Do all of the top riders do drugs or dope?

[poupou]

I've also been having heretical thoughts that maybe those with better natural aerobic ability get less benefit from increased oxygen carriers in their blood. Untrained people showed much bigger improvements than trained people in some of the EPO studies. Don't know if the same trend holds true between pros of differing natural ability though, or if it's also relevant to autologous blood doping.....but it could explain everything we've observed.....hmm....

I have read too that some untrained athletes did some bigger improvements but in most of the cases it was difficult to differentiate wether it was linked to EPO or to the facts they have to do more physical exercices than usually.

 

[Christian]

How old are you?

I'm 20, what about you?

 

[Cerberus]

Have you heard anything about that link badboygolf provided?

Sorry for the late response, i through the thread died, anyway, no. What I seem to recall about Indurain is different from that, but my recollection of it is really vague.

Math in general hurts my brain. I fully admit to a complete mathematical deficiency and was just throwing numbers out there as an example, hoping to illustrate a point. If top riders means podium finishes, I'm sure the percentage would then increase. I would consider a top pro one that we know will contend, not necessarily win, a grand tour, but will probably win smaller stage races....but then they're still podium finishers right? Ok now my head is hurting.

Well there's no doubt in my mind that you're right on some level, in that the lower level the rider the more likely he is to be clean, all other things being equal of cause. The central question is of cause how far you have to go down to find how many clean riders. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) we just don't have the information to make even slightly precise estimates of that.

Your theory makes perfect sense. My reservation with it is unrelated to the size of the potential performance gains due to doping (of which I'm aware).

No matter how big the performance gains due to doping, if a pro of average talent gets on a full program, it's reasonable to expect that they would still be beaten by pros of greater talent, who are also on a full program. But this doesn't appear to be what happened in Kohl's case. The most obvious explanation is that he was taking more dope than the more talented riders.

This explanation totally contradicts my preconceived notions that 'they're all taking everything they can to go faster'. However, I simply can't discount the obvious without good reason.

So, I'm interested in hearing anyone's reasons as to how a middle of the peloton pro would beat nearly every more talented rider, without taking more dope than them. Perhaps the answer is that Kohl was really much more talented than middle of the peloton, so a better than average response to dope would do the trick. (Note that I'm deliberately ignoring 'statistical outlier in response to dope' type arguments, because they are too improbably to be worth pondering.)

I'm not sure that the different reaction to doping argument is that implausible. Some of the tests run showed gains between 9 and 17 percent. It might just be that some of the middle of the pack riders were in the 17 percent category (or the professional equivalent). It's also possible that some of the apparently more talented riders were already using doping, that would explain why a rider who appeared middle of the pack suddenly jumped to the top. He could always have been top level in talent, but have been held back by being clean or at least less dirty. That being said I would think there are at least some differences. I think doping has at least gone more underground in the last years and that makes it harder to share "best practice" and standardize doping practices.

My personal guess is that it's a mix of all the different factors, and perhaps some other things I haven't though of, but there's no way to know for certain

 

[Escarabajo]

I'm 20, what about you?

You are on track. No worries.

 

[issoisso]

It's not about age. It's about how many iterations of the same exact cycle it'll take you to stop being naive.

The "cycle", by the way, goes something like this:

Step 1:
"It wasn't clean in the past but it's mostly clean now. Clearly. I'm sure of it".

Step 2:
Major bust goes down

Step 3:
"I'm extremely surprised. I never saw that coming"

Rinse, repeat, until you realize things take many decades to change even slightly.

 

[Christian]

I have a different question though. In my earlier post I said that "you gotta believe in something".

So why do you watch cycling on TV, spend your time writiing thousands of posts in a cycling forum, spend your money on pro cycling magazines when you don't believe in the riders?

No one gets up early on Sunday morning to go to church when they don't believe in God.

 

[ak-zaaf]

I have a different question though. In my earlier post I said that "you gotta believe in something".

So why do you watch cycling on TV, spend your time writiing thousands of posts in a cycling forum, spend your money on pro cycling magazines when you don't believe in the riders?

No one gets up early on Sunday morning to go to church when they don't believe in God.

Well, I can see the riders on my TV, God last appeared on that screen during the '99 Vuelta.

What do you mean by 'Believe in riders'? I don't believe that they're (all) clean. I do believe they put in tons of training, are all extremely talented and have to live for their profession for the full 100%, doped or not.

Please don't make it all so black and white.

 

[Cerberus]

I have a different question though. In my earlier post I said that "you gotta believe in something".

So why do you watch cycling on TV, spend your time writiing thousands of posts in a cycling forum, spend your money on pro cycling magazines when you don't believe in the riders?

No one gets up early on Sunday morning to go to church when they don't believe in God.

The difference is that religion isn't entertainment. At least not to the people who believe in it.

 

[issoisso]

I have a different question though. In my earlier post I said that "you gotta believe in something".

So why do you watch cycling on TV, spend your time writiing thousands of posts in a cycling forum, spend your money on pro cycling magazines when you don't believe in the riders?

No one gets up early on Sunday morning to go to church when they don't believe in God.

I've had this particular question leveled at me literally dozens of times over the years, so luckily in my case the answer is quite simple.

Some people like the sport while others like certain riders. I'm in the first group.My interest in a race isn't influenced all taht much by who is or isn't riding. It's influenced by what type of race it's likely to be.

This isn't depreciative of the latter group. People like what they like. I like he sport and enjoy watching it. Other people like certain riders and watch specifically to see them ride. Different interests, simply.

In practical terms, this translates to: people in the first group will have a stable interest in the sport and don't want cheats in it but are more willing to believe the testimony of insiders, while people in the second group are more likely to watch races where their favorite riders/teams are participating and their interest in the sport tends to have peaks and throughs month after month or year after year...........and they tend to not even begin to be able to believe that their favorite rider/team can be guilty of anything no matter how obvious it may be.

The first group believes in something......believes that the sport is interesting and exciting and can be even better if it's made fair.
The second group also believes in something.....believes that certain people are role models and finds it odd that someone can enjoy the sport without being a fan of a specific someone.

Neither of the tow is better or worse, just different

Your church analogy would be apt if everyone equated the current group of riders with the sport itself. But they're not the same. You can have faith and trust in one and none at all in the other.

 

[issoisso]

I have a different question though. In my earlier post I said that "you gotta believe in something".

So why do you watch cycling on TV, spend your time writiing thousands of posts in a cycling forum, spend your money on pro cycling magazines when you don't believe in the riders?

No one gets up early on Sunday morning to go to church when they don't believe in God.

I've had this particular question leveled at me literally dozens of times over the years, so luckily in my case the answer is quite simple.

Some people like the sport while others like certain riders. I'm in the first group.My interest in a race isn't influenced all that much by who is or isn't riding. It's influenced by what type of race it's likely to be.

This isn't depreciative of the latter group. People like what they like. I like the sport and enjoy watching it. Other people like certain riders and watch specifically to see them ride. Different interests, simply.

In practical terms, this translates to: people in the first group will have a stable interest in the sport and don't want cheats in it but are more willing to believe the testimony of insiders, while people in the second group are more likely to watch races where their favorite riders/teams are participating and their interest in the sport tends to have peaks and throughs month after month or year after year.

The first group believes in something......believes that the sport is interesting and exciting and can be even better if it's made fair.
The second group also believes in something.....believes that certain people are role models and finds it odd that someone can enjoy the sport without being a fan of a specific role model.

Neither of the two is better or worse, just different

Your church analogy would be apt if everyone's mentality was "The riders" = "The sport". But to many people they're not the same. You can have faith and trust in one and none at all in the other.

Hopefully I didn't make my point too muddled

 

[issoisso]

I have a different question though. In my earlier post I said that "you gotta believe in something".

So why do you watch cycling on TV, spend your time writiing thousands of posts in a cycling forum, spend your money on pro cycling magazines when you don't believe in the riders?

No one gets up early on Sunday morning to go to church when they don't believe in God.

I've had this particular question leveled at me literally dozens of times over the years, so luckily in my case the answer is quite simple.

Some people like the sport while others like certain riders. I'm in the first group.My interest in a race isn't influenced all that much by who is or isn't riding. It's influenced by what type of race it's likely to be.

This isn't depreciative of the latter group. People like what they like. I like the sport and enjoy watching it. Other people like certain riders and watch specifically to see them ride. Different interests, simply.

In practical terms, this translates to: people in the first group will have a stable interest in the sport and don't want cheats in it but are more willing to believe the testimony of insiders, while people in the second group are more likely to watch races where their favorite riders/teams are participating and their interest in the sport tends to have peaks and throughs month after month or year after year.

The first group believes in something......believes that the sport is interesting and exciting and can be even better if it's made fair.
The second group also believes in something.....believes that certain people are role models and finds it odd that someone can enjoy the sport without being a fan of a specific role model.

Neither of the two is better or worse, just different

Your church analogy would be apt if everyone's mentality was "The riders" = "The sport". But to many people they're not the same. You can have faith and trust in one and none at all in the other.

Hopefully I didn't make my point too muddled

 

[pmcg76]

I've had this particular question leveled at me literally dozens of times over the years, so luckily in my case the answer is quite simple.

Some people like the sport while others like certain riders. I'm in the first group.My interest in a race isn't influenced all that much by who is or isn't riding. It's influenced by what type of race it's likely to be.

This isn't depreciative of the latter group. People like what they like. I like the sport and enjoy watching it. Other people like certain riders and watch specifically to see them ride. Different interests, simply.

In practical terms, this translates to: people in the first group will have a stable interest in the sport and don't want cheats in it but are more willing to believe the testimony of insiders, while people in the second group are more likely to watch races where their favorite riders/teams are participating and their interest in the sport tends to have peaks and throughs month after month or year after year.

The first group believes in something......believes that the sport is interesting and exciting and can be even better if it's made fair.
The second group also believes in something.....believes that certain people are role models and finds it odd that someone can enjoy the sport without being a fan of a specific role model.

Neither of the two is better or worse, just different

Your church analogy would be apt if everyone's mentality was "The riders" = "The sport". But to many people they're not the same. You can have faith and trust in one and none at all in the other.

Hopefully I didn't make my point too muddled

Makes sense to me, in general I havent had favourites in the 20 years I followed this sport, I currently have a favourite who is not a big-name rider but came through the club I competed with when younger. I like to believe he is doing it cleanly although I know there are people who would say that what he has achieved isnt possible without doping.

I would be dissappointed if he was doping but it wouldnt make he go all judgemental on him like people do with Ricco, Valverde and others who are caught. Folowing cycling has made me cynical not just about the sport but a lot of other sports, how can people follow football(Soccer) when it is completely ruled by money, nothing to do with producing players, teams etc.

I enjoy watching cycling, its a beautiful sport, it does frustrate me whenever there is a doping scandal but I just take it at face value. Its no better or worse than any other sport.

 

[Winterfold]

It's not about age. It's about how many iterations of the same exact cycle it'll take you to stop being naive.

The "cycle", by the way, goes something like this:

Step 1:
"It wasn't clean in the past but it's mostly clean now. Clearly. I'm sure of it".

Step 2:
Major bust goes down

Step 3:
"I'm extremely surprised. I never saw that coming"

Rinse, repeat, until you realize things take many decades to change even slightly.

Yes, that feels about right. Enlightenment comes when you reach Step 4:
"Noone has been busted for a while. Average speeds are still 40kmh +. Must be some new gear around. Never mind, they are not dropping dead these days and I still love bike racing"

NB There must be some hope, therefore you are always allowed to believe that one rider, probably of your own nationality, is clean even when the circumstancial evidence by which you damn others is sufficient.

EDIT PS to the 20 year old poster - at your age PLEASE still believe it is possible to go up Ventoux in 55 minutes clean, it might be possible, but if young healthy riders do not believe it could be possible, we will never find out if it actually is. You have a long-life ahead of you, leave cynicism til later.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

EDIT PS to the 20 year old poster - at your age PLEASE still believe it is possible to go up Ventoux in 55 minutes clean, it might be possible, but if young healthy riders do not believe it could be possible, we will never find out if it actually is. You have a long-life ahead of you, leave cynicism til later.

Nicely put. This is the why I try to emphasize any tiny possibility that just one of the top riders might be clean or at least clean-ish.

There are negative consequences of sending the messages along the lines of they are all doing it (subtext this is what all REAL cyclists do) or you have to dope to win anything.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

I'm not sure that the different reaction to doping argument is that implausible. Some of the tests run showed gains between 9 and 17 percent. It might just be that some of the middle of the pack riders were in the 17 percent category (or the professional equivalent).

Sure the statistical outlier in response to dope idea could explain the performance gains of Kohl. It would also mean that Kohl was not a good example of the performance gains that are generally achieved through doping. I'm reluctant to rely on an explanation that is unlikely by definition. Improving from the middle of the field to the front would require an outlier type response, rather than an above average type response.

It's also possible that some of the apparently more talented riders were already using doping, that would explain why a rider who appeared middle of the pack suddenly jumped to the top. He could always have been top level in talent, but have been held back by being clean or at least less dirty.

Yes. That's why I keep trying to persuade someone who has followed cycling forever, to give us some clues as to where Kohl could be expected to sit in a clean peloton. If the answer is at the front, I want to change my vote to yes!

 

[Martin318is]

No one gets up early on Sunday morning to go to church when they don't believe in God.

I do - I take it you are not married....