The Team Doping Program

[Zinoviev Letter]

We know that centrally organised team doping programs were a feature of the sport for some years, a fact which became general knowledge in the wake of the Festina affair. We have enough information at this point to conclude that at a certain point it was the most common form of doping at the top level of the sport - it was certainly a more efficient, reliable, cost effective way to go about cheating then encouraging the riders to do their own thing.

What I'm curious about is whether this is still a frequent thing at the pro level. Has the balance of risk to benefit shifted so much that only an occasional maverick team would consider doing this stuff in-house now?

Do we have any hard evidence either way?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

We know that centrally organised team doping programs were a feature of the sport for some years, a fact which became general knowledge in the wake of the Festina affair. We have enough information at this point to conclude that at a certain point it was the most common form of doping at the top level of the sport - it was certainly a more efficient, reliable, cost effective way to go about cheating then encouraging the riders to do their own thing.

What I'm curious about is whether this is still a frequent thing at the pro level. Has the balance of risk to benefit shifted so much that only an occasional maverick team would consider doing this stuff in-house now?

Do we have any hard evidence either way?

While I think team wide doping is a lot less prevalent now, the WADA IO report from last years Tour had a story of the testers arriving and members of a team looking out the window and having a member of staff positioned at the front door texting their arrival.
So there is at least one team.

 

[D-Queued]

We know that centrally organised team doping programs were a feature of the sport for some years, a fact which became general knowledge in the wake of the Festina affair. We have enough information at this point to conclude that at a certain point it was the most common form of doping at the top level of the sport - it was certainly a more efficient, reliable, cost effective way to go about cheating then encouraging the riders to do their own thing.

What I'm curious about is whether this is still a frequent thing at the pro level. Has the balance of risk to benefit shifted so much that only an occasional maverick team would consider doing this stuff in-house now?

Do we have any hard evidence either way?

Vaguely recall that Willy Voet had explained the new system (or implicated in the evolution) - i.e. outsourcing - because the dangers of managing in-house were fully revealed by the Festina scandal.

Thus, as in the recent Lowe allegations, nowadays you get a 'referral'.

Dave.

 

[blackcat]

Vaguely recall that Willy Voet had explained the new system (or implicated in the evolution) - i.e. outsourcing - because the dangers of managing in-house were fully revealed by the Festina scandal.

Thus, as in the recent Lowe allegations, nowadays you get a 'referral'.

Dave.

still exists, like Dave sez here.

Just the definition and focus has changed.

Plausible deniability is the name o the game. Pass the biotests and keeping parameters steady is objective, more frequent transfusions, microdosing are the methods. Keep JV happy. Keep on potting Mauro Gianetti teams. Use Davey boy Millar as the poster child.

Repeat "bad apples" ten times fast.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

While I think team wide doping is a lot less prevalent now, the WADA IO report from last years Tour had a story of the testers arriving and members of a team looking out the window and having a member of staff positioned at the front door texting their arrival.
So there is at least one team.

If we take it that the in-house program is now (with an occasional exception) a thing of the past, and that doping is now generally a discrete affair, does this potentially remove the inherent credibility problem a rider has when he claims after a team mate is busted that he never saw anything?

(Leaving aside for a moment the inevitable claims that no pro rider can ever have credibility on any doping issue).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

We know that centrally organised team doping programs were a feature of the sport for some years, a fact which became general knowledge in the wake of the Festina affair. We have enough information at this point to conclude that at a certain point it was the most common form of doping at the top level of the sport - it was certainly a more efficient, reliable, cost effective way to go about cheating then encouraging the riders to do their own thing.

What I'm curious about is whether this is still a frequent thing at the pro level. Has the balance of risk to benefit shifted so much that only an occasional maverick team would consider doing this stuff in-house now?

Do we have any hard evidence either way?

maybe no hard evidence but Cofidis still has a pro team. I think that says it all.

 

[brianf7]

It is carefully managed now and they use drugs and substances that are not banned or not even thought of by UCI and WADA .
Who else will test the drugs for drug companys.

 

[hrotha]

My understanding is that after 1998 it stopped being team-wide doping and became, huh, cadre-wide doping, involving only those riders who were deemed trustworthy to be allowed into the sancta sanctorum of team doping. It was still organized, systematic doping in that the team managers set everything up for those who were part of the cadre. For the rest of the squad there would be a don't ask, don't tell policy.

That's what I gather from reading about US Postal and the way Fuentes worked.

 

[masking_agent]

still very frequent at the pro level. Masking agents have become better so it will no doubt be ahead of the testers. Just look at the performances this year thus far, and the stage/race completion times as an indicator. Evidence ? There will be never be hard evidence nor will there be unless some american tells the world the truth.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I do think that the super-teams still keep it largely 'in house' it is significant that when a lot of these networks go down it is rare that a super-team rider is caught in it.

I am pretty sure HGH, Astana, Leotard etc have team programmes.

I think the term cadre wide is correct.

What the Fuentes/Ferrari cases show is less of a vertical team wide doping and more of the rise of doping networks with doctors at the centre of it, riders (and other athletes) being channelled towards these doctors via other athletes/DS's - Armstrong directing Landis, White directing Lowe, the role of Dominguez. So more of a spiders web of doping networks, aiders and abetters etc

We know for example that Fuentes had different programmes based on how much you could afford.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

maybe no hard evidence but Cofidis still has a pro team. I think that says it all.

That doesn't say anything about the doping, more about the sponsors. Cofidis are determined to make a fist of it despite what has gone on in the past.

I did a long spiel a long time ago about Portuguese cycling and the merry dance that has been LA Aluminios and Liberty Seguros' tenures with the sport.

LA Aluminios co-sponsored Liberty Continental for a while, then when Liberty left the pro ranks and took sole ownership of their Portuguese team (an unofficial feeder to the other, with riders who had failed the 50% test on the full Liberty team such as Nuno Ribeiro and Isidro Nozal resurfacing on the Portuguese team) LA Aluminios left. They then took over as lead sponsor of Milaneza-MSS Maia, creating the LA-MSS team. The LA-MSS team were raided and found to be crawling with dope in 2008, barred from entering the Volta and fell apart in ruins at the end of the year. A smaller Portuguese team, Fercase-Paredes Rota dos Móveis, were struggling for sponsorship in early 2009, and so LA Aluminios stepped in. Some names from LA-MSS such as Tino Zaballa came along too. Then Liberty Seguros were busted at the Volta, with 3 key riders (Nozal, Ribeiro and Guerra) testing positive, and that team fell apart. LA-Rota dos Móveis were trying to clean up their act and getting rid of their Puerto names with shady past, but in order to replace them with quality riders coming cheap, many of the replacements were those left without a home in the Liberty Seguros collapse, such as Hernâni Broco and José João Mendes. The likes of Zaballa joined their ex-LA-MSS teammates like João Cabreira at Loulé.

LA Aluminios are still the lead sponsors of the Paredes team, now renamed LA-Antarte (Antarte are another longtime sponsor, having been Paredes' named sponsor from 2000-2004), and co-sponsor of some u23 and amateur teams (I think the Cantanhedes team is one).

Liberty Seguros still have u23 and amateur teams, are the name sponsor of a major Portuguese race, sponsor the national team and have attempted to put together a new team for 2011 only for their superiors across the pond in Boston to veto it at the eleventh hour.

Cofidis are only showing the same kind of dedication to the sport that LA-Aluminios and Liberty Seguros do. We have no hard evidence that any doping, let alone team-wide doping, goes on at Cofidis in 2011. There may be some, for sure, but just because it's a Cofidis team doesn't mean that team-wide doping is any more or less likely. It just means that the sponsors are determined to use cycling even despite the doping problems to advertise their brand. And good for them. We need more dedicated sponsors.