General Doping Thread.

Page 53 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I think there’s doping in tri but I’m not convinced this event was any more suspicious than any regular race.

Skipper confirmed he rode at 300W NP which is his normal IM race pace, the drafting just made it that much faster. He only had to hold his IM power for 3:15 instead of 4:05 so that helped as well. He’s also done 12 hours at around 280W and holds the British record in it. The top riders in tri are pretty legit.

Then all 4 of them were fresher than usual on the run and ran run PRs. No doubt that is somewhat suspicious but they were clearly fresh going into it and all the extra aid can help. Skipper had a guy watering him with a literal hose on a bike for most of the run and he’s ran similar times in other hot conditions, plus this wasn’t really that hot or humid.


Everybody in the event smashed 7/8hrs by so much that it comes across as the bike being surprisingly easier than expected, rather than some massive doping gains imo. Actually they all set public personal goals and all of their goals were 10-20 mins better than necessary, so they probably knew after one group training ride how much the drafting would help.
Indeed. But remember in my original comment, I did not want to focus solely on the spectacle of this event because it had so many additional factors. Keep in mind at the top level of the male field are breaking 8 hours in a "regular" Ironman. So a solid 50 +/- minutes of open swim racing, 180 km tt at around 43-45 km/h, and then a 2:30 to 2:45 Marathon.

Anyhow, with testing being pretty sparse and performances being fairly insane, it's hard for me to buy into it, especially knowing what sport can be like.
 
In context of Ironman distance triathlon, this is a good read:


The "record" stands at 7:27:53. It was a two-man exhibition event. I agree Triathlon needs more scrutiny but these exhibition events should be disregarded. Even the swim leg took sub 40 minutes when 47-49 minutes is normal for pros. And a 2:39 marathon does not seem incredible for how the event was conducted. Dave Scott and Mark Allen did similar after a non drafting bike leg in Hawaii in 1989. Sub 2:30 off a non drafting bike leg would ring alarms.
 
Could someone help me? I once listened to an interview with a skier just caught for doping. I think he might have been Canadian, but I am not sure. I think it was some years ago, probably before the pandemic.

When the interview was held the skiier was just caught, had just called his family etc. He did say everyone was doping. He was in shock of course but also in remorse.

I really want to find it as I thought it was a really good, honest interview. So if someone has a clue what the skier was or the podcast please help.
 
Reactions: ppanther92
Currently listening to Hajo Seppelt's podcast Geheimsache Doping. Super interesting, well prepared. But episode 7 is a manifestation of what is wrong with self-proclaimed anti-doping leadership in Germany. Its the case of Dieter Baumann. 5.000m Olympic champion in 1992 tested positive for Nandrolone (or to be precise - a metabolite) in 1999 while preparing for Sydney 2000. In fact, he tested positive twice in a short period. Baumann himself was also a self-proclaimed fighter against doping and very vocally insisiting on his own clean self and clean sport in general. Well, the first very questionable fact is obviosuly that he was a track and field star in the 90s where, like in cycling, blood doping and doping in general was through the roof. His 5000m European record held from 1997 to 2021. Like all good doping records. But lets get not lost in guilt by assumption here.

The real inconsistency in reasoning happens in the podcast itself. Baumann obviously played the victim card (like basically any proven doper as well). But what is really outrageous is that the well renowned lab in Cologne (still held in high regard) and Werner Franke (doping fighter and leading person in exposing the DDR doping system) decided to help Baumann (thats already a big wtf-moment, especially the lab). Franke claimed Nandrolone is produced by the body in times of extreme stress, the labor sent employees to Baumann's house to test for contamined supplements. Both directions led to nowhere, but the lab tried to support Baumann further. So they collected more items (water, salt, toothpaste, soap, ...) and told Baumann to collect his urine for 10 days, every day. Every of these tests was positive for Nandrolone again. Now, knowing the half life, it can't come from the initial doping offence. And why would Baumann keep on doping when already caught? That at least was the stance of the lab. So more convinced of the innocence than ever, they tested the other things and et voila - the toothpaste was contamined.

The German track and field association lets the case go and Baumann is allowed to run again. In June 2000 he sets 13:18 as time in Nürnberg - Olympia limit achieved. In August 2000 (shortly before Sydney) he sets 13:13 in Zürich - World Best Time in this year. He looks set for a medal in Sydney but the IAAF is not having it - 2 year ban, no start at the Olympics. The wining time in Sydney was 13:35 (now, the final was slow, but the best time of any athlete in either of the rounds was 13:22, almost 10s behind Baumann's World Best Time). Anyway, he came back in 2002 for the European Championship and got Silver over 10.000m. Why he didn't start in the 5.000m where his 2000 times were almost 30s faster than the medallists, I don't know. Afterwards he ended his career.

Now its not (or not mainly) the fact that German authorities are trying to protect their athlete (bad enough but thats happening globally to more or less degrees) but it is the inconsistency that puts me off. As said in the beginning, Germany (and Seppelt/ARD) wants to portray tehmselves as anti-doping frontrunners. Yet, Baumann is treated very differently as foreigners would be. Ben Johnson is ridiculed in the podcast for explaining his positive test with a member of Carl Lewis' team spiking his drink. Probably rightly so but what exactly is different in Baumann's case? The most logical explanation is really that he doped, went with the "I am clean" excuse, and used his chance when the Cologne lab came to his rescue and just spiked his own toothpaste. Easiest thing ever. Yet the only guy who mentions this scenario is Seppelt (have to credit him for that) in the podcast. Ultimately the tonality is so different than in other episodes that I have to think Germans (and with that I mean the media and authorities) are as hypocritical as it gets when it comes to doping. Still.
 
Must be rough for Seppelt, no Russian to bash at the EC...

In other news MTBer Mathias Flückiger just tested positive for Zeranol
https://www.tagblatt.ch/news-service/sport/mountainbike-verbotene-anabole-substanz-flueckiger-wird-nach-positivem-dopingtest-gesperrt-ld.2330195

He's one of the biggest names in the sport and won the overall world cup last year and got silver at both the WC and the Olympics.
Yeah, i's quite a huge surprise. Not that he might be using stuff, but that he's been caught.
 
Currently listening to Hajo Seppelt's podcast Geheimsache Doping. Super interesting, well prepared. But episode 7 is a manifestation of what is wrong with self-proclaimed anti-doping leadership in Germany. Its the case of Dieter Baumann. 5.000m Olympic champion in 1992 tested positive for Nandrolone (or to be precise - a metabolite) in 1999 while preparing for Sydney 2000. In fact, he tested positive twice in a short period. Baumann himself was also a self-proclaimed fighter against doping and very vocally insisiting on his own clean self and clean sport in general. Well, the first very questionable fact is obviosuly that he was a track and field star in the 90s where, like in cycling, blood doping and doping in general was through the roof. His 5000m European record held from 1997 to 2021. Like all good doping records. But lets get not lost in guilt by assumption here.

The real inconsistency in reasoning happens in the podcast itself. Baumann obviously played the victim card (like basically any proven doper as well). But what is really outrageous is that the well renowned lab in Cologne (still held in high regard) and Werner Franke (doping fighter and leading person in exposing the DDR doping system) decided to help Baumann (thats already a big wtf-moment, especially the lab). Franke claimed Nandrolone is produced by the body in times of extreme stress, the labor sent employees to Baumann's house to test for contamined supplements. Both directions led to nowhere, but the lab tried to support Baumann further. So they collected more items (water, salt, toothpaste, soap, ...) and told Baumann to collect his urine for 10 days, every day. Every of these tests was positive for Nandrolone again. Now, knowing the half life, it can't come from the initial doping offence. And why would Baumann keep on doping when already caught? That at least was the stance of the lab. So more convinced of the innocence than ever, they tested the other things and et voila - the toothpaste was contamined.

The German track and field association lets the case go and Baumann is allowed to run again. In June 2000 he sets 13:18 as time in Nürnberg - Olympia limit achieved. In August 2000 (shortly before Sydney) he sets 13:13 in Zürich - World Best Time in this year. He looks set for a medal in Sydney but the IAAF is not having it - 2 year ban, no start at the Olympics. The wining time in Sydney was 13:35 (now, the final was slow, but the best time of any athlete in either of the rounds was 13:22, almost 10s behind Baumann's World Best Time). Anyway, he came back in 2002 for the European Championship and got Silver over 10.000m. Why he didn't start in the 5.000m where his 2000 times were almost 30s faster than the medallists, I don't know. Afterwards he ended his career.

Now its not (or not mainly) the fact that German authorities are trying to protect their athlete (bad enough but thats happening globally to more or less degrees) but it is the inconsistency that puts me off. As said in the beginning, Germany (and Seppelt/ARD) wants to portray tehmselves as anti-doping frontrunners. Yet, Baumann is treated very differently as foreigners would be. Ben Johnson is ridiculed in the podcast for explaining his positive test with a member of Carl Lewis' team spiking his drink. Probably rightly so but what exactly is different in Baumann's case? The most logical explanation is really that he doped, went with the "I am clean" excuse, and used his chance when the Cologne lab came to his rescue and just spiked his own toothpaste. Easiest thing ever. Yet the only guy who mentions this scenario is Seppelt (have to credit him for that) in the podcast. Ultimately the tonality is so different than in other episodes that I have to think Germans (and with that I mean the media and authorities) are as hypocritical as it gets when it comes to doping. Still.
It's all downstream from the Stunde Null civil religion. All sins are in the past, all virtue is in the present.
 
Reactions: TourOfSardinia

in Norwegian, but google translate works ok
Where's our friend from the XC skiing thread to tell us all that we can take the word of Anti-Doping Norway as read because the whole world agrees that Norway has the best anti-doping policy...
 
The heart of the matter is an interpretation of the Norwegian law which means that athletes between the ages of 15 and 18 cannot be tested for doping without their parents' consent. This has led to the fact that no one under legal age has been tested unannounced in the past two years, and that Antidoping Norway is therefore not fulfilling its obligations according to the international anti-doping code.
 
Reactions: PeterB
Where's our friend from the XC skiing thread to tell us all that we can take the word of Anti-Doping Norway as read because the whole world agrees that Norway has the best anti-doping policy...
What does that have to do with the NADA? They are the ones pushing the ministry to change the law, so that they can comply with WADA. The article doesn't say for how long this interpretation of the consent law has been in effect (wrt. tests), which is the interesting part.

I could easily imagine the same thing happening here in Denmark, with a strict interpretation of a new law leading to unintended consequences.
 
Flagged three years ago, but nothing done. Reminds me of the Sundby doping case, it took the Norwegian hypocrites 18-19 months to publicly make the announcement that Sundby was caught dipping, twice. I am sure that the consequences will be next to nothing, just as it was for Sundby.

 
Flagged three years ago, but nothing done. Reminds me of the Sundby doping case, it took the Norwegian hypocrites 18-19 months to publicly make the announcement that Sundby was caught dipping, twice. I am sure that the consequences will be next to nothing, just as it was for Sundby.

Thanks for the link!

"The ADNO has not conducted drug testing on athletes under the age of 18 for the past two years due to the interpretation of a Norwegian law requiring parental consent."
 
Doping in baseball?! I'm shocked!! Although this one is a little strange. Testing is, from what little information you can find, pathetic in baseball, so taking a very mild steroid is weird. I wonder if he actually popped for more than one and this is what they announced:

 
Reactions: firefly3323
Thanks for the link!

"The ADNO has not conducted drug testing on athletes under the age of 18 for the past two years due to the interpretation of a Norwegian law requiring parental consent."
Seems like this should be a bigger deal (at least in these forums) than I’m seeing. Because it means someone who will be 19 this coming fall and winter sports seasons will have had the benefit of 2+ years of training on chemical assistance, the benefits of which don’t all disappear after (if) stopping PED use?
 
Seems like this should be a bigger deal (at least in these forums) than I’m seeing. Because it means someone who will be 19 this coming fall and winter sports seasons will have had the benefit of 2+ years of training on chemical assistance, the benefits of which don’t all disappear after (if) stopping PED use?
Also remember that the NSF was encouraging the likes of Fossesholm and Skistad to take drugs as teenagers for growth.
 
Reactions: Sciatic
The heart of the matter is an interpretation of the Norwegian law which means that athletes between the ages of 15 and 18 cannot be tested for doping without their parents' consent. This has led to the fact that no one under legal age has been tested unannounced in the past two years, and that Antidoping Norway is therefore not fulfilling its obligations according to the international anti-doping code.
Can Norwegians outside Norway claim the same protection? Jakob Ingebrigtsen through his extraordinary junior career, for example?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
danielovichdk2 The Clinic 3

ASK THE COMMUNITY