Your opinion - How many masters racers dope?

[Race Radio]

This thread has nearly 3,000 views yet only a couple people have answered Kevin’s questions directly. I’ll give my opinions below after some comments and examples.

I’ve been racing my bike off and on for 36 years, having started at 14. I was able to reach nearly the same fitness level in my mid-to-late 40s as I had in my 20s and 30s, which was adequate to be on the occasional podium in P/1/2 road races. My training was better and more focused, which mostly offset any physiological degradation from aging. It’s a simple fact.

But there are much better examples. Without identifying them by name, two of the perennially best masters riders here in California have done remarkably well at the elite amateur natz RR when in their mid-to-late 40s, in one case winning the race, and the other guy more recently got the bronze. I have no doubt they are both totally clean, and USADA testing supports that opinion. These guys are examples of what is possible as an older racer. The thing is, however, that neither one of them is as strong and fit as they were when they were younger. They’ve done well to minimize the degradation of aging, but it’s still there. One of them cranks out 300+ miles a week, just like he has done for the last 25 years. The other is truly a genetically gifted athlete who also happens to be one of the smartest riders around (and is a former teammate of Kevin's!) You don’t need to look too hard to find more examples of riders doing very well into their 40s… former Olympians Eric Wohlberg and Jame Carney show what’s possible with good hard training.

So, suggesting that a person racing successfully into their 40s is a sign of doping is ridiculous.

Here are my opinions re Kevin’s questions:
- I have raced in California off and on for a long time, not so much the last 2-3 years.
- I think perhaps a couple percent of the regular top 10-20 placers in Masters races use PEDs deliberately. I do not think it’s necessarily correlated with top placings however, and I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that some of the dopers rarely place.
- I think very few masters women dope, certainly less than the men. I do think you’d be more likely to find a masters woman doping for track racing than for road.
- I doubt there is much difference in PED use across 35+, 45+, and 55+ groups, but I might be naïve about the anti-aging dopers.

Sorry for my lengthy, first-ever post in CN forums, but what brings me out of lurking is a real disgust of how willing people are to anonymously accuse other riders of doping based on nothing more than innuendo, or because said rider does well in races. It's gotten to be a pretty nasty environment and that's unfortunate.

Mark Fennell

Thanks for the info Marco, very good, legit points. Good to have you here.

I agree. Guys like Chris are freaks who work hard and have made it their life's work. Others look for any angle. Most do it the right way.

FYI, that link to the anti aging doctor I posted? More then a few guys in SB used him, often referred by the same trainer. Funny, I think most did it to continue to look good for the wife, not to win the Sunday worlds

 

[craig1985]

This thread has nearly 3,000 views yet only a couple people have answered Kevin’s questions directly. I’ll give my opinions below after some comments and examples.

I’ve been racing my bike off and on for 36 years, having started at 14. I was able to reach nearly the same fitness level in my mid-to-late 40s as I had in my 20s and 30s, which was adequate to be on the occasional podium in P/1/2 road races. My training was better and more focused, which mostly offset any physiological degradation from aging. It’s a simple fact.

But there are much better examples. Without identifying them by name, two of the perennially best masters riders here in California have done remarkably well at the elite amateur natz RR when in their mid-to-late 40s, in one case winning the race, and the other guy more recently got the bronze. I have no doubt they are both totally clean, and USADA testing supports that opinion. These guys are examples of what is possible as an older racer. The thing is, however, that neither one of them is as strong and fit as they were when they were younger. They’ve done well to minimize the degradation of aging, but it’s still there. One of them cranks out 300+ miles a week, just like he has done for the last 25 years. The other is truly a genetically gifted athlete who also happens to be one of the smartest riders around (and is a former teammate of Kevin's!) You don’t need to look too hard to find more examples of riders doing very well into their 40s… former Olympians Eric Wohlberg and Jame Carney show what’s possible with good hard training.

So, suggesting that a person racing successfully into their 40s is a sign of doping is ridiculous.

Here are my opinions re Kevin’s questions:
- I have raced in California off and on for a long time, not so much the last 2-3 years.
- I think perhaps a couple percent of the regular top 10-20 placers in Masters races use PEDs deliberately. I do not think it’s necessarily correlated with top placings however, and I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that some of the dopers rarely place.
- I think very few masters women dope, certainly less than the men. I do think you’d be more likely to find a masters woman doping for track racing than for road.
- I doubt there is much difference in PED use across 35+, 45+, and 55+ groups, but I might be naïve about the anti-aging dopers.

Sorry for my lengthy, first-ever post in CN forums, but what brings me out of lurking is a real disgust of how willing people are to anonymously accuse other riders of doping based on nothing more than innuendo, or because said rider does well in races. It's gotten to be a pretty nasty environment and that's unfortunate.

Mark Fennell

Nice post and welcome to the forums. I hope you stick around.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Two more examples: Ned Overend and Steve Tilford. Like a good wine they get better with age.

Agreed, but this is more "I know a clean rider when I see one."

It's not a dig at you, but the accurate observation doesn't illuminate the question

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I just got a call from a client, excited as she just came 2nd to Nicole Cooke at the Noosa International crit.

She's 43, full time worker (professional job in finance, 55 hr+ work weeks) and wife etc with usual constraints on training time etc. Rides and races because she loves it.

She's been experiencing her best form this past year. Guess what? Her training has been better than ever before. Clean as a whistle too, like all my clients.

She's been saying to me she wishes she had this sort of training in her younger racing days, would have gone so much better.

 

[Berzin]

I can't decide if you have a reading comprehension problem, if you're deliberately ignoring what people are saying, or if you are an idiot.

Name calling isn't gentlemanly, but I can't control how people react to being doubted. What I do know is people who take the greatest offense always have something to hide. ALWAYS.

As for myself, I WAS better in my 20's. I raced in the 1988 Olympic road trials and the 1996 Olympic track trials. In neither case though did I get close to qualifying for the games.

That's because you suck. At least you admit it. Good for you.

I "think" that you have an idea that you want to believe and you will just ignore anything that counters it.

This idea didn't come to me out of the blue. I happen to know quite a bit about the goings on when it comes to PED use from various sectors in our society. The people who partake, their motivations, and their seemingly hypocritical stance on cheating while competing under the influence of PED's.

As it pertains to amateur cyclists, I can tell you the typical doper is an average rider looking to stay competitive. A pat on the back for being a protagonist in the local hammerfest is usually enough. The doping aspect isn't always about winning but about occasionaly dictating the pace up front while being able to train hard without feeling as much pain as one would usually feel. Given this, the signs of doping will not be as apparent as one would think.

No amount of nutrition, training and equipment can offset the aging process. Yet ask anyone who races locally and they will tell you the master's class is always the fastest class in local amateur racing. And they keep getting faster. Newly paved roads and deep-section carbon wheels don't account for the ever-increasing speeds. That is total and complete BS.

Let me be even more blunt. The probability that your average run-of-the-mill, middle-aged yuppie can suddenly morph into a genetic prodigy through training and nutrition in their 40's is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Where exactly was all this hidden talent when these same cats were racing U23's?

There is also the psychological aspect. The PED market in the US is primarily vanity-driven. Cats marinating in HgH want to be complimented on how they look and perform on the bike, and they delude themselves into thinking it's because they are dieting and exercising better than everyone else. I've been regaled by quite a number of dudes at bike shops who love going into the aspects of their training and nutrition, because they want to rub their superior lifestyles in other people's faces. What they always leave out is their use of HgH.

While at R&A Bicycles in Brooklyn NY, I had the displeasure of being browbeaten by a 54 year old dude who got upset about my comments when he asked me how old I thought he was. I told him he looked like an old man on an HgH regimen. He had a Bruce Jenner look about him-the waxed eyebrows, the laser removal of facial hair, the taught skin and low body fat that was a dead giveaway.

When he left, a shop employee (a long-time friend) told me the guy in question and his wife were both clients at an anti-aging clinic and that my assumption about him was correct. His wife had admitted it to him during a group ride. The cat wanted to make it seem that he was making the most of his "genetic" gifts by training hard, following a strict diet and purchasing the best equipment money can buy. He came in top-five at Nationals that particular year for whatever his age group is.

A PED regimen can appear a lot more subtle than one would assume. The dopers I know aren't suddenly setting the world on fire, but they all say the same thing-they can train harder and still go to work without being sore and all beat up. That's what they seem to be looking for when they take PED's. That and the ability to look a little bit younger and leaner.

Now, if you aren't privy to any of this information first-hand, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It just means you don't know about it. And that is the point to such questions originated by the OP.

Never assume what you don't know to be fact. Just say, "I don't know" and leave it at that, instead of calling people names like a jack **** with a stick up his rear end.

 

[nslckevin]

Name calling isn't gentlemanly, but I can't control how people react to being doubted. What I do know is people who take the greatest offense always have something to hide. ALWAYS.


Now, if you aren't privy to any of this information first-hand, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It just means you don't know about it. And that is the point to such questions originated by the OP.

Never assume what you don't know to be fact. Just say, "I don't know" and leave it at that, instead of calling people names like a jack **** with a stick up his rear end.

We seem to be talking past each other. Here is what I "believe".

I do not doubt that there is doping in masters. I never said there wasn't.
I do not think that it is rampant though.
Masters races are not and never have been as fast as P/1/2 races. I do both P/1/2 and various masters age groups (35+ and 45+). The P/1/2 races are faster. Period.
I never said, nor I think did anybody else, that masters riders are able to ride faster than when they were younger. Managing the decline and minimizing the effects of your weak spots is the best you can do.

Kevin

 

[Berzin]

Being civil isn't so hard, Kevin. Now I understand where you're coming from.

Let me say this-the master's class in my area is fast as hell, and the speeds have been unrelenting for quite a while. My take is that it's the same in Southern California. I don't know about the rest of the country in between.

There are three ways of getting gear that is pretty universal-from a foreign source in Latin America, an anti-aging clinic, the black market (obviously the worst pipeline to have, for a myriad of reasons) and purchasing stuff from AIDS patients.

The last one was a new one for me, but I've been digging deep and only came across this information very recently.

I think when it comes to this, again you must be open to the possibility that it may be a bit more rampant than you think.

The reason I say this is from details gleaned over a long period of time, and it wasn't through hearsay or innuendo. Hiding a PED regimen is easier than hiding an affair from one's wife, so it's not that hard for someone to be doing something literally right in front of your face and you not knowing a thing about it.

And from my experience guys who use PED's are extremely secretive about their use, so don't expect anyone to come out and give you details on their doping regimens, even if (especially if) the person in question is a close friend.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I'm sure USADA would welcome well founded information to enable them to better target their doping test program. Why not help them out and make the cycling world a better place?

 

[BigChain]

Being civil isn't so hard, Kevin. Now I understand where you're coming from.

Let me say this-the master's class in my area is fast as hell, and the speeds have been unrelenting for quite a while. My take is that it's the same in Southern California. I don't know about the rest of the country in between.

There are three ways of getting gear that is pretty universal-from a foreign source in Latin America, an anti-aging clinic, the black market (obviously the worst pipeline to have, for a myriad of reasons) and purchasing stuff from AIDS patients.

The last one was a new one for me, but I've been digging deep and only came across this information very recently.

I think when it comes to this, again you must be open to the possibility that it may be a bit more rampant than you think.

The reason I say this is from details gleaned over a long period of time, and it wasn't through hearsay or innuendo. Hiding a PED regimen is easier than hiding an affair from one's wife, so it's not that hard for someone to be doing something literally right in front of your face and you not knowing a thing about it.

And from my experience guys who use PED's are extremely secretive about their use, so don't expect anyone to come out and give you details on their doping regimens, even if (especially if) the person in question is a close friend.

And to quote you from a Previous post - "What I do know is people who take the greatest offense always have something to hide. ALWAYS.
"

To me it seems that people who know most about where to get PED's always have something to hide. ALWAYS.

For mine, I would not have a clue where to get PED's, and have no interest in trying to find out.

All I know is that I am cycling as well as I was 20 years ago, and it is down to a number of key things. Training better, training smarter. Racing. I have only started racing in the past 3 years. Bike technology.

As for the question of the OP. No doubt there are people cheating in Masters racing. What percentage I have no idea. Will it stop me racing? NO. The reason I race is because I enjoy it, not necessarily because I win. In fact I haven't ever won a race. Placed a couple of times. Sure I'd like to win, but I'm not going to start taking PED's to do so.

 

[Berzin]

I'm sure USADA would welcome well founded information to enable them to better target their doping test program. Why not help them out and make the cycling world a better place?

Because it's not my job to play Serpico, that's why. And it's not my fault there is hardly any testing going on in the states in lower category racing.

Heck, they don't even have testing in the biggest races on the North American calendar, so that tells you all you need to know about how seriously they take this issue.

This highlights the incorrect assumptions made about the extent of doping in the amateur ranks. It also exposes how little some posters know about the issue as it pertains to the cost and availability of PED's. I don't understand why people feel comfortable making false statements about something they know nothing about.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Because it's not my job to play Serpico, that's why. And it's not my fault there is hardly any testing going on in the states in lower category racing.

Heck, they don't even have testing in the biggest races on the North American calendar, so that tells you all you need to know about how seriously they take this issue.

Who do you mean by "they"? USADA?
The anti doping body is only as good as the funding there to support it.

In Australia, ASADA's budget divided by the number of tests performed indicates it costs ~$1,000 per test. Hence the need by these agencies to take an audit approach, with both random and targeted testing, and a reliance on intelligence gathering to target well. This is supported by educational awareness programs as well.

At $1k per test, if you want regular testing at masters / amateur level, then it will require a LOT more money pumped into the sport or very expensive entry fees.

 

[Berzin]

To me it seems that people who know most about where to get PED's always have something to hide. ALWAYS.

For mine, I would not have a clue where to get PED's, and have no interest in trying to find out.

These statements are contradictory and childish in nature, but I won't take your bait.

Like I said, assumption of a false premise demands you have proof to back up ones' claims.

There is nothing wrong with not knowing and saying so. But when someone says, "I don't think..." or "I believe there is/is not..."

At $1k per test, if you want regular testing at masters / amateur level, then it will require a LOT more money pumped into the sport or very expensive entry fees.

As long as there is minimal to no testing in the amateur ranks, the only thing stopping guys from doping is the choice not to partake.

That choice is made either on ethical grounds or not having an available source for PED's. Those are the only two reasons why amateur racers don't dope, because there is no deterrent otherwise from the sporting federations in question.

 

[BigChain]

These statements are contradictory and childish in nature, but I won't take your bait.

Like I said, assumption of a false premise demands you have proof to back up ones' claims.

There is nothing wrong with not knowing and saying so. But when someone says, "I don't think..." or "I believe there is/is not..." .

These statements are not contradictory. They also do not relate to each other.

The first was a fairly facetious comment using precisely the same argument you used to respond to Kevin (i.e no proper argument at all). Whilst you did not directly say so, you insinuated that Kevin was a doper because he took offense to your comments. You stated that people who take offense always have something to hide. ALWAYS. My statement was simply using your own argument. That is, someone who knows so much about where to get PED's must by insinuation be a user. ALWAYS. I'm surprised you can't see the irony in that.

Regarding my second statement, it's simply a statement of fact. I have no idea where I'd go looking for PED's and I have no interest in doing so.

 

[Berzin]

BigChain-you obviously have nothing to add but an opinion and making silly points for the sheer sake of argument. Whatever.

It is your right to believe whatever you want. Conjecture runs rampant where there is no proof.

So dare I question people's assumptions? Yes, when I know they are wrong or under-informed.

You can keep on believing what you want. I happen to have more information on this topic than you. All you are doing is arguing a false premise from a rock-solid stance of sheer ignorance on the subject.

 

[BigChain]

BigChain-you obviously have nothing to add but an opinion and making silly points for the sheer sake of argument. Whatever.

It is your right to believe whatever you want. Conjecture runs rampant where there is no proof.

So dare I question people's assumptions? Yes, when I know they are wrong or under-informed.

You can keep on believing what you want. I happen to have more information on this topic than you. All you are doing is arguing a false premise from a rock-solid stance of sheer ignorance on the subject.

I'm merely highlighting the weakness of your argument and your opinion. You insinuated Kevin Metcalfe, aka nslckevin was doping, without any fact. Kevin has in fact come out on this forum, stated who he is, stated he is not taking PED's and I for one believe him. It was an opinion of yours that he took offence to your comments because he had something to hide. You destroy your own argument by stating no facts and making an opinion.

 

[nslckevin]

I'm merely highlighting the weakness of your argument and your opinion. You insinuated Kevin Metcalfe, aka nslckevin was doping, without any fact. Kevin has in fact come out on this forum, stated who he is, stated he is not taking PED's and I for one believe him. It was an opinion of yours that he took offence to your comments because he had something to hide. You destroy your own argument by stating no facts and making an opinion.

USADA believes me also. I just got my letters from the two tests I took at master's nationals. Negative of course.

Thanks.

Kevin

 

[craig1985]

I don't see the point in doping, I'm 26 and I won't make a living out of the sport, and if I did, to spend $10 to win perhaps at most $50, yep wise move.

 

[Berzin]

I'm merely highlighting the weakness of your argument and your opinion. You insinuated Kevin Metcalfe, aka nslckevin was doping, without any fact. Kevin has in fact come out on this forum, stated who he is, stated he is not taking PED's and I for one believe him. It was an opinion of yours that he took offence to your comments because he had something to hide. You destroy your own argument by stating no facts and making an opinion.

He took offense without being accused of anything, and resorted to childish name-calling way before I made my insinuation, which was vague enough to not apply to him if indeed he has nothing to hide.

Like I stated before, this isn't personal. You know nothing and state an assumption as fact. I can't see where your argument or belief is strong enough to warrant this back-and-forth nonsense.

You wanna believe all Master's racers are clean? Good for you. I'm telling you they're not because I know for a fact quite a few dope. And they get just as defensive when questioned about it, hence the "something to hide" comment.

 

[nslckevin]

You wanna believe all Master's racers are clean? Good for you. I'm telling you they're not because I know for a fact quite a few dope. And they get just as defensive when questioned about it, hence the "something to hide" comment.

I looked back through this thread and here is the disconnect.

You keep saying that it is impossible for a rider to stay at the same level as they get into their 40's and 50's.

Nobody has claimed that to be the case. If you believe I am wrong here, please point me to the correct post. Yes, the sky is blue. We know that. Please tell us something that we don't know.

You say things like "You wanna believe all Master's racers are clean? Good for you.".

Again, I don't believe that anybody here lives in the fairy land where they think that ALL master's are clean. There is certainly some differences of opinion as to how dirty or how clean the geezer peloton might be, but frankly short of a surprise test of everybody there is no way to know.

Clean riders win at the masters levels ALL THE TIME. Maybe not always, but of the guys who I see winning races around here, I don't have any suspicions.

Who knows, maybe I'm a pollyana. But maybe you're a cynic.

Kevin Metcalfe

 

[spetsa]

I get the idea that the posters, including myself, that feel that there is a great deal more doping in Masters racing than some want to believe, are not accusing those who win most often, but those with egos large enough to do anything to be part of the race when it gets hard.
It is easy to show numbers of positive tests at Masters Nats, road and track, where the athlete is sanctioned, but what we do not see are the number of positive tests that are reversed after the athlete provides scrips from their doctor justify a TUE. This is a ridiculous rule. Sure, you are not going to see the doctors covering some guys EPO, or Ephedrine use, but I would venture to guess that many athletes have to provide documentation of their anti-aging meds, which IMO is doping.
TUE's should be required before competition at all levels and a list of all athletes with TUE's should be available for all to see. And please don't give me some patient/ doctor privilidge crap. This isn't the workplace where HIPPA laws rule. This is a chosen activity. If you don't want your fellow competitors to know that you recieve justified injections, don't race.

 

[Berzin]

I looked back through this thread and here is the disconnect.

You keep saying that it is impossible for a rider to stay at the same level as they get into their 40's and 50's.

Nobody has claimed that to be the case. If you believe I am wrong here, please point me to the correct post. Yes, the sky is blue. We know that. Please tell us something that we don't know.

You say things like "You wanna believe all Master's racers are clean? Good for you.".

Again, I don't believe that anybody here lives in the fairy land where they think that ALL master's are clean. There is certainly some differences of opinion as to how dirty or how clean the geezer peloton might be, but frankly short of a surprise test of everybody there is no way to know.

Clean riders win at the masters levels ALL THE TIME. Maybe not always, but of the guys who I see winning races around here, I don't have any suspicions.

Who knows, maybe I'm a pollyana. But maybe you're a cynic.

Kevin Metcalfe

I'm not a cynic, I just think that people like you should get your head out of the sand. If you're doing a cycle of EPO, all you have to do is wait three days after the last dose and it won't show up on a test, even if you're dumb enough to go over the 50% threshold.

HgH? No testing for it that I know of in USA cycling.

Even the biggest idiot who dopes knows this. So a rider not testing positive the day of Nationals proves nothing. All they have to do is time their doping calendar correctly and they're good to go.

But let me guess...you know different.

 

[mastersracer]

So the consensus is that a rider can keep improving well into his 40's, 50's and 60's, despite the fact that natural testosterone and growth hormone levels, among other physiological factors, decrease with age. That is absolutely unbelievable.

If this is the case, then please explain to me why the anti-aging industry is absolutely booming and who exactly is it that's driving this market.

I'll answer that for you-it's the same yuppies who some of you guys are racing against.

I would love to see some physiological profiles to back up some of the clearly ludicrous claims being made in the last couple of posts.

The declines you mention come from studies that use a cross-sectional design of mostly inactive subjects. There are major confounds in these studies, including progressively more muscle disuse with each aging profile. A study of masters athletes (e.g., Chronic exercise preserves lean muscle mass in masters athletes) shows a quite different profile. A better design would be a longitudinal one of masters athletes. I don't know if there are any, but in my area of neuroscience, such studies have forced a rethinking of the inevitability of cognitive decline, and I suspect would show similar results for peripheral systems. That's not to say an athlete will improve with age if they were a world-class athlete in their 20s, but the extent of such decline is likely not representative of what you're suggesting with the population that is driving the anti-aging market. Aging athletes are more likely limited by accumulating chronic injuries, non-cycling commitments, etc. than fundamental physiological limits

 

[nslckevin]

...This is a ridiculous rule. Sure, you are not going to see the doctors covering some guys EPO, or Ephedrine use, but I would venture to guess that many athletes have to provide documentation of their anti-aging meds, which IMO is doping.

By anti-aging do you me testosterone supplementation and HGH? I looked around on the USADA web site and I don't think you can get an after the fact TUE for drugs that are on the prohibited in AND out of competition list.
http://www.usada.org/files/pdfs/TUE-policy.pdf

Specifically:

Non-National Level Athletes
a) Non-National Level Athletes are required to obtain an advance TUE for prohibited substances with the exception of a first
i) substances prohibited only in-competition or prohibited by particular sports, AAF caused by one or more of the:
ii) the class of “Diuretics and Other Masking Agents”,
iii) Beta-2 agonists (except inhaled salbutamol/albuterol and salmeterol), and
iv) insulin where the athlete can demonstrate diagnosis of insulin-dependent diabetes.
TUEs will be obtained in the same manner as for National Level Athletes as set forth in Section 3 above.
b) Non-National Level Athletes who have a first AAF caused by the Use of a medication will not have committed an anti-doping rules violation for substances outlined in Section 5 a) i – iv above if the rules below are followed.

TUE's should be required before competition at all levels and a list of all athletes with TUE's should be available for all to see. And please don't give me some patient/ doctor privilidge crap. This isn't the workplace where HIPPA laws rule. This is a chosen activity. If you don't want your fellow competitors to know that you recieve justified injections, don't race.

I do not disaggree with your comment, but I suspect that this really boils down to logistics and cost. It's one thing do handle TUE requests for a small list of testing pool and international athlete's. If you add in the TUE requests for just the people going to masters road, track, MTB and cyclocross nationals it would probably multiply thier workload by 10.

 

[nslckevin]

I'm not a cynic, I just think that people like you should get your head out of the sand. If you're doing a cycle of EPO, all you have to do is wait three days after the last dose and it won't show up on a test, even if you're dumb enough to go over the 50% threshold.

HgH? No testing for it that I know of in USA cycling.

Even the biggest idiot who dopes knows this. So a rider not testing positive the day of Nationals proves nothing. All they have to do is time their doping calendar correctly and they're good to go.

But let me guess...you know different.

No. I don't. That is one of the reasons I STARTED this thread. All I know is what I've done (raced clean) and not done (doped). I don't know first hand of anybody locally who dopes. Are there people I'm not sure about? Of course. But I don't KNOW anything.

Does any of that mean everybody is clean and pure? Of course not.

Does the fact that it is apparantly pretty easy to dope and not get caught mean that tons of riders are doing it? I don't think so. Some? Sure. What percent? That is the question I originally asked. I don't know.

I am sure that there are people that I have no suspions about that are dirty. I am also pretty sure that there are people that you are sure are doping that are clean.

Nobody knows all.

Kevin

 

[DirtyWorks]

No. I don't. That is one of the reasons I STARTED this thread. All I know is what I've done (raced clean) and not done (doped). I don't know first hand of anybody locally who dopes. Are there people I'm not sure about? Of course. But I don't KNOW anything.

Does any of that mean everybody is clean and pure? Of course not.

Does the fact that it is apparantly pretty easy to dope and not get caught mean that tons of riders are doing it? I don't think so. Some? Sure. What percent? That is the question I originally asked. I don't know.

I am sure that there are people that I have no suspions about that are dirty. I am also pretty sure that there are people that you are sure are doping that are clean.

Nobody knows all.

Kevin

You seem to be saying you started the thread to reinforce your own belief that few dope with using no observations (like the ones I posted) other than your own.

No doping problems then. Except for those pesky positives on USADA's site. Kevin denies it's more common, so it's not common. I tried to call you out on this behaviour on the last thread you wouldn't quit then either and proceeded to start this one. That's an awesome discussion. Kevin says the world operates according to his observations so we're done here.

Kevin has solved the doping problem people. We're done. Maybe you can solve hunger problems next. Human slavery is pretty old, that needs fixing Kevin style. Start another thread with your observations and the problem is solved.