At what point did cycling become "clean"?

[Benotti69]

I don't think the scandals so drastically curtail the numbers who are doping, if at all.

For years riders have been saying you can't fail a drug test unless you first fail the IQ test. The doping protocols are well-established, and if a rider gets caught, that only can mean one of three things: 1. he doped too aggressively (exceeded the protocol), 2. he either was careless in his doping technique or failed to adequately monitor his blood values, or 3. the tests have got better. The rest of the peloton then will critically examine the failure to determine if or how they must modify their own doping program in response.

The nature of the use of EPO is a classic example. When the only EPO test was indirect, HCT level, all the top riders were doped to within a hair's breadth of the blood value limit. Then when they developed a direct test for EPO, the riders didn't stop using it, they shifted to microdosing, exploiting the drug's short half-life. I have little doubt it still is in widespread use, but now they have to use it so their bio passport values don't trip any alarms.

Voight, Kloden, O'Grady and Horner are just a few who are testament to how riders modified their doping to beat the tests.

Most importantly, if even half the peloton is doping, that means they are successfully doping without detection. The other half will know this, and will know their riding "clean" is endangering their livelihood. I can't imagine they would tolerate this, which is the the greater reason I don't think the levels of doping have diminished appreciably. If even 10% are doping successfully, that compels the other 90% to follow suit.

So much of sport is down to motivation and psychological ability. Hard to be motivated when you know the others have doped. I would say that only a few can get over that others have an unfair advantage.

The SOL stops running in the case of a sealed indictment, does it not? Is there any chance USADA might be waiting to tie up loose ends before indicting? Or is there any chance the Phonak investigation might also have been passed to Andre Birotte, only to get flushed along with the Pharmstrong investigation?

I dunno, I'm just asking.

i dunno either, but it would be curious if phonak have not been mentioned in the USADA investigations. Definitely a question for TT.

 

[Taxus4a]

I don't think the scandals so drastically curtail the numbers who are doping, if at all.

For years riders have been saying you can't fail a drug test unless you first fail the IQ test. The doping protocols are well-established, and if a rider gets caught, that only can mean one of three things: 1. he doped too aggressively (exceeded the protocol), 2. he either was careless in his doping technique or failed to adequately monitor his blood values, or 3. the tests have got better. The rest of the peloton then will critically examine the failure to determine if or how they must modify their own doping program in response.

The nature of the use of EPO is a classic example. When the only EPO test was indirect, HCT level, all the top riders were doped to within a hair's breadth of the blood value limit. Then when they developed a direct test for EPO, the riders didn't stop using it, they shifted to microdosing, exploiting the drug's short half-life. I have little doubt it still is in widespread use, but now they have to use it so their bio passport values don't trip any alarms.

Most importantly, if even half the peloton is doping, that means they are successfully doping without detection. The other half will know this, and will know their riding "clean" is endangering their livelihood. I can't imagine they would tolerate this, which is the the greater reason I don't think the levels of doping have diminished appreciably. If even 10% are doping successfully, that compels the other 90% to follow suit.



The SOL stops running in the case of a sealed indictment, does it not? Is there any chance USADA might be waiting to tie up loose ends before indicting? Or is there any chance the Phonak investigation might also have been passed to Andre Birotte, only to get flushed along with the Pharmstrong investigation?

I dunno, I'm just asking.

And you say this by knowing well the current cycling world?

I ask, becouse you talk like if you do...

I can tell you things are not like that now, you are describing the past...and Santambroglio, Di Luca, Serebryakov, and others know well, and they werent ultradoped, just a little bit doped.

 

[blackcat]

response to the OP

At what point did cycling become "clean"?

cycling is but particle physics, where an atom can be in two places at once, and oscillate betwixt.

so therefore, cycling is at once, becoming cleaner/became clean whilst at once, being dirty.

 

[blackcat]

edit: thats the black cat. just the diagram outlined it

 

[rhubroma]

Its not sarcastic at all.

We all here the term "clean cycling" but what does it mean and what has occurred that clean cycling is now a majority of the peloton.

There are a lot of posts from people defending teams and riders as clean or not doping but I don't here a lot of reasons to why.

Its well established that cycling has been riddled with doping for the best part of 20 years. The same governing body they presided over and accepted the doping are still in power.

What changed?

The pros are as dirty as before, hell they still take Fluimucil to de-tox the liver from all the sh!t they've taken.

 

[MarkvW]

Don't see it that way, sorry. He might be truthful however.
Same with Rasmussen. Also truthful imo.

A confession can only be useful if it is timely, and there are precious few of those. Bike riders are great at confessing when the cow is already out of the barn.

 

[MarkvW]

I don't think the scandals so drastically curtail the numbers who are doping, if at all.

For years riders have been saying you can't fail a drug test unless you first fail the IQ test. The doping protocols are well-established, and if a rider gets caught, that only can mean one of three things: 1. he doped too aggressively (exceeded the protocol), 2. he either was careless in his doping technique or failed to adequately monitor his blood values, or 3. the tests have got better. The rest of the peloton then will critically examine the failure to determine if or how they must modify their own doping program in response.

The nature of the use of EPO is a classic example. When the only EPO test was indirect, HCT level, all the top riders were doped to within a hair's breadth of the blood value limit. Then when they developed a direct test for EPO, the riders didn't stop using it, they shifted to microdosing, exploiting the drug's short half-life. I have little doubt it still is in widespread use, but now they have to use it so their bio passport values don't trip any alarms.

Most importantly, if even half the peloton is doping, that means they are successfully doping without detection. The other half will know this, and will know their riding "clean" is endangering their livelihood. I can't imagine they would tolerate this, which is the the greater reason I don't think the levels of doping have diminished appreciably. If even 10% are doping successfully, that compels the other 90% to follow suit.



The SOL stops running in the case of a sealed indictment, does it not? Is there any chance USADA might be waiting to tie up loose ends before indicting? Or is there any chance the Phonak investigation might also have been passed to Andre Birotte, only to get flushed along with the Pharmstrong investigation?

I dunno, I'm just asking.

Birotte and the USADA/WADA investigations are two entirely separate animals. One is criminal and run by a governmental organization (you can go to prison) and the other is run by a private organization (that gets government funds) and threatens just a doping sanction. They do not overlap.

USADA and WADA don't proceed by indictment, they just draft up their charges and serve them on the rider.

Birotte, almost certainly, has nothing to do with Phonak.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

response to the OP

At what point did cycling become "clean"?

cycling is but particle physics, where an atom can be in two places at once, and oscillate betwixt.

so therefore, cycling is at once, becoming cleaner/became clean whilst at once, being dirty.

Where's Schroedinger when you need him? How about a cyclist/urine sample analogy, and get rid of that dead cat once and for all...

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

response to the OP

At what point did cycling become "clean"?

cycling is but particle physics, where an atom can be in two places at once, and oscillate betwixt.

so therefore, cycling is at once, becoming cleaner/became clean whilst at once, being dirty.

What you're saying is, we can't know whether the sport is clean or dirty without we look inside the box?


So why don't we open the damn box already??!!?

 

[MarkvW]

What you're saying is, we can't know whether the sport is clean or dirty without we look inside the box?


So why don't we open the damn box already??!!?

365 day a year / 24 hour a day line-of-sight chaperones for riders?

 

[MarkvW]

What you're saying is, we can't know whether the sport is clean or dirty without we look inside the box?


So why don't we open the damn box already??!!?

Because the dopers always have the edge in the doping arms race and the dope testers are always playing catch-up.

 

[The Hitch]

Don't know if this was posted before, since its a month old, probably yes and if so, sorry, but just in case not:

http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/2013/10/03/matt-de-canio-unchained/

Do you think the sport is cleaner. here at....

"Hell no, I don't think the sport is cleaner ...... (personal experience)

the benefits are too lager and the dopers will always dope and destroy anti dopers....

 

[doperhopper]

The nature of the use of EPO is a classic example. When the only EPO test was indirect, HCT level, all the top riders were doped to within a hair's breadth of the blood value limit. Then when they developed a direct test for EPO, the riders didn't stop using it, they shifted to microdosing, exploiting the drug's short half-life. I have little doubt it still is in widespread use, but now they have to use it so their bio passport values don't trip any alarms.

HOLY BALLS!

Are you suggesting that in the new era of clean cycling you HAVE TO DOPE to appear clean?

 

[DirtyWorks]

HOLY BALLS!

Are you suggesting that in the new era of clean cycling you HAVE TO DOPE to appear clean?

It depends on your situation:

If you started in a major way before the bio-passport, and make it to the WT you can't stop. Some scores will change in a way that can be flagged.
Remember that there is very little testing below WT status.

If you didn't start in a major way, you can still dope. Especially for grand tours. Now, it's not the days of no EPO testing, but the doping you can do and never test positive is relatively safe and very, very effective.

If you are Froome, then everybody looking at your scores does nothing with suspicious scores. If you are Horner, your program is designed to never test positive. I'd guess the clever athletes are running Horner-style programs.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

HOLY BALLS!

Are you suggesting that in the new era of clean cycling you HAVE TO DOPE to appear clean?

No.

My meaning was that if a rider elects to dope under the BP, he must introduce it in a gradual and controlled fashion so the changes to his blood values occur slowly enough that they might be mistaken for natural.

But as DirtyWorks noted, the reverse can apply as well.

 

[Escarabajo]

HOLY BALLS!

Are you suggesting that in the new era of clean cycling you HAVE TO DOPE to appear clean?

Basically yes. If you dope and then stop, it might show some red flags in the BP.

 

[thehog]

Basically yes. If you dope and then stop, it might show some red flags in the BP.

Correct. A steady use of micro dosing of EPO throughout the year will make you more appear more "clean" than if you have some violent fluctuations due to the riggers of training, racing and sickness.

 

[Benotti69]

Basically yes. If you dope and then stop, it might show some red flags in the BP.

Which probably accounts for so many ooc tests being missed by riders as they try and manage their BPs with micro doping.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Basically yes. If you dope and then stop, it might show some red flags in the BP.

If anything, I think the BP encourages / it is an advantage for people to be doping before they are added to the testing pool.

 

[Benotti69]

If anything, I think the BP encourages / it is an advantage for people to be doping before they are added to the testing pool.

Where did JTL go wrong? Not a good responder to AICAR and micro doping? or did McQuaid fire a warning shot across Sky's bow to let them know he has others Sky BP figures..........

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

I just noticed something interesting.

The 1990 TdF and the 2013 TdF were the same total lengths to within a fraction of a kilometer.

Both had 21 stages (1990 also had a 6 km prologue) and two rest days. 1990 had three more TTs (including the prologue), three fewer mountain stages, and one more flat stage.

I somehow always had imagined that more TTs, fewer mountain stages and more flat stages would add up to a faster tour. So how come the 2013 Lanterne Rouge completed the 3404 km more than two hours faster than 1990's GC, Greg Lemond?


The question is not, "At what point did cycling become "clean"?", the operative question is, "At what point will cycling become "clean"?"

Or more importantly, how will we know when we've reached it?

 

[the sceptic]

I would guess the vast majority of that time would be lost/gained on the flat stages.

Anyone want to guess what Dawgs winning margin would be if you put him in the 1990 tour? I would say between 30-45 minutes, depending on how much time he takes in the ITTs.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

I just noticed something interesting.

The 1990 TdF and the 2013 TdF were the same total lengths to within a fraction of a kilometer.

Both had 21 stages (1990 also had a 6 km prologue) and two rest days. 1990 had three more TTs (including the prologue), three fewer mountain stages, and one more flat stage.

I somehow always had imagined that more TTs, fewer mountain stages and more flat stages would add up to a faster tour. So how come the 2013 Lanterne Rouge completed the 3404 km more than two hours faster than 1990's GC, Greg Lemond?


The question is not, "At what point did cycling become "clean"?", the operative question is, "At what point will cycling become "clean"?"

Or more importantly, how will we know when we've reached it?

Lots of stages were really piano at the time.

 

[Taxus4a]

I just noticed something interesting.

The 1990 TdF and the 2013 TdF were the same total lengths to within a fraction of a kilometer.

Both had 21 stages (1990 also had a 6 km prologue) and two rest days. 1990 had three more TTs (including the prologue), three fewer mountain stages, and one more flat stage.

I somehow always had imagined that more TTs, fewer mountain stages and more flat stages would add up to a faster tour. So how come the 2013 Lanterne Rouge completed the 3404 km more than two hours faster than 1990's GC, Greg Lemond?


The question is not, "At what point did cycling become "clean"?", the operative question is, "At what point will cycling become "clean"?"

Or more importantly, how will we know when we've reached it?

Hello!

Things to have into account and mistakes:

Two grand Tours with the same kilometres, the harders is the one with more ITT kms. Why? Becouse ITT are more demanding than to go in the peloton 50 Kms in a flat stage. Anyway Villard de Lans was a hard ITT

Yes, ITT get reached more velocity, but you must take into the account what I ve said in the global speed.

Second, mountain stages? I think both of them are similar... this year wanst very hard...you say two more mountain stages, but that is no like that.

This year had a lot of flat stages.

All the Tour had NW wind, that didnt help one day in Corsica and two days in Mediterranean coast, ok...

But that wind help clearly four days in the second week.

Wind direction in flat stages is what more determine the average velocity in a Tour.

Two hours is a very small difference, just considering wind factor, that we must study better in both Tour.

But the most importante thing:

The normal tendency in cycling, is increasing average in the Tour with a similar route, Reasons??

Better road...not very important, but yes.

Better cyclist: the globlazation bring more cyclist form more continets, so.. Belgium is a better country in cycling than Luxemburg, becouse there are more people to chose, no more...
In a peleton with better cyclist, they go faster.

The more important: TECHNIC (training, etc...), and MATERIAL (resources in general)

How you think Lemond can get the same speed with a bike 3 kg heavier than today?

The change between Lemond era and today is the normal difference, the strange are the years from that era till today.

Note that Lemond won that Tour just to go one day with an small change in his bike... if that made him imbeatable for Fignon... imagine with a bike as today...

Cheers!!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Lots of stages were really piano at the time.

ie slower, which would lead you think there would be more energy available for the TTs and the mountains, innit?