The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
I really don't get the "legal doping" explanation. A substance doesn't have to be known to be forbidden, the code has quite some catch-all categories.
We also hear nothing about doping in most sports, so this could just be a normalisation of cycling.
They've had sophisticated testing for both GW1516 & AICAR since 2012. One single 15 mg dose of GW1516 can be detected for up to 40 days. AICAR couldn't be detected until the CIR test came along & can distinguish between naturally occurring AICAR & synthetic use. One single dose of AICAR can be detected up to 40 hrs after last use. Use of either substance will show up as fluctuations on the ABP steroidal/hormonal modules warranting target testing.I haven’t seen much discussion recently (maybe I’ve just missed it?) here or in sports media about AICAR and GW-forgotthenumbers? Given that we now have riders with skeletal physiques without apparent associated loss of strength/power so they both set climbing records and win TTs is more than suspicious.
You can have a new substance that there exists no test for and which neither WADA nor UCI knows of, but which falls in a category of drugs that is forbidden. It doesn't have to be named to be on the list.but if they used and unknown but -forbidden- substance, they'd test positive cause it is forbidden and then the substance would get known.
"legal" doping means something that enhances your performance but it is not in the Wada forbidden list. and until it is not it's fine
so that means it is forbidden (by whom?) but undetectable?You can have a new substance that there exists no test for and which neither WADA nor UCI knows of, but which falls in a category of drugs that is forbidden. It doesn't have to be named to be on the list.
This is what's confusing to me. I'm under no illusion that everybody is squeaky clean (and for my enjoyment of the sport it doesn't matter one bit), but I've yet to read even a rumour about what the guys now are doing (I don't buy the motor nonsense). In the 90s and 00s widespread doping in the peloton seemed like an open secret, with a lot of smoke coming from the fire. If the same stuff is happening now, how is it being kept under such a tight lid?
It would have to be very minor blood doping as the ABP hematological module would pick up the anomalies. Secondly, how would teams pull off the logistics of blood doping in today's anti-doping climate without getting caught? The withdrawal process, the packing & storing, transportation to races, the reinfusion process, etc. And then there's the trust needed among the doctors & athletes - hoping there's not the risk of a disgruntled team member whistleblowing on the operation.There are currently 523 WT riders. My median (cautious) guess for the number of riders who has used substances or methods against the WADA code in the past year is roughly 470 riders (90 %). I'd expect more than half, maybe even more than two thirds, to use blood doping. If handled professionally, it's safe and it works. Then you can use whatever else on top of that.
Yes, by WADA: https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/2023list_en_final_9_september_2022.pdfso that means it is forbidden (by whom?) but undetectable?
No, it would not have to be very minor. Horner published his passport data, and it was evident that he used blood bags during the 2013 Vuelta, but he wasn't flagged for that.It would have to be very minor blood doping as the ABP hematological module would pick up the anomalies. Secondly, how would teams pull off the logistics of blood doping in today's anti-doping climate without getting caught? The withdrawal process, the packing & storing, transportation to races, the reinfusion process, etc. And then there's the trust needed among the doctors & athletes - hoping there's not the risk of a disgruntled team member whistleblowing on the operation.
Do you remember Operation Aderlass a few years back? The most sophisticated blood doping operation known to mankind. Blood would be reinfused immediately before a race or event & the same amount would be immediately withdrawn after the race (before any testing was done) - this procedure would not show any anomalies on the ABP.
But it took just one disgruntled athlete (an Austrian cyclist) to drop a dime on the operation & the whole thing blew up exposing the doctors & athletes involved with criminal charges filed on the doctors:
![]()
Austrian doping: A complete history of Operation Aderlass | Cyclingnews.com
Operation Aderlass: Blood doping investigation part of thread running through cycling's historywww.cyclingnews.com
Are you talking about substances like Creatine, Beta-Alanine, Caffeine, etc?I am tending towards there being something that is as-yet undetectable or is as-yet not banned (but likely would be once it was known about), but I think that all of the factors I mention contribute.
Thanks, I have been wondering about that.They've had sophisticated testing for both GW1516 & AICAR since 2012. One single 15 mg dose of GW1516 can be detected for up to 40 days. AICAR couldn't be detected until the CIR test came along & can distinguish between naturally occurring AICAR & synthetic use. One single dose of AICAR can be detected up to 40 hrs after last use. Use of either substance will show up as fluctuations on the ABP steroidal/hormonal modules warranting target testing.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22977012/
No. I don't think any of those substances in and of themselves explain the enormous level of performance increases we are seeing.Are you talking about substances like Creatine, Beta-Alanine, Caffeine, etc?
There's some good research & studies on the efficacy of these supplements. Creatine has been shown to improve lean muscle mass & strength. Beta-Alanine - and especially caffeine supplements - have been shown to improve endurance performance.
I think WADA at one time had an upper limit of caffeine use where if an athlete exceeded that amount, he or she would face a ban. I believe that's since been abolished?
Undetectable doesn’t mean it can’t be discovered—because someone could out (or find through a bust) the drug or apparatus to researchers or officials in the sport. Wasn’t that the case with Balco?so that means it is forbidden (by whom?) but undetectable?
agree.Undetectable doesn’t mean it can’t be discovered—because someone could out (or find through a bust) the drug or apparatus to researchers or officials in the sport. Wasn’t that the case with Balco?
Are you sure about that? There's a plethora of caffeine studies that show significant improvement in endurance performance (both running & cycling performance).No. I don't think any of those substances in and of themselves explain the enormous level of performance increases we are seeing.
Baseball primarily, with some impact in track and field. IIRC there were some bizarre home run records in baseball in the early 00s, which oddly kind of saved baseball as it was struggling in TV ratings before the drug fuelled home run boomagree.
ps. I don't remember Balco. bust in American track and field? I'll have to google it
Isn't it around 2%?Are you sure about that? There's a plethora of caffeine studies that show significant improvement in endurance performance (both running & cycling performance).
Caffeine has also been known about and used in the sport for the best part of 100 years. It may not have been harnessed to its full potential, but I have absolutely zero faith that the increases in performance level that I have seen over the past... since 2009 when Pierre Bordry got relieved of his duty, are attributable to caffeine.Are you sure about that? There's a plethora of caffeine studies that show significant improvement in endurance performance (both running & cycling performance).
Yes it is more substantial than many think, though it's been known and used in finishing bottles for yearsIsn't it around 2%?
But samples have been frozen & stored for up to 10 yrs for re-testing. Did you hear about the Olympic gold medalist track cyclist whose competition samples from the 2016 Rio games was just re-analyzed & positive for a SARMs that was undetectable at that time (imagine the look on his face when he was notified of the positive. Lol).You can have a new substance that there exists no test for and which neither WADA nor UCI knows of, but which falls in a category of drugs that is forbidden. It doesn't have to be named to be on the list.
Source? It doesn't seem to matter one iota if you take creatine before, during, or after exercise. And a single dose is not going to do anything; you need days to load up and get an effect.Yes it is more substantial than many think, though it's been known and used in finishing bottles for years
Pot belge - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Yes...2% and up to 7% in some studies:Isn't it around 2%?
Yes you need a week or so of about 20g a day loading then most take 3-5g a day at any time, it does work though I take it myself, but some retain a water weight, I think it's fairly well researched. Wouldn't be the kind of thing that has much visual effect to a layman but for cyclists who deal in grams the gain in strength might not be worth the weight-gain.Source? It doesn't seem to matter one iota if you take creatine before, during, or after exercise. And a single dose is not going to do anything; you need days to load up and get an effect.