Simple doping question

[DA_Man]

I've always been intrigued as to how all these cyclist seem to get away with doping. We all know WADA can't test them all at all times, but drug test avoidance is something these guys have developed into an art. Case and point: Chris Froome. The guy's story about how he made it up the ranks screams of suspicion. I've always wondered what this guy was on, and now, after seeing Matthew's "bag of tricks," I've kind of put together a few ideas as to what the guy may be doing, not just preseason, but during the race too.

If you look at Chris' attacks, they always take place less than 1 hour before having to pee in a cup, meaning whatever he is puffing on the way up, regardless of it being a doping product or not, will not metabolize in time for it to turn into a positive urine result. If he wins the stage, which he most always does, no sooner does he cross the finish line, he is quickly dragged to the urine sample collection depot, where he does the needful.

His only problem would be him trying to go full genius on two consecutive days, which would most likely get him in trouble because of the half life of whatever he is taking, if whatever he is taking is indeed on WADA's banned substance list or he has a TUE for it.

Am I reading it wrong?

 

[The Hitch]

I think you are reading it wrong. There doesn't need to be no new secret. The history of doping shows us there are millions of ways in which riders and teams beat tests. It rarely turns out to be super ingenious. They just pay the doctors to find out ways to beat tests which are created by people that earn way less money. People still doped with EPO even though the test came out a decade ago.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

I think you are reading it wrong. There doesn't need to be no new secret. The history of doping shows us there are millions of ways in which riders and teams beat tests. It rarely turns out to be super ingenious. They just pay the doctors to find out ways to beat tests which are created by people that earn way less money. People still doped with EPO even though the test came out a decade ago.

eg: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25 ... 0nutrition

Anecdotal evidence suggests that athletes hyperhydrate to mask prohibited substances in urine and potentially counteract suspicious fluctuations in blood parameters in the athlete biological passport (ABP)

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

What happened to the simple question?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

What happened to the simple question?

I've always been intrigued as to how all these cyclist seem to get away with doping

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

That's just a statement.

As for the issue. WADA don't test anyone. They just negotiate the standards and set the code to be "enforced" by others.

An analogy: Not all crimes are detectable or prosecuted. You could be equally intrigued as to how drug dealers get away with supplying drugs for so long. They find ways to avoid detection. Risk v reward.

Bringing an individual rider into it is a bit of a red herring though.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Re: Re:

I think you are reading it wrong. There doesn't need to be no new secret. The history of doping shows us there are millions of ways in which riders and teams beat tests. It rarely turns out to be super ingenious. They just pay the doctors to find out ways to beat tests which are created by people that earn way less money. People still doped with EPO even though the test came out a decade ago.

eg: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25 ... 0nutrition

Anecdotal evidence suggests that athletes hyperhydrate to mask prohibited substances in urine and potentially counteract suspicious fluctuations in blood parameters in the athlete biological passport (ABP)

I'm glad you brought up that study. I saw it a few days ago and thought "hyperhydration? The negatives are worse than the positives." So many studies show the detriment of over hydrating, and its dangers.

But then I saw the study was talking about just a liter of water, which knocked the succes rate of the screening down to 11%. That's huge! From one bottle of water! The study didn't say what level of fitess the subjects were at, and elites body composition will be significantly different. But it wouldn't be crazy for an athlete to throw down 2-3, even 4 liters after a race when they find out they will be tested

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

That's just a statement.

If you ignore the context, perhaps.

I'm prepared to be told I am wrong about what the simple question was, but do find it funny that when someone answers your question you want to disagree or ... something. I'm making an educated guess based on Oh I don't know speaking english for a few decades, empathy and understanding how people communicate.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re:

I think you are reading it wrong. There doesn't need to be no new secret. The history of doping shows us there are millions of ways in which riders and teams beat tests. It rarely turns out to be super ingenious. They just pay the doctors to find out ways to beat tests which are created by people that earn way less money. People still doped with EPO even though the test came out a decade ago.

I agree that the doping itself isn't revolutionary. The problem with this explanation is the same old "bad athlete" story starts and ends with a "bad athlete." It's the federation permitting the doping.

The latest example is Knaven's old scores.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/others ... g-EPO.html

The sport is very, very likely filled with scores like Knaven's and the federation does nothing.

 

[Escarabajo]

I've always been intrigued as to how all these cyclist seem to get away with doping. We all know WADA can't test them all at all times, but drug test avoidance is something these guys have developed into an art. Case and point: Chris Froome. The guy's story about how he made it up the ranks screams of suspicion. I've always wondered what this guy was on, and now, after seeing Matthew's "bag of tricks," I've kind of put together a few ideas as to what the guy may be doing, not just preseason, but during the race too.

If you look at Chris' attacks, they always take place less than 1 hour before having to pee in a cup, meaning whatever he is puffing on the way up, regardless of it being a doping product or not, will not metabolize in time for it to turn into a positive urine result. If he wins the stage, which he most always does, no sooner does he cross the finish line, he is quickly dragged to the urine sample collection depot, where he does the needful.

His only problem would be him trying to go full genius on two consecutive days, which would most likely get him in trouble because of the half life of whatever he is taking, if whatever he is taking is indeed on WADA's banned substance list or he has a TUE for it.

Am I reading it wrong?

Autologous blood transfusion is not detectable. And to some extent HGH either. Urine samples after a stage are not use for bio passport readings anyway. Just for specific drugs that are being targeted. This is because of the dehydration that the cyclist goes through. So a good doping program with these two methods within the race is undetectable.

What I am puzzle about is the good performers all year round. Because the logistics of blood transfusion all year round is very difficult. So maybe they mostly rely on recuperation meds on other races and keep the best for the GT's where we see the best out of the top riders. I remember David Moncoutie saying how he could keep with the best weeks before the Tour but being drop like a sack of potatoes right at the Tour. So there got to be some truth in that. Other explanation in the lack of testing in the lesser races. Which can stimulate the appetite for more doping from a lot of riders? I think there was a California Tour one year with no tests. That is an LOL right there.

So can always pull an Armstrong where he had the UCI on his pocket so he would not worry about being positive. LOL.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

That's just a statement.

If you ignore the context, perhaps.

I'm prepared to be told I am wrong about what the simple question was, but do find it funny that when someone answers your question you want to disagree or ... something. I'm making an educated guess based on Oh I don't know speaking english for a few decades, empathy and understanding how people communicate.

Not disagreeing so much as realising we agree that it was difficult to ascertain what the simple question was.

Thanks for your effort at trying to interpret it, but I still can't work out what the simple question was either. Hence why I asked. Years of speaking English etc as you point out has taught me it makes sense to clarify such things if you are not sure. I wasn't sure. I'm still not sure.

I also tried to interpret it with my answer.

A simple doping question might be:

Does/did (insert rider name of choice) dope?
or
How do athletes evade detection with today's testing processes?
or
Why do athletes (still) dope?
or
What doping methods are in use today?

and so on...

The answers of course may be complex.

 

[D-Queued]

A simple question should have a simple answer, n'est-ce pas?

Thus:

Do cyclists still dope?

Yes or No will do.

Dave.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re:

A simple question should have a simple answer, n'est-ce pas?

Perhaps, but not in my opinion.

Some of the world's most intriguing questions are very simple, the answers much less so, or not even possible.

 

[blackcat]

the ultimate question the OP is proposing, his/her questioning doping positives and the doping enforcement regime. The ultimate question, or, really, a meta-qestion, is asking about the regime, and the structure of enforcement and anti-doping parameters.

i) the system has inbuilt protection for false positives.
ii) samples must breach a threshold where the metabolites in the doping sample, reach a certain pre-considered level.

this anti-doping theory, allows an athlete to dope within such parameters, but to test non-positive.

new drugs on the market, technically doping under WADA code also, can be used within these parameters.

The WADA system is not anti anti athlete, even USADA after Armstrong and Bonds.

Armstrong and Barry Bonds were the martyrs that prove the rule, the exceptions to the rule. Like Ben Johnson. Sometimes you gotta throw Joe Public a bone, so they will buy all the propaganda and marketing. The suspension of disbelief. If David Walsh said London 2012 was dope fuelled and not to believe in one British gold medal, one, he would not have a job, and two, no one would have watched it and the British government would have done their thirty billion GBP down the drain. And Baron Coe would have been shown to be a fraud too, and probably also Redgrave.

The public dont wish to know. A much more valid inquiry however, is not WADA Wiggins SKy and Brailsford, with Froome and Hoy as the chaser. It was the Chilcot Inquiry.