• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Do all of the top riders do drugs or dope?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Do all the top riders dope/ take drugs?

  • Not sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
ImmaculateKadence said:
Since the question includes "all top riders." I'd say the answer is no. Consider a rider like Cadel Evans: consistently a GC contender and has never been linked to doping, to my knowledge. His attitude toward doping is something I've always admired:



He acknowledges that it exists, but doesn't concern himself with it. He just rides; there should be more riders like him.

+1 agree................thats why i answered NO to the question"do all of the top riders do drugs or dope?"Riders like Cadel Evans(and others)who have never failed drug tests should not be put under the same tainted banner as caught dopers(piti-Valverde)Everyone is innocent until proven guilty....just not on this forum site..
 
blaxland said:
+1 agree................thats why i answered NO to the question"do all of the top riders do drugs or dope?"Riders like Cadel Evans(and others)who have never failed drug tests should not be put under the same tainted banner as caught dopers(piti-Valverde)Everyone is innocent until proven guilty....just not on this forum site..

Right, riders who climb in the same select group as proven dopers and also beat proven dopers in TT's should not be put under the same tainted banner. :rolleyes:

LOL you innocent doe-eyed young noob fans just crack me up.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
It never gets easier, you just go faster

Yeah, but that was espoused by Roy Hobbs, I mean GL, pre EPO.

Going fast isn't the problem. Going fast all the time, and not overtraining and getting depressed and or sick, is the problem.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Visit site
BikeCentric said:
Right, riders who climb in the same select group as proven dopers and also beat proven dopers in TT's should not be put under the same tainted banner. :rolleyes:

LOL you innocent doe-eyed young noob fans just crack me up.

You're saying it's not wise to spend 20% of your winnings on Ferrari prescribed intervals? What if he sprinkles them with some fairy dust?
 
BikeCentric said:
Right, riders who climb in the same select group as proven dopers and also beat proven dopers in TT's should not be put under the same tainted banner. :rolleyes:

LOL you innocent doe-eyed young noob fans just crack me up.

Cmon bikecentric posting ones opinions/answers to questions on this forum..isnt that what its all about?And at my age being called "young noob fans" is actually a complement........
 
buckwheat said:
You're saying it's not wise to spend 20% of your winnings on Ferrari prescribed intervals? What if he sprinkles them with some fairy dust?

On the contrary, for a pro bike rider I think they'd be fairly silly not to buy some magic Ferrari fairy dust. The economic structure of the sport incentivizes them to do just that.
 
Feb 2, 2010
79
0
0
Visit site
i think Evans is an interesting case. I also think Sastre is an interesting case as well. Certainly these two have avoided that type of associative bad press, so has VDV.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
buckwheat said:
I thought Evans was working with Ferrari?
No.... there was an article that came from (IIRC) Germany saying that Evans was associated with an Italian Doctor, many jumped to the conclusion that it was our dear old friend Michele however CE worked with Dr. Sassi from the Mapei institute.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Some very good, interesting and constructive debates here.

But it should be remembered that when a rider decides to go on the 'top programme' it is not limited to the use of oxygen delivery type products...... this was Jesus Manzano's laundry list.

Actovegin (extract of calves blood which supposedly improves oxygen carrying capacity)
Albumina H. (protein in blood plasma)
Androgel (testosterone)
Aranesp (Darbepoetin alfa = super EPO)
Celestote (corticosteroid)
Eprex (EPO)
Genotorm (growth hormone)
Hemoce (plasma)
Deca durabolin (anabolic steroid)
Humatrope (growth hormone)
IgF1 (insulin growth factor 1)
Neofertinon (hormone to stimulate ovulation and estrogen production)
Neorecormon (hormone that regulates red blood cell production)
Norditropin (growth hormone)
Nuvacten (corticosteroid)
Trigon (asthma drug)
Urbason (corticosteroid)
Ventolin (bronchial dilator)
Oxandrolona (anabolic agent)
Vitamin B12 (essential B vitamin)
Triamcinolona (corticosteroid)
Testoviron (testosterone)
Aspirina (analgesic, anti-inflammatory)
Oxyglobin (artificial haemoglobin intended for anaemic dogs)
Hemopure (artificial haemoglobin)
Ferlixit (iron)
Caffeine (stimulant)
Hemassist (artificial haemoglobin)
Prozac (antidepressant)
 
Sep 19, 2009
91
0
0
Visit site
If you assume that all of the top riders are doping, then as far as I can see you are limiting your choices:

a. It would make sense then not to watch any of the races with top riders in them and not to get involved in discussions on the merits of doping/riding clean, who is doping/not. the question is moot. Right? They are all dirty. What's the point? For that matter why would you even post on this forum? Its like watching a boxing match you know is fixed and then complaining about the outcome.

b. You can watch and cheer for these riders that you assume to be dirty, and feel a little dirty yourself for doing it (or not), but do it anyway because you love cycling and the top riders and races make for awesome spectacle. And even if they are all doped, the outcome isn't decided. Again though, why would you enter into any debate about doping related issues with respect to any rider in question? I guess just to disillusion others.

I think to get much out of these races and forums you have to hold out hope that some riders are clean. I guess that is why I like to read about doping. To confirm my thin shred of hope that maybe some guys are clean. Being an American I hold out slim hope for VDV or Farrar. I realize doping is rampant. I dont have any doubt Armstrong is dirty. I think the Omerta sucks. But you gotta have hope that some of them are clean. Innocent until proven guilty right? Reasonable doubt? I realize these are bogus ideals that the American court system by no means holds up, but that doesn't mean I cant. Otherwise why even watch unless you want to be as corrupt as those that are racing?
 
carl spackler said:
If you assume that all of the top riders are doping, then as far as I can see you are limiting your choices:

a. It would make sense then not to watch any of the races with top riders in them and not to get involved in discussions on the merits of doping/riding clean, who is doping/not. the question is moot. Right? They are all dirty. What's the point? For that matter why would you even post on this forum? Its like watching a boxing match you know is fixed and then complaining about the outcome.

b. You can watch and cheer for these riders that you assume to be dirty, and feel a little dirty yourself for doing it (or not), but do it anyway because you love cycling and the top riders and races make for awesome spectacle. And even if they are all doped, the outcome isn't decided. Again though, why would you enter into any debate about doping related issues with respect to any rider in question? I guess just to disillusion others.

I think to get much out of these races and forums you have to hold out hope that some riders are clean. I guess that is why I like to read about doping. To confirm my thin shred of hope that maybe some guys are clean. Being an American I hold out slim hope for VDV or Farrar. I realize doping is rampant. I dont have any doubt Armstrong is dirty. I think the Omerta sucks. But you gotta have hope that some of them are clean. Innocent until proven guilty right? Reasonable doubt? I realize these are bogus ideals that the American court system by no means holds up, but that doesn't mean I cant. Otherwise why even watch unless you want to be as corrupt as those that are racing?

You forgot the big one dude, or maybe couldn't see it for the sand your head is in.
c. A life long cycling fan (and participant) who really doesn't like the way the sport has been going and just like you he holds out hope, only he is hoping for the sport to become clean (or at least lots cleaner) and unlike you he has he eyes open.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
Some very good, interesting and constructive debates here.

But it should be remembered that when a rider decides to go on the 'top programme' it is not limited to the use of oxygen delivery type products...... this was Jesus Manzano's laundry list.

When last I saw that list I wondered why they used multiple sourches of EPO and blood boosting products. Do they think that it messes with the test results?
 
blaxland said:
Cmon bikecentric posting ones opinions/answers to questions on this forum..isnt that what its all about?And at my age being called "young noob fans" is actually a complement........

Fair enough. I personally do not see how it is possible for any top GC rider in this sport to be clean, but you are right that it is not my place to force my views upon you.
 
carl spackler said:
Dont think my head is in the sand, but how can the sport change unless some riders are clean? Are they all going to become clean at the same time?

Maybe that's what makes it such an uphill battle, but just wishing that some are clean for your reasons won't make it so.
The more important question might be, how can it change when the head of the governing body doesn't care if it does.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Hugh Januss said:
When last I saw that list I wondered why they used multiple sourches of EPO and blood boosting products. Do they think that it messes with the test results?

At the time Manzano said that EPO was only taken during training, usually at altitude or training camps to avoid Out Of Competition controls.

Oxyglobin and Actovegin was used for short bursts, ie time trials or particularly aggressive stages. Oxyglobin cleared the system in a very short time.
Actovegin was the better product but more expensive.
 
I Watch Cycling In July said:
I voted 'don't know', even though PED use is obviously still prolific in pro cycling. Here's why:

There are so many examples of people like Kohl making a sudden transition from relative obscurity to the podium. If he was on a comprehensive/optimal medical program to start with, he wouldn't have been able to get a sudden performance increase from PEDs.

Either Kohl was previously cleaner than the top GT performers, which is why he couldn't perform at that level or Kohl was on a more comprehensive program than other top GT performers when he made it onto the podium.

They might all be doing something, but there's evidence that they're not all doing the same thing.
According to his confessions he have been doping since a young age. What changed the outcome of the game were the blood transfusions. So not being a top GC does not necessarily translate in not being doped. There is a long list of mild effect meds that can help you on the day to day basis as you already know.
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
Visit site
carl spackler said:
If you assume that all of the top riders are doping, then as far as I can see you are limiting your choices:

a. It would make sense then not to watch any of the races with top riders in them and not to get involved in discussions on the merits of doping/riding clean, who is doping/not. the question is moot. Right? They are all dirty. What's the point? For that matter why would you even post on this forum? Its like watching a boxing match you know is fixed and then complaining about the outcome.

b. You can watch and cheer for these riders that you assume to be dirty, and feel a little dirty yourself for doing it (or not), but do it anyway because you love cycling and the top riders and races make for awesome spectacle. And even if they are all doped, the outcome isn't decided. Again though, why would you enter into any debate about doping related issues with respect to any rider in question? I guess just to disillusion others.

I think to get much out of these races and forums you have to hold out hope that some riders are clean. I guess that is why I like to read about doping. To confirm my thin shred of hope that maybe some guys are clean. Being an American I hold out slim hope for VDV or Farrar. I realize doping is rampant. I dont have any doubt Armstrong is dirty. I think the Omerta sucks. But you gotta have hope that some of them are clean. Innocent until proven guilty right? Reasonable doubt? I realize these are bogus ideals that the American court system by no means holds up, but that doesn't mean I cant. Otherwise why even watch unless you want to be as corrupt as those that are racing?

Choosing to watch is your own decision, but it certainly not like a fixed fight. I think your "b." is accurate. As it relates, it is an arms race where the most talented racers who've crossed into the doping world usually will dominate. It is still competitive as all heck, certainly not fixed. It is sporting and the winner is not pre-determined, however, if you are an athlete who wants to win, it is generally clear you increase your competitiveness by going noir.

Holding out hope is to fool yourself, and mate, if that floats your skirt, well, to each his own. it comes down to degrees of the program. Some, I imagine, use everything they can get their mitts on, others only limited items. Some just to build up for special events they target once per year. I feel it has depths and degrees.

Looking at what Fuentes and Basso, Ulrich, etc were up to shows the systematic programs. Lots of lesser paid have their own habits of what works for them and they need to make the grade and keep salary.

Your implication that by watching them without a presumption of guilt corrupts the viewer, I call foul. Nothing could be further. I do not "judge" them, I accept them. It does not take away from the entertainment value of the race or the drama or the results. If you "judge" them, meaning blindly call them all dopers, cast aversion to their existence and bemoan how a "clean" rider can't get a fair shake, then I suggest you find another sport. It is what it is. It is not going to suddenly "stop". The world has am myriad of problems, of which if those of you here need a "cause" find the link at my close.
 
Oct 29, 2009
1,095
0
0
Visit site
Cerberus said:
"CYNIC, n.
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be." - The Devils Dictionary.

Ambrose Bierce eh? :D Let me reference Dr. Johnson. A cynic is a "philosopher of the snarling or currish sort." :p

Cerberus said:
I hope you're right, but I just think the benefits of doping are to large for anyone to compete at the absolute top clean. Just in 2006 Landis won the tour on doping despite finishing around number 100 in his earlier Tours. in 2007 Rasmussen tore everyone to pieces aided by some form of EPO (Can't recall which). Perhaps the Bio-passport has improved things, but even if it has that doesn't mean it has improved enough for clean riders to be competitive. I don't think for example that Rasmussens blood values would have been actionable.

It's not fair to judge the whole by the actions of a few. Maybe I am naive, but there are several guys that I have never once thought are doping until people make the assertions in these forums. It's no secret doping is a major part of the sport, but I have a very hard time assuming all riders dope especially if there isn't a smoking gun. Once I do see smoke, I become suspicious, but I try not to make assumptions.

Dr. Maserati said:
Some very good, interesting and constructive debates here.

But it should be remembered that when a rider decides to go on the 'top programme' it is not limited to the use of oxygen delivery type products...... this was Jesus Manzano's laundry list.

Vitamin B12 (essential B vitamin)

I'm unclear on this. I take B12 supplements; is this considered cheating?
 
BikeCentric said:
I still enjoy watching the sport and I have come to terms with my opinion that basically all the top riders are doped up.

First off, ...
I like your answer. I also value your opinions a lot. Thanks.

The problem that I have with cycling is that I am very nationalistic. That is the way I was raised from the cycling point of view. The climbers from Colombia emerged from the early eighties as unique light climbers that bred from the Andes of South America. We seemed to have some advantage at some point. That became like a myth in my country in the eighties. They were called "Los Escarabajos".

All that was lost at the beginning of the nineties. The high hematocrit levels along with the Light weight advantage were completely lost. We were already worthless on the flats, so we were completely disposed from racing. Until few renegades like Botero and others started to learn what the rules of the game were.

Because of these unique advantages I became very patriotic when watching the races. That hope that we will be better climbers as a group still holds in me. But as you can see, unless we play the same game we will never have hope again. Besides, who needs small climbers anymore when you can have big riders who can climb just as or better than the Colombians?

I just need to start enjoying cycling regardless of the Country they come from.

I hope my writing is understandable.:)
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
Visit site
Escarabajo said:
I like your answer. I also value your opinions a lot. Thanks.

The problem that I have with cycling is that I am very nationalistic. That is the way I was raised from the cycling point of view. The climbers from Colombia emerged from the early eighties as unique light climbers that bred from the Andes of South America. We seemed to have some advantage at some point. That became like a myth in my country in the eighties. They were called "Los Escarabajos".

All that was lost at the beginning of the nineties. The high hematocrit levels along with the Light weight advantage were completely lost. We were already worthless on the flats, so we were completely disposed from racing. Until few renegades like Botero and others started to learn what the rules of the game were.

Because of these unique advantages I became very patriotic when watching the races. That hope that we will be better climbers as a group still holds in me. But as you can see, unless we play the same game we will never have hope again. Besides, who needs small climbers anymore when you can have big riders who can climb just as or better than the Colombians?

I just need to start enjoying cycling regardless of the Country they come from.

I hope my writing is understandable.:)

You writing is spot on. I think your premise is a bit naive. There have been plenty of slender, slight Brits and French who had fit that profile as well, Millar, Mottet, Pensec, Claveyrolat... I see your point and nationalistic pride does go a long way, and any encroachment on a portion of it that seemed to fairly fall under the domain of those racer from your locale, I could see how it could cause issue. It simply meant the game changed. Games change. Your Botero adapted and was a beast for a number of years. If the place in the game is gone, and riders simply can't or won't adapt, then what can you do?

All I can say is the French used to win a lot of Tours de France, the game changed and they simply can't/won't/shan't adapt. They moan like menopausal women and what happens....they develop an EPO test!
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
ImmaculateKadence said:
<snipped for brevity>
I'm unclear on this. I take B12 supplements; is this considered cheating?

No - I am pretty sure B 12 vitamins are not banned, the 'Manzano' list I quoted was to show that when athletes start taking products there is a need to start taking other products and supplements.