They've done their time, now they are back and winning

[Winterfold]

In the light a considerable number of good results from riders I think are as clean as clean can be (bearing in mind this is cycling and nothing surprises etc) eg Evans, Gilbert and the results from those that have done their time; Trentino, Millar etc and Valverde's continued ability to win when under such suspicion he should be careful about which make of toothpaste he using - do people think it is becoming easier to win clean?

EDIT bah forgot the dont know/not sure option - how do you edit a poll?

 

[luckyboy]

I'd say #4, #5, and some of #1 and #3.

Clean riders are winning/can win small stage races and some one days races (I believe Gilbert is clean for example), but certainly not the big ones (Dauphine, Paris-Nice, Tirreno, Romandie, Suisse etc..) and definitely not GTs - I'd say Le Mevel was the first clean rider in last year's Tour and that there were at most about 6/7 clean riders in the top 20.

The controls definitely aren't rigourous, but the bio passport sees that things aren't wild like they were in the 90s. There is new stuff about (there's always new stuff about).

 

[Squares]

Trentino

Look at the podium a few days ago:

1) Ricco - CERA doping suspension
2) Vino - blood doping suspension
3) Basso - "attempted" doping - OP suspension (I say attempted with tongue firmly planted it the cheek).

So, perhaps most of the people were scared enough to stop doping such that a so-called "clean" Vino/Ricco/Basso can still win when they are off the dope.

Either that or everyone is on dope and using undetectable methods except for the sacrificial lambs that the doctors want to be positive.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

New stuff....and old techniques.

Autologous still undetectable, if done properly.

I've heard the old DynEPO/Aranesp is still in employ (new method of use/not micro-dosing)

Heard of other HGH forms, not Chinese or Russian junk but new stuff purpose manufactured for specific results.

So, just what I've been hearing from my doctor friends.

 

[ergmonkey]

How much doping is going on now? Beats me. All I can say is that I'm a cynic. But, I would love to see an accountant's view of things if it were possible to see where riders' money is being spent. If guys are still paying private "coaches" and personal "physicians" huge sums of money (such as 20% of annual salary to Cecchini or 100,000 Euro to Ferrari), then I think that would pretty well settle this question for us. I'd also like to know about wealth distribution and doping in the peloton--if guys with top results are juicing a lot, how many riders can afford the best programs to avoid detection? I'm willing to buy the argument that the playing field was fairly "level" in the '90's because EPO was essentially ubiquitous, but I'm not so sure the same is true under the bio passport--which requires some sophisticated medical support to avoid running afoul of.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I would say the last three answers are all correct.

It is harder to dope - especially for lower tiered riders. There are definitely newer drugs and methods to defeat testing all the time, especially at the high level, though I don't think riders are quite as jacked as they were a few years ago. And yes, I fear many fans are being taken for fools. Alas, we still love the sport.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I think that their are clean riders winning, it is harder to dope but that doesn't mean nobody is doping. I think Basso has come back clean imo.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Look at the podium a few days ago:

1) Ricco - CERA doping suspension
2) Vino - blood doping suspension
3) Basso - "attempted" doping - OP suspension (I say attempted with tongue firmly planted it the cheek).

So, perhaps most of the people were scared enough to stop doping such that a so-called "clean" Vino/Ricco/Basso can still win when they are off the dope.

Either that or everyone is on dope and using undetectable methods except for the sacrificial lambs that the doctors want to be positive.

I think that last goes to a conspiracy theory level that I am not comfortable with. To me it is more likely that the guys who are being caught now are either taking more than the Doctor ordered or attemting to do it on their own.

 

[Michielveedeebee]

I believe most riders are clean, although i'm not sure. Even at my level ( junior) there are doped guys. Everyone knows they're doped yet no-one does anything against it. It's just stupid

 

[Cerberus]

I think that last goes to a conspiracy theory level that I am not comfortable with. To me it is more likely that the guys who are being caught now are either taking more than the Doctor ordered or attemting to do it on their own.

Or just have the bad luck of being tested 5 minutes after they microdose. I agree that an actual conspiracy is unlikely. It would have to involve way to many people to be kept secret. Also we've just seen a positive on Armstrongs team, despite Armstrong being the centrepiece of the alleged conspiracy. Not an important rider of cause, but still something Armstrong would no doubt have preferred to avoid. So I'm inclined to go with option 4, 5 and I hope 3.

 

[Steel4Ever]

I think Basso has come back clean imo.

Guess that's why he doesn't "win" like back in the day.

Basso is actually my most despised. No even the balls to admit guilt.
Hope he never wins again and fades into nothing more than a "Oh yeah, he was a doper, right?" footnote.

 

[Bala Verde]

Just some observations (not trying to judge/condemn any rider)

Assuming everyone/large majority dopes, how can people who have served a 2 year suspension with only 'training miles' be vying for victory?

Another hypothetical, trying to eliminate the assumption that the majority of the peloton is doped when someone who wasn't competitive a couple of months ago, let's say Bram Tankink, but would take the win in Trentino, people would be suspicious. The same seems to apply IMO to Vino, Ricco et al. They weren't competitive a couple of months ago, not only for being barred from competing, but mainly because they didn't get to put in the hard racing miles, and now they are suddenly back at the top...

Or do people still believe that races are won in the off season, through rigorous recons, riding a race multiple times as a way of training for the event itself, without hard competition?

Another reason is that I don't think an 'old fox loses his tricks'. The next analogy is not intended to criminalize the riders in any way, but as far as I know, there is a high recidivism amongst criminals after they are released from jail. I don't believe they are naturally evil, but there is often not enough support/network for them to rely on, and they therefore gradually seem to slide down the same, familiar and perhaps 'comfortable' (ie they know how to operate in a certain scene) path again.

Are there reasons to believe this is different for riders? What is their support/network to keep them on the 'right' track... the teams and doctors that hire them to regain old glory?

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

"Or do people still believe that races are won in the off season, through rigorous recons, riding a race multiple times as a way of training for the event itself, without hard competition?"

These people are called "people who have never done any racing"

The idea that you can go away by yourself and ride alone on the race route for weeks and simulate the intensity, exhaustion and constant brutal accelerations of racing through willpower is one of the more laughable explanations of success one hears.

As if riding up the Col de Tourmalet a few times in May makes all the difference between 4,5w/kg and 6,7w/kg....

The guys who "train" for weeks and weeks, avoiding competition and then show up in July and destroy the competition are the more obvious dopers in the sport.

Unfortunately the Armstrong "training harder and longer" fallacy is popular with yellow wristband types, who like to ride their bikes and "train" but are often too scared to actually race, but still want to be considered a cyclist.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Last year, Peugeot and Audi were the two big manufacturers who would compete for the title at Le Mans, the biggest event on the sportscar calendar. Peugeot had a car which was three years old and at the limit of its development potential, while Audi had a brand new vehicle. They raced at the 12 Hours of Sebring, a notoriously bumpy track, and Audi won. After that, Audi spent four months of rigorous testing and simulations of 24-hour races. Peugeot did some of that, but less than Audi as they were comfortable with their car and not able to develop it to further benefit. They then raced the (5 hour) LMS race at Spa. The thing is, 5 hours is nothing on a 24 hour endurance classic, but no matter what training and testing you do, nothing teaches how your drivers and car will behave in a race like, you know, actually putting them in a race. Even if it's on a different circuit in different conditions, they behave differently when there are other cars on the track.

Peugeot won with an easy 1-2, and two of the three Audis crashed out in the first third of the race.

I guess what we can take from this is that preparation is all well and good, but it doesn't adequately simulate the experience of racing. How can it? Of course you need to recon the climbs of the Tour to know when to expect attacks, when to target to attack yourself. But I dare say Contador learnt more about himself from climbing with Antón, Mosquera and Soler than he could ever have learnt from riding up and down the Tour route with Hernández as his lackey.

Riccò might be coming back and winning, but it took him a few race days. Basso in the Giro last year didn't really match up to expectations. We must also note that racing in a - tough - domestic calendar five-day race with a number of people soft-pedalling for training purposes and smaller teams, and winning, does not necessarily predicate that the same performance would be achieved were he to find himself in week 3 of a Grand Tour.

 

[sportzchick]

Problem with these guys is that you dont know if theyve are clean now or still cheating

2 year ban isnt enough and that with them winning is a slap in the face for the sport, the fans and for their clean competitors

If cyclist knew that when they are caught they get a lifetime ban (and even jail time if its serious enough) then they will think twice before doing it

 

[ingsve]

I remember hearing that the effects of doping is not all short term but that if a person have systematically doped then there will still be benefits years later. Does anyone have any more info on that?

Could supposedly "clean" rides still benefit from their past cheating?

 

[Escarabajo]

Done their time and now they are winning:

# Rider Name (Country) Team Result
1 Santiago Pérez (Spa) Loule - Louletano 3:47:48
2 Andrés A Antuña (Spa) Burgos 2016 - Castilla Y Leon 0:00:02
3 Luis Felipe Laverde (Col) Cafe De Colombia - Colombia Es Pasion 0:00:07
4 Andre Cardoso (Spa) Palmeiras Resort - Prio 0:00:23
5 Pasquale Muto (Ita) Miche 0:00:31
6 Przemyslaw Niemiec (Pol) Miche 0:00:46
7 Marcos García (Spa) Xacobeo Galicia 0:00:51
8 Dalivier Ospina (Col) Cafe De Colombia - Colombia Es Pasion
9 Fortunato Baliani (Ita) Miche
10 José Herrada (Spa) Caja Rural 0:01:11

Add the winner of "La Subida al Naranco"

 

[luckyboy]

Wow, blast from the (not too distant) past. Phonak homologous Vuelta guy? Good to see him riding for a nice clean Portuguese team

 

[blaxland]

Wow, blast from the (not too distant) past. Phonak homologous Vuelta guy? Good to see him riding for a nice clean Portuguese team

That just made my day luckyboy.........thanks mate...............

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

If people like Frei are doping and not winning jack, how is it that the clean riders are winning everything?

 

[karlboss]

If people like Frei are doping and not winning jack, how is it that the clean riders are winning everything?

If you doped would you win? I know nothing about you so maybe, but I'm sure you see my point. One of my friends was conducting a shuttle test to find Vo2's for people in a group (argue the accuracy all you want) one person dropped out at level 2...it doesn't matter what they do, they will never win.

For me if the whole top 10 is doping it wouldn't surprise me, but i think if you take the best guy's performance - the benefit from doping and there are loads of guys there. Meaning they could be just as talented and not doping, let alone more talented and not doping.

For example Pantani's record (36'50") up to alpe d'huez doped to the gills add 10% and 40'31 (play with numbers as you like you'll see my point) and anyone who can do this time, is possibly as talented as Pantani, just clean. The climb was timed in 1990 when lemond won the tour the fastest were between 40'30 and 42" So it fits right? Do you know who else managed this time? The groups that finished behind Sastre at the 2008 tour. Sastre was 39'30". So if the best guys in the world go to the Tour and perform as guys did before the spread of EPO...surely they could be clean right?

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

If you doped would you win? I know nothing about you so maybe, but I'm sure you see my point. One of my friends was conducting a shuttle test to find Vo2's for people in a group (argue the accuracy all you want) one person dropped out at level 2...it doesn't matter what they do, they will never win.

No, but I'm not a pro cyclist already. These people are already the top of the top. We're not talking about Cat 5s here. We're talking about very talented people who are looking for that extra edge.

 

[L'arriviste]

This is a reply to a post on a different thread from someone else but which is probably better made here, so here goes:

Firstly, there is no drug war. The UCI are just playing a political game and are not committed to exposing the big players.

Secondly, and we'll agree to disagree from the start, but lifetime bans are not a deterrent to doping, never have been and never will be. Look at capital punishment for crimes like murder. This was also meant to act as a deterrent but has had no such effect. You have to look at the motivations to dope and those motivations are not superseded by fears of the repercussions if caught.

Thirdly, you want Vino to play by your rules and not the rules established by the UCI and WADA. That's fine, but that's not real life either. Because he has played by the rules of the governing bodies and, at this stage, appeared to have won LBL without the assistance of doping, then his win should not be considered any less worthy because of his past. You say that people are innocent until proven guilty, but how long do they have to pay for their sins? He has not been proven guilty of doping at LBL or after returning from his suspension, so by your argument he is innocent. Or is he not innocent because, regardless of doing the time for his crime, he has been caught for doping in the past? Does that mean if you lied once that you are a liar forever? If you stole a candy as a kid that you are a thief forever? If you got drunk once that you are a drunk forever?

All good stuff. But in my cold, stony and utterly unreasonable heart, in which all heroes must be immaculate, I can't accept caught dopers coming back.

You're totally right that capital punishment has never been a deterrent. However, in those places that it no longer exists in the world, it was phased out for more prosaic reasons: because a) it was very costly to conduct, b) it was politically ugly when too many mistakes were exposed and c) it was supposed to represent justice to a society that increasingly saw it as barbaric.

Now dope testing is almost certainly expensive and there are few here who would say the UCI smells of roses. But I still think it represents justice to those who knowingly defame the sport, their colleagues, their sponsors and the fans. It is not death, it is telling someone to go do something else with their life because their kind are not wanted.

The candy thief and the drunk still have their lives and a place in society and an ex-pro cyclist does too. It's just that they've been banned from a club. For me, it's like striking off a doctor or a disbarring a lawyer.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This is a reply to a post on a different thread from someone else but which is probably better made here, so here goes:



All good stuff. But in my cold, stony and utterly unreasonable heart, in which all heroes must be immaculate, I can't accept caught dopers coming back.

You're totally right that capital punishment has never been a deterrent. However, in those places that it no longer exists in the world, it was phased out for more prosaic reasons: because a) it was very costly to conduct, b) it was politically ugly when too many mistakes were exposed and c) it was supposed to represent justice to a society that increasingly saw it as barbaric.

Now dope testing is almost certainly expensive and there are few here who would say the UCI smells of roses. But I still think it represents justice to those who knowingly defame the sport, their colleagues, their sponsors and the fans. It is not death, it is telling someone to go do something else with their life because their kind are not wanted.

The candy thief and the drunk still have their lives and a place in society and an ex-pro cyclist does too. It's just that they've been banned from a club. For me, it's like striking off a doctor or a disbarring a lawyer.

I have already stated my view that I am against lifetime bans for a first offence. But will again say that the current system is riddled with flaws.

I am going to throw a hypothetical in to your argument for you to consider.

Zirbel was caught recently for having DHEA in his system and claims it must have come from a tainted supplement he was taking. This may or may not be true - but at present he is serving the same ban as Vino faced - 2 years, even though Vino was bloood doping.

Do you think someone who may have made a mistake in the product they were taking or has taken a PED with limited enhancement ability should also serve a lifetime ban?

(PS I am not flaming here. I find your stance very interesting and you are well able to articulate your views. I am just interested to see where this goes.)

 

[python]

I have already stated my view that I am against lifetime bans for a first offence. But will again say that the current system is riddled with flaws.

I am going to throw a hypothetical in to your argument for you to consider.

Zirbel was caught recently for having DHEA in his system and claims it must have come from a tainted supplement he was taking. This may or may not be true - but at present he is serving the same ban as Vino faced - 2 years, even though Vino was bloood doping.

Do you think someone who may have made a mistake in the product they were taking or has taken a PED with limited enhancement ability should also serve a lifetime ban?

(PS I am not flaming here. I find your stance very interesting and you are well able to articulate your views. I am just interested to see where this goes.)

Very important and good question doc !

(though zirbel’s and several others caught for dhea cases could be not the best example because as mark zeigler very well explained in that interview in another thread, dhea is an integral component of cycling an anabolic steroid program, and my hunch - and some knowledge - tell me zirbel more likely cheated knowingly)

but, yeah, honest mistakes happen - you are right. not every one can spend 150 000 euros/year on a special certified supplements program like armstrong (my friend has personally overheard him saying that)

and, above all, the wada strict liability principle basically crushes an athlete who made an honest mistake.