Well, there will be two camps on this one.

[Anonymous]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kohl-describes-doping-double-life

Let me give the fanboy response:

Ricco is a loser donkey like Lance says that doped and now has to say everyone doped so that he can feel good about himself. (Oh, I was told it was Kohl and not Ricco, sorry)

Now on to reality:
100% are doped. Wow, that is quite the monkey wrench. I don't think this will come as a surprise, but I believe he is probably close to the mark.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

'100% doped?

This is a quote from the article: "Interviewed in the Swiss newspaper nzz.ch, the Austrian said that not 100 percent of the peloton doped. “There are a few riders who are clean, that may well be – but it's not very many.”

 

[anubisza]

I love revelations from busted dopers. They cheated and lied throughout their careers, so how do we believe what they say after they are caught?

 

[Anonymous]

I love revelations from busted dopers. They cheated and lied throughout their careers, so how do we believe what they say after they are caught?

So you prefer the "I have a chimera twin" or "it was my first time" or "I was only planning on doping with that blood, but have never done so before" or "it was a conspiracy in the French lab that put that synthetic testosterone in my urine" to opening up about what evidence suggests is the truth? You will not be alone in your opinion.

 

[workingclasshero]

kohl has admitted a lot of stuff about himself. fair play to him for that. especially seeing as he could've lied and lied and people wouldn't have kept asking as he already is caught and in that sense out of the way

however, i can also see why people don't really trust him when he's talking about other cyclists. there's absolutely no doubt he can be suspected of having an agenda when he says that most of the others also doped.

i don't think as much as half of the cyclists dope. i'd be very very surprised.

however i do believe just about every single one in the top 10 in the tour this summer will be at it. i'd be very very surprised if they weren't

 

[eric_vv]

What I find interesting is that doping wasn't a factor with Rabo CT (his 2 clean years). At least the youth team might be clean.

 

[Bala Verde]

What I find interesting is that doping wasn't a factor with Rabo CT (his 2 clean years). At least the youth team might be clean.

If that were true (really hoping it is) that could be very very good for the future of cycling. RAB CT is pumping out so many talented riders, perhaps at one point they'll have some critical mass, and show that one does not need to use D to get results...

 

[Anonymous]

If that were true (really hoping it is) that could be very very good for the future of cycling. RAB CT is pumping out so many talented riders, perhaps at one point they'll have some critical mass, and show that one does not need to use D to get results...

The only problem is that once they take that next step, they will be faced with the "choice" it appears.

 

[180mmCrank]

There is a big problem here

How the fcuk do you think that the sport is going to get cleaned up if when cyclists are prepared to speak out (and yes it's usually because they are caught) they lose their job, their income and get villified and treated like traitors.

It's not surprising that the riders are not prepared to speak up. We need a proper whistle blower program.

And the rest of us need to get our heads around a better response than those that get caught deserve all they get.

 

[Anonymous]

There is a big problem here

How the fcuk do you think that the sport is going to get cleaned up if when cyclists are prepared to speak out (and yes it's usually because they are caught) they lose their job, their income and get villified and treated like traitors.

It's not surprising that the riders are not prepared to speak up. We need a proper whistle blower program.

And the rest of us need to get our heads around a better response than those that get caught deserve all they get.

There is a whistle blower program, it involves a black ball.

I do not support Kohl's doping, and he deserves to be punished. If the UCI were serious, they would be the ones interviewing him extensively and acting on all of the information provided. The problem is that the actions undertaken by riders who dope are not illegal in terms of law enforcement in many cases. Until the police can come search your house with a proper warrant based on the testimony of a witness, you have an organization (UCI) with no real power to do much about the information. If we are talking law enforcement, then you have the problem with uniformity across nations. You will have drug havens and places nobody will race.

This is truly a difficult problem and deniability by all of those who have not been caught, and their Omerta means that some fans and politicians will always say things aren't so bad. Look at those here who will malign Kohl and use his positive to say anything that comes out of his mouth must be a lie, their vested interest is in keeping the image of their heroes intact. Most don't love the sport of cycling. Hell there are a couple I can point out who don't even ride a bike. They love the image of one man, and they and people like them are usually the first to point out that anyone who discusses doping must "hate" cycling.

I dislike doping in cycling, I detest those who forcefully implement a code of silence, and I will always remain constant in those things. I do however love the sport of cycling (even when I watch the races knowing that what I am seeing is too good to be true). I also love to cycle. I guess I will just have to accept the personal hypocrisy of not being willing to boycott something I am sure is tainted. I will also not turn to denial because of that like many here. Most know it is dirty as hell, they just deny it to maintain their psyche. It is a fairly common trait among anyone facing the doping of another regardless of what the "dope" is. Again, having known thousands of people who doped with non-performance enhancing drugs, it is striking the similarities in the behavior both of the doper and the enabler when it comes to performance enhancing for sport.

Like I always say, some people know what time it is, and some don't.

 

[elapid]

I dislike doping in cycling, I detest those who forcefully implement a code of silence, and I will always remain constant in those things. I do however love the sport of cycling (even when I watch the races knowing that what I am seeing is too good to be true). I also love to cycle. I guess I will just have to accept the personal hypocrisy of not being willing to boycott something I am sure is tainted. I will also not turn to denial because of that like many here. Most know it is dirty as hell, they just deny it to maintain their psyche. It is a fairly common trait among anyone facing the doping of another regardless of what the "dope" is. Again, having known thousands of people who doped with non-performance enhancing drugs, it is striking the similarities in the behavior both of the doper and the enabler when it comes to performance enhancing for sport.

Good post. I must admit to having a new perspective. I am nowhere near a professional cyclist, but I train and stay fit. I have just finished a 600 mile, 6 day tour that involved 40000 feet of climbing over single passes 11-12000 feet high. Nearly everyone in this tour experienced the same sensations: sore neck, back, legs; hot feet; run down leading to various ailments; diarrhea; difficulty maintaining fluid and caloric requirements. And we were riding at half the pace, with less mountain passes, less daily miles, and 15 days less cycling than the professionals do in a GT. I was popping aspirins, advils, salt and electrolyte tablets left, right and centre. While I believe one day races can definitely be raced clean, I don't think it is humanly possible to race over such long distances at such high speeds and over multiple mountain passes back-to-back for so many days without some assistance to enable more rapid recovery.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

There is a whistle blower program, it involves a black ball.

I do not support Kohl's doping, and he deserves to be punished. If the UCI were serious, they would be the ones interviewing him extensively and acting on all of the information provided. The problem is that the actions undertaken by riders who dope are not illegal in terms of law enforcement in many cases. Until the police can come search your house with a proper warrant based on the testimony of a witness, you have an organization (UCI) with no real power to do much about the information. If we are talking law enforcement, then you have the problem with uniformity across nations. You will have drug havens and places nobody will race.

This is truly a difficult problem and deniability by all of those who have not been caught, and their Omerta means that some fans and politicians will always say things aren't so bad. Look at those here who will malign Kohl and use his positive to say anything that comes out of his mouth must be a lie, their vested interest is in keeping the image of their heroes intact. Most don't love the sport of cycling. Hell there are a couple I can point out who don't even ride a bike. They love the image of one man, and they and people like them are usually the first to point out that anyone who discusses doping must "hate" cycling.

I dislike doping in cycling, I detest those who forcefully implement a code of silence, and I will always remain constant in those things. I do however love the sport of cycling (even when I watch the races knowing that what I am seeing is too good to be true). I also love to cycle. I guess I will just have to accept the personal hypocrisy of not being willing to boycott something I am sure is tainted. I will also not turn to denial because of that like many here. Most know it is dirty as hell, they just deny it to maintain their psyche. It is a fairly common trait among anyone facing the doping of another regardless of what the "dope" is. Again, having known thousands of people who doped with non-performance enhancing drugs, it is striking the similarities in the behavior both of the doper and the enabler when it comes to performance enhancing for sport.

Like I always say, some people know what time it is, and some don't.

Unrealistic goals guarantee failure.

The goal of "clean cycling" is unrealistic and any effort to achieve it destined to failure. Despite the wins with EPO and blood testing, there are more and more avenues opened up each year.

The best we can hope for is keeping doping to a reasonable level, catching cheaters when possible, and penalizing them accordingly.

As we put things in perspective, let's not forget that these athletes are primarily entertainers. They don't tell jokes, dance, sing songs or do magic tricks, but the reason we watch them and read about them is because it entertains us to do so. Actually, we do talk about their dancing and feats of illusion. And as long as (undetected) doping makes them more entertaining, and more valuable as entertainers, which will be forever, they will continue to dope.

 

[benpounder]

however, i can also see why people don't really trust him when he's talking about other cyclists. there's absolutely no doubt he can be suspected of having an agenda when he says that most of the others also doped.

It would make more sense if he were a rider such as Sinkewitz - middle of the pack domestique - and not a rider who stood on the TdF podium. Kind of like the "I'm a great rider, but the rest of the pelaton is doping so I an relegated to unfair obscurity, and denied my rightful fame..." crap we have heard before. Instead Kohl's admission and accusations ring truer because of his accomplishments.

After having my heart broken (figuratively) by the likes of Millar, Hamilton, Basso, and Landis, I've too much cynicism regarding the hidden underbelly of cycling. They all employ performance enhancing methods and technologies (PEMT), some of those methods and technologies are mere curiosities, some borderline ethically and legally, some across the line but undetectable because of measured usage, and some flat out lock 'em up doping 'crimes' such as Tyler's and Vino's.

In this years Giro, I think Di Luca doped his way in front of doped Pellazotti, but lost to a PEMT aided Menchov. And PEMT aided Basso, Leipheimer, Armstrong and Sastre were clearly not as strong as Menchov. Additionally, until the UCI, all the major race organizations, and the sponsors decide to shine sunlight upon that shaved and salved underbelly, I'm OK with it. I'll still root for Levi, and pretend that he isn't as... modified as those he races against, but if it turns out that he has been injecting irradiated gazelle clone blood, I'll just a quickly write him off as I did Roberto Heras.

As bigboat said elsewhere, what we are enjoying is mere entertainment. Gone are the days where we saw Lee Majors as the manufactured hero Steve Austin, six million dollar man. Or Lance the miraculous phoenix-on-a-bicycle arisen from certain cancer death. He and everyone else are mere modern day Icarus' - try to fly to far away from the bounds of mortality, you will face an awful long and painful fall. And unlike the halcyon days of ancient Greece, this time, there will be a raucous crowd cheering the plummet.

 

[BroDeal]

You cannot look at what Kohl says in a vacuum. You need to combine it with all the other information that has come out. For example, the lab in Lausanne looked at the samples from the 2007 Tour and estimated that 80% of the peloton was using testosterone or HGH. Before Kohl was even busted, fans have been pointing out that nearly all the top ten finishes of the TdF have been shown to have doped. When Kohl comes along and verifies what was already assumed by all educated fans (that all the top ten riders are doping), it is not a big revelation. It seems only to surprise those who are naive.

 

[CapeRoadie]

They all dope, they all lie, and when they get caught, they tend to say nothing for fear of never being able to work in cycling again. Kohl should not be doubted, nor should Jaksche; they stand to lose the most. Ask yourself why on Earth would they do that if what they say is NOT true? Of course what they're saying is true. ANd they are very afraid to say more. This is OMERTA. They really have no choice to dope IF they want to ride in the UCI pro peloton and be competitive.

Name ONE winner of the Tour de France who did NOT dope! Anyone care to try? And, please, Lance people, we have six positive urine samples from the 1999 Tour, an invitation by ASO and AFLD for Lance to come clean once and for all about them (he refused--ever wonder why?), a longtime association with the most notorious doping doctor, and the most evidence against any rider who hasn't been sanctioned in the history of the sport. Lance Armstrong is a fantastic rider, to be sure. He's doing good things with LAF. He survived cancer and came back to do the impossible. And when he had cancer, he took steroids and EPO as a part of treatment. Does anybody really think it's such a stretch for a guy with a 40% chance of survival to take the very same drugs that saved his life? My guess is that he was doping long before his cancer, though.

Tour de France winners we know doped:
Floyd Landis (testosterone)
Lance Armstrong (EPO, worked closely with Ferrari))
Marco Pantani (over 50% Hct limit)
Jan Ullrich (Operacion Puerto, worked closely with Cecchini)
Bjarne Riis (admitted)
Eddy Merckx
Jacques Anquetil (admitted)

Tour de France podium winners who doped:
Alexander Vinokourov
Ivan Basso
Jan Ullrich


Likely doped:
Miguel Indurain (worked closely with Conconi)
Alberto Contador

We want to like Carlos Sastre (like we liked Tyler "Vanishing Twin" Hamilton) in perhaps the "cleanest" Tour in recent memory.

I could go on and on. Wake up, believers in a clean peloton. It does NOT exist.

 

[180mmCrank]

As we put things in perspective, let's not forget that these athletes are primarily entertainers. They don't tell jokes, dance, sing songs or do magic tricks, but the reason we watch them and read about them is because it entertains us to do so. Actually, we do talk about their dancing and feats of illusion. And as long as (undetected) doping makes them more entertaining, and more valuable as entertainers, which will be forever, they will continue to dope.

Sport and Show biz aint the same thing - just because we are entertained does not mean they are entertainers - they are athletes that take part in athletic endeavour - competition - with winners and losers. Most would compete whether we were watching or not. This is fundementally different from song and dance folk that do it for the audience.

Sport is a governed activity with rules and constraints - when the rules are broken for competitive advantage it's cheating. And some would argue that doping is endemic/systemic within the sport and even though it is not explicitly part of the rules it is understood by all who take part. I actually think this is how cycling has operated for many periods in the past - but this is no longer tenable - we can't just say as long as they are all doing it it's ok.

We should continue to clean up the sport IMO. And a key issue is how we encourage people to step forward and blow the whistle on unethical practice. It has to be possible for people to do this without losing their livlihood and being excluded from or vilified by the sport they love.

 

[blaxland]

They all dope, they all lie, and when they get caught, they tend to say nothing for fear of never being able to work in cycling again. Kohl should not be doubted, nor should Jaksche; they stand to lose the most. Ask yourself why on Earth would they do that if what they say is NOT true? Of course what they're saying is true. ANd they are very afraid to say more. This is OMERTA. They really have no choice to dope IF they want to ride in the UCI pro peloton and be competitive.

Name ONE winner of the Tour de France who did NOT dope! Anyone care to try? And, please, Lance people, we have six positive urine samples from the 1999 Tour, an invitation by ASO and AFLD for Lance to come clean once and for all about them (he refused--ever wonder why?), a longtime association with the most notorious doping doctor, and the most evidence against any rider who hasn't been sanctioned in the history of the sport. Lance Armstrong is a fantastic rider, to be sure. He's doing good things with LAF. He survived cancer and came back to do the impossible. And when he had cancer, he took steroids and EPO as a part of treatment. Does anybody really think it's such a stretch for a guy with a 40% chance of survival to take the very same drugs that saved his life? My guess is that he was doping long before his cancer, though.

Tour de France winners we know doped:
Floyd Landis (testosterone)
Lance Armstrong (EPO, worked closely with Ferrari))
Marco Pantani (over 50% Hct limit)
Jan Ullrich (Operacion Puerto, worked closely with Cecchini)
Bjarne Riis (admitted)
Eddy Merckx
Jacques Anquetil (admitted)

Tour de France podium winners who doped:
Alexander Vinokourov
Ivan Basso
Jan Ullrich


Likely doped:
Miguel Indurain (worked closely with Conconi)
Alberto Contador

We want to like Carlos Sastre (like we liked Tyler "Vanishing Twin" Hamilton) in perhaps the "cleanest" Tour in recent memory.

I could go on and on. Wake up, believers in a clean peloton. It does NOT exist.

Good Post,But I find it hard to believe that Cadel Evans is Doping.Maybe im just naive........

 

[uphillstruggle]

Ok a few months reading this forum is enough to convince me that cycling has not gone clean and it does seem likely most of the GC riders do dope.

But, if you look at the 91 tour Mottet finishes fourth and LeMond seventh, both of whom had reputations as clean riders. Is it unfathomable that they could get top ten placings with out dope or was EPO not being used whole scale at that time?

 

[Anonymous]

kohl has admitted a lot of stuff about himself. fair play to him for that. especially seeing as he could've lied and lied and people wouldn't have kept asking as he already is caught and in that sense out of the way

to be honest, wether its 100%, 90%, 20% i dont know.. but Kohl i take anything he says with a very large pinch of salt..

He hasnt got a clue what percentage dopes, he may know how many people on his team doped, or how many of the same nationality, or how many went to the same clinic, but he doesnt know everyones business..

all he DOES know, is that without doping he wasnt as good as the rest... With doping he was nearly as good... He can draw his own assumptions from that, doesnt mean he is correct...

it may be 100%, it may be 90 or 80 or 70 or 50.. its all irrelevant.. i wouldnt beleive a word that comes out his mouth.. he lied for years, why break the habit now.

 

[workingclasshero]

Ok a few months reading this forum is enough to convince me that cycling has not gone clean and it does seem likely most of the GC riders do dope.

But, if you look at the 91 tour Mottet finishes fourth and LeMond seventh, both of whom had reputations as clean riders. Is it unfathomable that they could get top ten placings with out dope or was EPO not being used whole scale at that time?

this ...
.

 

[Anonymous]

Tour de France winners we know doped:
Floyd Landis (testosterone)
Lance Armstrong 1999, 2000, 01, 02, 03, 04, 05(EPO, worked closely with Ferrari))
Marco Pantani (over 50% Hct limit)
Jan Ullrich (Operacion Puerto, worked closely with Cecchini)
Bjarne Riis (admitted)
Eddy Merckx
Jacques Anquetil (admitted)

Tour de France podium winners who doped:
Alexander Vinokourov
Ivan Basso
Jan Ullrich


Likely doped:
Miguel Indurain (worked closely with Conconi)
Alberto Contador

i would suggest the word KNOW be replaced with THINK in all but the bold cases... we can only assume the rest in the abscence of evidence..

but fair points raised

 

[Anonymous]

Ok a few months reading this forum is enough to convince me that cycling has not gone clean and it does seem likely most of the GC riders do dope.

But, if you look at the 91 tour Mottet finishes fourth and LeMond seventh, both of whom had reputations as clean riders. Is it unfathomable that they could get top ten placings with out dope or was EPO not being used whole scale at that time?

There are two camps on that one. I personally believe it was by the fact that cyclists died in ways similar to those that were later linked to EPO deaths before 1991.

Also, the Cat 2 I knew who went to Mexico to get the stuff did so around 1993, so if it was being used on that level then, one can only imagine it was in use in 1991.

What I see is from around that time on, we had doctors working on the specific physiological effects of the drug, and how to use it most effectively combined with specific training and use of other drugs to get the most out of the athlete.