What % of the peloton dopes?

[Ninety5rpm]

What percent of the pro cycling peloton in Europe do you believe uses performance enhancing drugs?

 

[Jasper]

Oh come on, is it really that hard to talk about actual cycling around here?

 

[boalio]

What percent of the pro cycling peloton in Europe do you believe uses performance enhancing drugs?

You could probably read the 13,478 other threads about doping here to get an idea what people think.

 

[ludwig]

What percent of the pro cycling peloton in Europe do you believe uses performance enhancing drugs?

Depends on the race....and also you should distinguish between what kind of doping it is... ie are we talking about blood doping or EPO or are we talking about HGH and steroids etc?

If I had to guess, I'd say for something like the Tour, probably 97-98% are doing some kind of banned practice...maybe 30% are blood doping or on EPO. I hope I'm wrong but the evidence indicates the problem is widespread and peloton-wide...it just depends what kind of risks a rider/team will take and what they can afford.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Well, I set up a poll. I'm curious what the distribution is. I mean, are we scattered all over the place, or mostly at the extremes, or what?

 

[Anonymous]

Oh come on, is it really that hard to talk about actual cycling around here?

No, feel free to start you own thread.

 

[ak-zaaf]

about fu% i guess

 

[Jasper]

No, feel free to start you own thread.

So it can be bounced back to page 3 in no time by the obligatory daily dose of meaningless doping/Lance/Astana threads? Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Anonymous]

So it can be bounced back to page 3 in no time by the obligatory daily dose of meaningless doping/Lance/Astana threads? Thanks, but no thanks.

So you give up and expect us to do the same? Quitters never win and winners never quit.

I will keep talking about doping because it appears it continues to affect the peloton in a significant way. But if quitting is your thing.........

 

[Jasper]

Nah, I would only expect some common sense, and for some people to realise that these incessant doping rants are slowly killing this forum and driving away a lot of quality posters whose number one concern isn't doping. It's just too much all over the place to simply ignore it, you know?

Ah well, hopefully sooner or later there will be some decent, fulltime moderation going on in here, and I hope the doping threads will get cut back, or even moved to a different subforum alltogether. Until then, I'll just continue voicing my annoyance once in a while

 

[Ninety5rpm]

So you give up and expect us to do the same? Quitters never win and winners never quit.

I will keep talking about doping because it appears it continues to affect the peloton in a significant way. But if quitting is your thing.........

While you're talking about doping anyway, the de facto rules seem to be: It's fair/okay as long as you get away with it.

I think that's preferable to the other alternatives. With the NFL, for example, they don't test at all (or not much if any). So everyone is free to do whatever they want, more or less.

In cycling at least there is a lot of testing which, hopefully, keeps the usage down to something "reasonable".

 

[Anonymous]

Nah, I would only expect some common sense, and for some people to realise that these incessant doping rants are slowly killing this forum and driving away a lot of quality posters whose number one concern isn't doping. It's just too much all over the place to simply ignore it, you know?

Ah well, hopefully sooner or later there will be some decent, fulltime moderation going on in here, and I hope the doping threads will get cut back, or even moved to a different subforum alltogether. Until then, I'll just continue voicing my annoyance once in a while

Actually, I have no problem with having a doping section of the forum. I also can understand the annoyance, I just don't feel it. Hey, keep trying to start non-doping threads though because it can only help your cause.

 

[Anonymous]

While you're talking about doping anyway, the de facto rules seem to be: It's fair/okay as long as you get away with it.

I think that's preferable to the other alternatives. With the NFL, for example, they don't test at all (or not much if any). So everyone is free to do whatever they want, more or less.

In cycling at least there is a lot of testing which, hopefully, keeps the usage down to something "reasonable".

The NFL tests, but for the most part it is so easy to produce a steroid that isn't detected that it makes it useless. They also are pretty easy on anyone who gets busted.

I favor lifetime bans on the first offense personally, but I am a bit draconian in my approach.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Nah, I would only expect some common sense, and for some people to realise that these incessant doping rants are slowly killing this forum and driving away a lot of quality posters whose number one concern isn't doping. It's just too much all over the place to simply ignore it, you know?

Ah well, hopefully sooner or later there will be some decent, fulltime moderation going on in here, and I hope the doping threads will get cut back, or even moved to a different subforum alltogether. Until then, I'll just continue voicing my annoyance once in a while

Thank you for these sensible words!

Right now the top five topics on this forum either have 'dope' in the title or are dope related.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I favor lifetime bans on the first offense personally, but I am a bit draconian in my approach.

Are you familiar with the study that showed top athletes would be willing to consume substances that they knew will kill them within as little as two years, if they believed doing so would first make them world champions in their sport?

How much do you think someone who is literally willing to die in order to win is going to be deterred from getting an edge by risking a lifetime ban?

I'm not opposed to lifetime bans; I just don't think they would make much of a difference overall.

 

[Jasper]

Actually, I have no problem with having a doping section of the forum. I also can understand the annoyance, I just don't feel it. Hey, keep trying to start non-doping threads though because it can only help your cause.

Well, it might be influenced by other boards I actively participate in, but my policy is to stick to a few threads that cover the topic, and only start a new thread when the discussion is straying too far away from the initial topic. While here, it seems like every single new strain of thought or different angle on the same topic merits a new thread. Sometimes it ends up being a good move, but most of the times it's just the same old discussion all over again, with the same arguments made by the same people. And unfortunately this is especially the case with everything concerning doping and/or Lance Armstrong. As long as this Twitter-like thread starting doesn't change, every other thread will be choked imo.




Sorry for hijacking the thread btw
I wouldn't know about how much percent of the peloton uses PED's, but I think it all depends on what your definition of a PED is. I think there's a thin line and a whole grey area of semantics and arbitrary rules that make up the rules of what is considered doping, and what not. Every rider will be 'doped' to some extent, but some manage to stay within the accepted borders, while others cross them without being so much more jacked than others. A 'clean' peloton is impossible per definition imo, and not only in cycling.

 

[CapeRoadie]

Well, doping is a major problem in all professional sports, including cycling. I think it's a fair question. I'm pretty sure it's over 95% in the UCI pro peloton. But then, that's likely no different than most other elite sports: football, American football, baseball, track & field, NHL hockey, etc.

 

[CapeRoadie]

I would add that anyone who voted less than 90% generally has no idea of what's going on in pro cycling, or is lying about what he or she knows. I'm sure I'll get flamed for that, but well... the truth often is stranger than fiction, and often hurts. Only talking about the UCI pro peloton here.

 

[kloftus1044]

I would add that anyone who voted less than 90% generally has no idea of what's going on in pro cycling,

Really? Please enlighten me. Your firsthand experience in the pro peloton would be most valuable.

 

[CapeRoadie]

I would add that anyone who voted less than 90% generally has no idea of what's going on in pro cycling,

Really? Please enlighten me. Your firsthand experience in the pro peloton would be most valuable.

What would lead you to believe that less than 90% of the UCI pro peloton is doping? I own a bridge for sale in Brooklyn, btw. Interested?

 

[BroDeal]

Nah, I would only expect some common sense, and for some people to realise that these incessant doping rants are slowly killing this forum and driving away a lot of quality posters whose number one concern isn't doping. It's just too much all over the place to simply ignore it, you know?

We need to have threads combined. There is the same problem with fifty million Astana/Armstrong threads. It makes it hard to find the non-doping, non-Lance threads.

Once the Tour starts then we will get a bunch of sticky stage threads. Plus when there is no major race going on, conversation tends to revolve around just a few subjects.

 

[Doug Laipple]

Zero percent in the 09 TDF. No one would risk it.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Only one vote in the 50-75% range so far.
Everyone else is either "more than 75%" or "less than 50%".
Interesting.

 

[Anonymous]

If you are below 50%, the question is: Which riders is it, the front end of the peloton or the back?

 

[EricBikeCO]

Blah blah blah

TIRED OF THIS TOPIC
When are you morons going to give up this BS and focus on something even slightly positive?. As soon as you can post anything that has proof that would hold up in court when you get sued, SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The survey is totally faulty because the first choice is not "I don't give a sh!t."