At this point in professional cycling if riders are engaged in illegal conduct or in violation of racing rules there is zero reason not to know. And 99% of all drugs made have identifiable sequences that can be picked up in modern laboratory testing, so if you are taking one of @70+ common substances used as a PED, if not found in A sample will most likely be caught in B sample secondary test.
What do you base your statement on?
I really look differently to testing, I am by all means no anti doping test expert. There's plenty of things we do not have proper tests for. And even if we do, it all also depends whether you actually test for something. Its not like they run all laboratory tests available to date in an antidoping test, no one would be able to afford the costs.
But anyway some other practicalities to consider:
- Many substances are difficult to detect because they leave the body quickly and may evade timing of test. Clearance varies per compound, this can also be engineered to a degree (size, charge, hydrophonics properties etc)
- New compounds are constantly developed and either tests do not exist for them or are not implemented in antidoping practice.
- Tests have limitations in specificity and sensitivity; reducing the dosage of your compound as such that you stay below the detection threshold will not get you a positive test. It could be that you still get performance enhancement from the substance taken.
- There are countless things in biotech and medicine where we do not have tests for or tests are inadequate, why would antidoping tests be perfect all of a sudden?
I am sorry to say but your first sentence is so utterly naieve. Zero reason not to know? What world are you living in? Your confidence in a clean sport is admirable I will give you that.