TUE’s and can be handy for dropping weight

Cortisol for example can be obtained under TUE’s and can be handy for dropping weight

And we went through the TUE process before, you need one before you use it and if they want it cracked down on they can.

Ampthill:

BP – blood passport

Even Froome was moaning about lack of testing I my point therefore not enough testing is being carried out.

Re Cookson point it doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence that thing will/have changed. No will you see, shit in your own backyard so to speak.

My point about past dopers but now riding: That was then, this now. Why they’re all clean now surely I not where is your new evidence for now? Not popped so innocent until proven guilty must apply to them.as well. Its called double standards.

I read about certain pro cyclists, declaring they have asthma so as to get to use inhalers. I’d of suggested that if you’re asthmatic, then pro road racing possibly isn’t for you. IANAD.

IANAD either but I do get exercise induced asthma. OK, I’ll grant you I wasn’t a pro roadie but I was competing at an elite level in another sport and asthma wasn’t something that stopped that – so long as I could use an inhaler if my lungs were closing up – I didn’t use it preventatively though but IME the advantage from the inhaler was in preventing a reduction in my performance rather than actually improving it if not suffering.

Of course, there’s a documented advantage to using inhalers if not asthmatic which is where my points about the TUE system being abused come in.

Just a point on an earlier comment

Armstrong didn’t get popped on his comeback.

He did. That’s a big part of the reason that he got done – If he hadn’t been arrogant enough to make his return, he’d almost certainly never have been caught – the bio passport showed up doping. LA is still adamant that he didn’t dope on his return but most reckon that’s to avoid statue of limitations issues.

There is some self-regulation going on in the peloton, a couple of years ago there were quite a few fingers being pointed at a particular rider on the Giro. I think the rider won a stage so was automatically tested, got caught and subsequently banned.

You could say that if significant numbers of riders are on ‘X’ then it is in no-one’s interest to speak out.

Was it Alan Baxter the freestyle skier who was caught using a banned substance at a recent winter Olympics? His claim was that he’d picked up his usual brand of inhaler stateside but that while the UK version was legit, the American/Canadian one had a steroid constituent.

Nemesis.

Thanks for sharing your experience, useful to know that.

Of course, there’s a documented advantage to using inhalers if not asthmatic which is where my points about the TUE system being abused come in.

Couldn’t agree more and was the point I was also trying to make.
🙂

Just a point on an earlier comment

Armstrong didn’t get popped on his comeback.

He did. That’s a big part of the reason that he got done – If he hadn’t been arrogant enough to make his return, he’d almost certainly never have been caught – the bio passport showed up doping.

No it wasn’t. He was banned because enough people spoke out against him and gave enough evidence. You are correct in that this wouldn’t have happened if he hadn’t returned but it had little to do with his BP on his return.

Well I don’t suppose it really matters but I’d say that the passport gave them the case beyond just testimony from others – eg ‘hard’ evidence.

I thought that the stone, which precipitated the avalanche was the retrospective testing of a sample, from 1999.

The testing had been carried out on samples that had been anonymised. However, it was, I believe, a French journalist who managed to obtain a UCI document recording the anonymised samples with the names of the riders.

The sample that tested positive belonged to LA and then it all started to unravel.

IIRC the retro testing was being carried out to assess the sensitivity of a new/different test. Not to retrospectively “catch” anyone.

Well I don’t suppose it really matters but I’d say that the passport gave them the case beyond just testimony from others – eg ‘hard’ evidence.

Yeah, but the fact was (and still stands) the BP failed to flag Armstrong. Despite the fact that USADA used his comeback doping as a way into the past to overcome the SOL issues.

So my point was it’s (the BP) not actually much cop is it?

The case against Armstrong is very well documented, on the net and via plenty of books, and of course the actual judgement itself is available. There’s no need to make stuff up about it. But, I’ve just been googling ‘Armstrong biological passport’ and it seems that his was dodgy in 2009/10 (quelle surprise!) but that the UCI did nothing about it and didn’t release the findings.

You would have though Froome and co would have learn’t from the cheating Texan who was”on another planet”.

If I was a world class athlete, and on the juice, I would make sure my performances were only just better than my rivals.

For example, If I had already put a couple of minutes into a top climber, I would have finished on his wheel, looking knackered, rather then storming past him.

Regardless of what you believe about today’s riders, the obvious solution is to store blood/urine samples for testing in years to come, when the new testing techniques have caught up with doping methods used at the present time. Each team should have to fund this process as part of their participation in the World Tour. Titles should then be removed as necessary based upon positive results, with no appeals based upon flimsy technicalities.

So my point was it’s (the BP) not actually much cop is it?

I thought the biological passport was significant in the JTL case?

If you concentrate a doping argument on Armstrong then you miss the point.

I think it’s a mistake to ask the question “is cycling now clean?”. People have cheated ever since organised sport was invented, and they will continue to cheat in the future. Tackling doping is an ongoing battle and you will never win that battle outright.

What you can do, however, is ensure that you are fighting that battle as effectively as possible, with independent, rigorous and transparent enforcement. Cycling has conspicuoulsy failed to do that, ever since dope testing was introduced, so you’ve had a very murky situation where the riders, the team organisation, the authorities, the press and even the fans are all complicit to some degree.

Personally, I think there is probably still plenty of doping going on. Lots of people who were up to their necks in it in recent decades are still involved in the sport, riders are still being caught, and people have recently demonstrated how you can fly under the radar of the Bio Passport if you are clever. We may be seeing the start of a new era in serious anti-doping enforcement (I certainly hope so) but I still retain a healthy scepticism about pro-cycling.