Professional Cycling - Honestly, are all sponsored TdF riders on drugs?

seriously, are all of the riders on the TdF on 'roids? here's the deal: just be straight up. what do you think... yes or no? for arguments' sake, i believe they are. i wanted Floyd to be innocent, but every time he opens his mouth, he just seems more and more guilty. also, all of those guys' bodies look exactly the same. and if some of them get busted for doping, how do you explain the rest of the 'non-dopers' physiques?

No, I don't think so. I think a few have gotten all the press and made it appear so. I think many are honest, well drug-tested atheletes.

Unfortunately, a large percentage of people are dishonest and these always think that everyone else is. I don't know what this percentage is (there have been psychological studies but I don't remember numbers) but lets just guess for arguments sake that it is around fourty to fifty percent of population is less than honest.

This would just be a random sample. Since people with highly competitive personalities might be slightly higher due to slightly higher narsisistic tendencies. So lets say that sixty percent of athletes who would be in a position to maybe win with a little help from drugs might be willing to risk it.

My guess is that an elite few at the top because of thier genetics and personality can win without any doping.

Of all the racers in the pros only a certain percentage can really be considered close to these elite top athletes. This group that is close to the top are the most likely to take the risk to win because it is just within thier grasp. But there are also conseqences so lets say of the fifty to sixty percent of this group who might dope only fourty percent would really risk it.

So then we have a large number of riders that always finish behind the contender group. They don't see themselfs as GC contenders but support riders who can pull off a good ride on a good day. But never be a GC condender. These guys aren't as likely to dope. Maybe ten percent of these guys which make up the largest percentage of total riders would be willing to dope. But most would probably not be willing to risk thier job for a GC goal that is out of thier reach.

I am not going to do math with weighted percentages but when you look at all of these groups I would say that maybe at most twenty percent of the total field might be doping.

Well that kind of a guesstimate is about the closest you will ever come to knowing how many dope. So it's pointless to mentally labor over it. What we just need are better testing methods and to realize that if the rider passes the test they are assumed clean. And thats as good as we ever need anything to be. We have to accept some ambiguity.

The relationship between doping and dishonesty is not obvious to me. Also, the notion that domestiques don't have an incentive to dope is not borne out by experience. Consider Frankie Andreu's admission.

It is questionable if there is a direct relationship between general honesty and doping. Since a high level racer may feel pressure from the culture and to make money to support his family past when he can't race anymore. Also, some coaches that may think they are GC potential may pressure some cyclists to risk it for the possibility of winning big.

So the argument above was really just an example at how you might make a semi-intelligent estimate. But of course it is frought with errors.

All - no, some maybe, which ones? wish I knew. Cycling is one of the most tested sports there is, alongside this there is I'm sorry to say a drug culture in some places in our sport :mad: :mad: :mad: - but I guess there is in most sports at some level of competition, just I don't care about other sports. On top of this there are lazy journalists who like a sensationalist story that sells papers and doesn't involve any effort to write and there are investigating magistrates who want to see their name in print. Oh and IMHO (which I stress is MHO) a useless international body - the UCI.
On the good side, those that take drugs must now start to see that getting caught affects the Euro in their pocket, as sponsors get cold feet. Also the culture is changing as sponsors, teams and young riders start to take a stand. :)
Will we ever be drug free? Will any sport? Will society as a whole? Ohh err I'm getting all deep and meaningful - better go out for a ride.:)

seriously, are all of the riders on the TdF on 'roids? here's the deal: just be straight up. what do you think... yes or no? for arguments' sake, i believe they are. i wanted Floyd to be innocent, but every time he opens his mouth, he just seems more and more guilty. also, all of those guys' bodies look exactly the same. and if some of them get busted for doping, how do you explain the rest of the 'non-dopers' physiques?


Yes they are all doping. Any pro will tell you this "off the record"....And many have said so publicly in interviews in books, etc...
Why people buy the line "most are clean, its only a few bad apples" is beyond me. Then again, I don't understand why people believe in adverstising...

seriously, are all of the riders on the TdF on 'roids? here's the deal: just be straight up. what do you think... yes or no? for arguments' sake, i believe they are. i wanted Floyd to be innocent, but every time he opens his mouth, he just seems more and more guilty. also, all of those guys' bodies look exactly the same. and if some of them get busted for doping, how do you explain the rest of the 'non-dopers' physiques?

I don't think they are all on drugs, just the better riders. :D
Seriously though, not too many people on this site would know. They would just be speculating based on information we all receive via the media etc.

Yes they are all doping. Any pro will tell you this "off the record"....And many have said so publicly in interviews in books, etc...
Why people buy the line "most are clean, its only a few bad apples" is beyond me. Then again, I don't understand why people believe in adverstising...

Really? Any pro would tell you off the record? How many Pro's have told you?

Seriously, if they all are doping then technically the field is even right. So the best rider still wins.

Really? Any pro would tell you off the record? How many Pro's have told you?

A couple. but I can't tell you, its off the record :D Regardless, there are a plethora of books by trainers, riders who explain in great detail how its done. Further, there are quotes from the likes of Anquetil not confessing, but defending and boasting about drug use...



Seriously, if they all are doping then technically the field is even right. So the best rider still wins.
That argument does not hold water. There is no even field when everyone dopes; it becomes a competition between chemists.... not just who gets the best drugs and the best dosage, but who can find the best masking agents, etc.... Not all dope doctors were created equal...

Seriously, if they all are doping then technically the field is even right. So the best rider still wins.Exactly. The insistence on treating doping as a cheating problem instead of a medical problem is really hurting cycling.

i think people definately have the natural ability to win without drugs. with that being said, i wouldn't be suprised if all of them were on a physical enhancement training supplement that in the next say 5 years, will be banned and become "illegal".
in all sports, athletes get the best of the best in people around them who will help them be the best they can be, which means helping them with performance supplements. Physicians will continue to come up with new forms of "steroids" and sports leagues will catch on as time goes by, and derm them illegal when they see that its really helping athletes. its an inevitable cat and mouse type game that has been going on for a long time, and will continue to go on.
the only new "ingrediant" thrown in, is the media. now that ESPN and other sports stations act like they are CNN, and give continuous news coverage 24 hours a day, they need things to talk about. and with records being broken and new grounds being covered, every story can come back to "well was he on steroids? is that why hes winning" so now it has become a neverending media story that they will definately, not let go.

edit: gadby and harold- thats a good point, because in every sport, you can bet like roughly 60-95% of players use something that is or will be considered a steroid, so why doesnt the media shut the hell up already and get back to sports. the very nature of sports is one-upping your opponent, and they act so suprised. it should be even more of an incentive to a non-doping athlete to beat the doping athletes by training harder and being even more devoted to your sport. plus, im sure in a lot of sports, maybe not biking though, players know alot of the players who are using enhancers. they could easily come up with a good testing system that wouldnt let anything by, and some sports have better ones than others. the problem is what i brought up earlier, physicians keep inventing new supplements, and leagues cant keep up, so every year they will add to list of banned substances, and this will go on FOREVER.

I honestly believe they should allow people to use whatever drugs they want. Isn't using a drip cheating? Your body can't replenish fast enough so we use synthetic ways of replenishing.

Even if people use a huge amount of drugs, I honestly believe that someone who does not use drugs can still beat them.

Really? Any pro would tell you off the record? How many Pro's have told you?

Seriously, if they all are doping then technically the field is even right. So the best rider still wins.

No, best doctor wins.

No, best doctor wins.

+1

i think people definately have the natural ability to win without drugs.I read somewhere, that doping gives you about a 10% advantage (endurance, power,...). That is huge. If that number is anywhere close to the truth, then I don't think any non-doping athlete has a chance at winning. This makes me sad... :(

Doctors are part of the "team" are they not? One has to wonder how long before lawyers are also listed on team rosters. Professional cycling is entertainment. If the athletes were concerned about the lack of fair play I am sure they and their directors/sponsors would be making waves, which isn't happening. People don't watch sitcoms and then wonder if the camera man/editors adjusted the actors skin tones... enjoy the show, then turn off the TV and go out and ride your bike in the real world.

I read somewhere, that doping gives you about a 10% advantage (endurance, power,...). That is huge. If that number is anywhere close to the truth, then I don't think any non-doping athlete has a chance at winning. This makes me sad... :(

have FAITH my man!:D 10% is nothing really. a naturally gifted athlete who trains to the max, would just have to train that much harder to overcome that disadvantage. im saying that with a optimistic attitude towards athletes and with knowing that anything is possible. i can promise without knowing for sure, that there has been many winners in the olympics and tour de france that have won with natural training and supplements against people who have been using "steroids". and like i said above, and others did. they basically all use an enhancer that will be banned eventually. your phisician comes up with a compound that gives you a huge advantage, you win the event, then the league will come in and see what you have been taking maybe a year or 2 down the road, then that compound will be banned. and on and on. but with that being said, there IS naturally gifted people who can get to that level of ability without performance enhancers. the problem is, is that now everything is "tainted" by the media and skeptics.

...

Personally, I belive that some teams are just better at not getting caught...

+1

There are many high school athletes taking performance enhancers who never become anything great case closed.

have FAITH my man!:D 10% is nothing really. a naturally gifted athlete who trains to the max, would just have to train that much harder to overcome that disadvantage.

10 % is huge. If there was a drug that gave a 10% performance enhancement then I went to school with a couple dozen guys who could have been Olympic contenders. And my college did not even give athletic scholarships.

I believe the majority of riders in the TDF peloton are clean.

I believe the majority of riders in the TDF peloton are clean.

I believe the majority of riders in the TdF peloton would -- privately -- laugh at this statement!

Seriously, if they all are doping then technically the field is even right. So the best rider still wins.

problem is all drugs dont effect people the same, so some guy that dopes may get 4% and another may get 10%.

Define doping... This in my opinion this is the real question. Should sleeping in high altitude chambers be allowed? Should you be allowed to take vitamins? Should you be able to transfuse your own blood products?

It is sad that these pro riders probably have no idea what "supplements" are injected into thier arms - but are the ones that have to face the press. They trust their doctors and coaches to do the right thing. The riders concentrate on riding, the coaches concentrate on getting the best out of their riders and staying within the law. The debate on unfair advantage will continue in sport as long as sport exists...

yes, they are all using. And there's really no reason not to use. I'm sure I'll catch a ton of flack here but I am the largest proponent of banning drug testing in sports that you'll ever meet. Why? Because it's the only way to create a perfectly level playing field. There are several sports that do not drug test or follow dickhead Dick Pound's WADA protocol - the guy is just pissed that he got smoked in one of the 60's Oly games and probably attributes his loss to competing against jacked up athletes. In nontested sports (like strongman and certain powerlifting feds), you will never NOT ONCE hear any complaints about drugs in competition because everyone is using and everyone knows it. When the results are posted, drug use will have absolutely ZERO affect on the outcome of the comp. The only thing that will affect the results achieved by each participant is the effort he put into his training.

The truth of the matter is I could teach an 8th grader how to beat these useless drug tests. For everyone else, the BALCO incident showed exactly how it is done. First, no piss test can detected rDNA hGH use. Not a single one. So growth hormone use is an automatic. What will that give you as an endurance athlete? Well, nothing but trouble, actually, if you dramatically exceed normal human physiological levels. The reason is because hGH will affect other endogenous hormones through a permissive effect which will increase BMR, HR, resting energy expenditure, (that means O2 consumption), among other things. So the trick is to avoid what the strength athletes/bodybuilders are doing with hGH and pretty much keep your IGF-1 (Somatomedin-C) levels where they were when you were ~18 years old. Use a little insulin (not tested for) and that will alleviate some of the stress on your pancreas and also amplify the shuttling effect of nutrients into one's musculature, further promoting a slight protein synthesis effect, thus enhancing recoverability. HGH also affects circulating levels of epinephrine and nor-epinephrine and that's both good and bad. The good part is it's easy to stay lean while using hGH and eating whatever you want. Remember how it was when you were 16-18? The bad thing WRT aerobic athletes is that epi and nor-epi cause systemic vasoconstriction, increased HR, increased REE, etc. basically every symptom of hyperthyroidism is present when E and NE levels in target tissue get out of control. So it's a fine line with hGH.

Testosterone - endogenous to every single person on this planet, so the test can't simply detect metobolites to determine exo use because every single person would test +. So it's a ratio of test/epi-test, blah blah. I'm sure everyone knows about this by now with the Landis situation. The problem with testosterone is that too much will also kill your aerobic capacity for the endurance athlete. Also, with the depot drugs, there's a very significant spike while blood levels peak and then there's a trailing off as the drug is leached from the depot and metabolized. And those spikes will get you nailed everytime. So injectibles are out for the drug tested athletes. That leaves transdermals and sublinguals. Transdermal is the best application for the aerobic athletes because the delivery protocol maintains stable blood levels better than any other application. This is what the "Cream" was in the BALCO case. Every single athlete passed every drug test every time. However, you won't find pl'ers/bb'ers/etc. using patches because that's just not enough drug to make any significant gains. You just can't duplicate injecting 1-2 grams/wk. of testosterone enanthate with a 25mg patch, LOL! And that's why Landis tested out at 11:1 instead of like 100:1 like the strength athletes would. Plus, no bike racer would want to shoot 250mg of TE 3x/week because of the adverse side effects on his performance. Contrary to what the media is trying to lead everyone to believe, these drugs will NOT enhance performance for the vast majority of athletes. I've been on high doses of testosterone for six years straight and it does nothing but kill my biking performance. The doses that guys are using in the Tour are for all practical purposes identical to TRT (testosterone replacement therapy) doses. And herein lies my most significant problem with these drug testing maniacs. In my opinion, these athletes are human beings FIRST, and pro athletes SECOND. They have to live a life and their quality of life, just as yours and mine, is determined in large part by the hormone levels present in their bodies. Anyone who does not believe me, just pick up some of the books written by board-certified medical doctors on the subject of HRT (with hGH) and TRT (with testosterone). These hormones are absolutely crucial in determining overall quality of life in both men AND women. So by preventing these athletes from using pharmaceuticals that will enhance overall quality of life in the name of fairness in sports (right, as if competition has ever been fair since Eastern Bloc countries synthesized testosterone in the 1950's), they are being denied basic HUMAN rights IMO.

Synthetic androgens/anabolics - these are steroids that are derived from the basic structure of testosterone. The tests look for metabolites of known synthetic drugs. The problem here is that all someone needs to do is create a synthetic that leaves a metabolic signature that is ONE ATOM different from a known agent, and the test will fail to detect its use. So that means you hire a chemist to invent a new anabolic/androgen that is unknown and you will never fail a drug test EVER. That's exactly what Patrick Arnold's job was at BALCO. Arnold, to my knowledge, was the first to synthesize the various "Andro" products, so he knew enough to get the job done. This is what THG represented at BALCO. Again, no one failed the drug tests ever and to this day, no one would know about THG if track coach Trevor Graham hadn't sent in a syringe filled with THG to the testers. In the end, he sabotaged his own athletes. If that was the end of the story, then fine and dandy. However, there is still an entire pharmaceutical subculture especially in the former Soviet Bloc countries and these people are not so stupid as to disclose their synthesized hormones. What I'm saying is that the doping structure that was established under Communist rule in these countries (recall that international dominance in sport was used by the "state" as a patriotic rallying effort in its constituency) still exists to this day. So it should be completely obvious how drug testing creates an unlevel playing field in the area of synthetic androgens/anabolics because if you've got the $$$, you just hire someone to create a designer steroid that will remain undetectable forever under current testing protocol. If you don't have the bucks, then you've got to resort to using fast acting orals like Primobolan Acetate, Anavar, Dbol, etc. and hope you don't get tested until they clear because those drugs have been around for 50 years and every test can detect their metabolites.

Speaking of Dianabol, 99.99999% of people will never know that the U.S. federal government actually subsidized the creation of anabolic steroids. When U.S. athletes got smoked in one of the Oly games in the 1950's, the federal govt. contacted Ciba labs, specifically Dr. John Ziegler, and commissioned these scientists with the task of finding out what had happened. When a former Eastern Bloc athlete defected to the U.S., Ziegler's team discovered the athlete had an enlarged prostate - benign prostate hypertrophy (BPH) is generally caused by excessive estrogen levels - so they knew the guy was using exogenous T. For those that don't know, testosterone is aromatized into estro via the aromatase enzyme because some estrogen is necessary for baseline endocrine functions even in men. Take a bunch of T, and your estro levels will increase correspondingly unless you take aromatase inhibitors like Arimidex, Femara, etc.

Ziegler was told to "level the playing field" by the federal govt. which he did when he created Dianabol (methandrostenolone). To this day, Dbol is mg. for mg. the most potent anabolic steroid ever created. Looking back, I'm absolutely floored that the guy got it right on his very first try. Simply amazing. And thus created the escalation of drug use in competitive sport. So I find it extremely ludicrous that the same government that is actually the most responsible entity for the creation of AAS is the same government that is wasting my tax dollars trying to implicate a bunch of athletes simply trying to remain competitive as they age instead of fixing the impending social security/medicare disaster, illegal immigration, and the completely screwed up healthcare system. What a total joke.

Of course drugs like Dbol would kill a biker's performance, so they really have no place in the pelaton. So when the OP asked about "roids" that really is not the right subject matter. The key to enhancing performance on the bike is with RBC's (red blood cells). And that's where EPO comes in. I remember when I was riding back in ~1991 when the Dutch and Belgium teams lost about half of their guys on a training ride. EPO had just been developed and there were rumors, but there was no drug test until just a few years ago. So nothing came about from it. Obviously and unfortunately for those riders, someone really messed up and that was the result. That is something that could never happen with anabolic steroid use or HGH use. In that respect asprin is much more dangerous than AAS.

Fast forward 15 years, and you have doctors like the one in Spain who figured out the optimal mix of all these drugs - namely test, hGH, insulin, IGF-1, and blood doping. And that really is the magic blend for the Tour riders, and that's why riders flocked to the guy. He likely possesed more clinical knowledge than their team docs did. But like I said earlier, they're simply not going to gain the performance enhancement benefits with the testosterone, hGH, insulin, or IGF-1. Those drugs are used simply to speed the rate of recovery and protein synthesis to some degree. And in that respect, there really is very little difference between your 50 year old dad going to an anti-aging clinic and getting test and hGH prescribed and what these guys are taking. It's basically the exact, same concept. They're trying to limit the effects of aging and remain competitive well into their 30's because they can't use the same drugs or the doses that the bursty, ATP athletes use because it would kill their performance. The only big performance enhancing drug used by these guys was EPO, now back to good ol' fashioned blood doping since that remains undectable because it's your own blood, assuming you stock your own reserves and reinject for comp.

That takes me back to drug testing. It's clear to anyone with half a brain that drug testing does not work. And of course, you have those people that counter, well if it didn't work, no one would fail. And to that I say, the only people who fail drug tests are people who aree sloppy, take unnecessary risks, or don't have the financial resources to hook up with people who can help them beat the tests. And this is exactly how the drug testing system has created an inherently unlevel playing field because "drug tested" does not equate "drugfree" contrary to what the drug testing lunatics want you to believe. I will also say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to remain competitive on the international level in most sports today without using pharmaceutical products. Simply not possible, I don't care how good your genetics are, particularly as you get older. What are my qualifications for saying this? A couple years ago, I was #2 in powerlifting in the U.S. and top 5 in the world. It is impossible for 99.9999999% of the world's populace to recover from the training necessary to achieve that level of success without pharmaceutical help. The human body simply does not possess the raw capacity to do that without drugs. Yet, the viewing public always clamors for more impressive feats of strength and endurance, expecting these athletes to just produce practically in-human results. The fact of the matter is that if all of the drugs used in sports would suddenly disappear off the face of the Earth one day, the level of performance routinely achieved today in some sports would fall to that of somewhere between high school and collegiate levels. Now, whether John Q. Public wants to hear that is irrelevant to the fact of the matter. The viewing public has become so desensitized to truly incredible human feats in sport after viewing countless performances enabled under the influence of drugs that the vast majority of sports would literally become unwatchable to all but the most die-hard fans (read "amatuer participants").

And this is why I always take the position of letting these guys use whatever they want. Keeping everything out in the open is the safest thing to do anyway. And tragedies like what happened on that training ride 16 years ago would never happen because the experts with the experience of creating doping programs would be openly consulted. The only drug test that I do emphatically support is the hematocrit blood test, and that's just common sense for everyone's safety. Set a hard limit - 56, 58, 60, whatever - and anyone who tests above that threshold is prevented from competing until their level drops beneath the cutoff. Beyond that, use whatever you want. Drugs have been in sports for 50 years. The genie was let out of the bottle a long time ago and there is no putting her back in. It's an exercise in complete futility to believe anything else. And when gene doping goes mainstream, guys like Dick Pound will be permanently out of job.

seriously, are all of the riders on the TdF on 'roids? here's the deal: just be straight up. what do you think... yes or no? for arguments' sake, i believe they are. i wanted Floyd to be innocent, but every time he opens his mouth, he just seems more and more guilty. also, all of those guys' bodies look exactly the same. and if some of them get busted for doping, how do you explain the rest of the 'non-dopers' physiques?
Yes.

yes, they are all using. And there's really no reason not to use. I'm sure I'll catch a ton of flack here but I am the largest proponent of banning drug testing in sports that you'll ever meet. Why? Because it's the only way to create a perfectly level playing field. There are several sports that do not drug test or follow dickhead Dick Pound's WADA protocol - the guy is just pissed that he got smoked in one of the 60's Oly games and probably attributes his loss to competing against jacked up athletes. In nontested sports (like strongman and certain powerlifting feds), you will never NOT ONCE hear any complaints about drugs in competition because everyone is using and everyone knows it. When the results are posted, drug use will have absolutely ZERO affect on the outcome of the comp. The only thing that will affect the results achieved by each participant is the effort he put into his training.

The truth of the matter is I could teach an 8th grader how to beat these useless drug tests. For everyone else, the BALCO incident showed exactly how it is done. First, no piss test can detected rDNA hGH use. Not a single one. So growth hormone use is an automatic. What will that give you as an endurance athlete? Well, nothing but trouble, actually, if you dramatically exceed normal human physiological levels. The reason is because hGH will affect other endogenous hormones through a permissive effect which will increase BMR, HR, resting energy expenditure, (that means O2 consumption), among other things. So the trick is to avoid what the strength athletes/bodybuilders are doing with hGH and pretty much keep your IGF-1 (Somatomedin-C) levels where they were when you were ~18 years old. Use a little insulin (not tested for) and that will alleviate some of the stress on your pancreas and also amplify the shuttling effect of nutrients into one's musculature, further promoting a slight protein synthesis effect, thus enhancing recoverability. HGH also affects circulating levels of epinephrine and nor-epinephrine and that's both good and bad. The good part is it's easy to stay lean while using hGH and eating whatever you want. Remember how it was when you were 16-18? The bad thing WRT aerobic athletes is that epi and nor-epi cause systemic vasoconstriction, increased HR, increased REE, etc. basically every symptom of hyperthyroidism is present when E and NE levels in target tissue get out of control. So it's a fine line with hGH.

Testosterone - endogenous to every single person on this planet, so the test can't simply detect metobolites to determine exo use because every single person would test +. So it's a ratio of test/epi-test, blah blah. I'm sure everyone knows about this by now with the Landis situation. The problem with testosterone is that too much will also kill your aerobic capacity for the endurance athlete. Also, with the depot drugs, there's a very significant spike while blood levels peak and then there's a trailing off as the drug is leached from the depot and metabolized. And those spikes will get you nailed everytime. So injectibles are out for the drug tested athletes. That leaves transdermals and sublinguals. Transdermal is the best application for the aerobic athletes because the delivery protocol maintains stable blood levels better than any other application. This is what the "Cream" was in the BALCO case. Every single athlete passed every drug test every time. However, you won't find pl'ers/bb'ers/etc. using patches because that's just not enough drug to make any significant gains. You just can't duplicate injecting 1-2 grams/wk. of testosterone enanthate with a 25mg patch, LOL! And that's why Landis tested out at 11:1 instead of like 100:1 like the strength athletes would. Plus, no bike racer would want to shoot 250mg of TE 3x/week because of the adverse side effects on his performance. Contrary to what the media is trying to lead everyone to believe, these drugs will NOT enhance performance for the vast majority of athletes. I've been on high doses of testosterone for six years straight and it does nothing but kill my biking performance. The doses that guys are using in the Tour are for all practical purposes identical to TRT (testosterone replacement therapy) doses. And herein lies my most significant problem with these drug testing maniacs. In my opinion, these athletes are human beings FIRST, and pro athletes SECOND. They have to live a life and their quality of life, just as yours and mine, is determined in large part by the hormone levels present in their bodies. Anyone who does not believe me, just pick up some of the books written by board-certified medical doctors on the subject of HRT (with hGH) and TRT (with testosterone). These hormones are absolutely crucial in determining overall quality of life in both men AND women. So by preventing these athletes from using pharmaceuticals that will enhance overall quality of life in the name of fairness in sports (right, as if competition has ever been fair since Eastern Bloc countries synthesized testosterone in the 1950's), they are being denied basic HUMAN rights IMO.

Synthetic androgens/anabolics - these are steroids that are derived from the basic structure of testosterone. The tests look for metabolites of known synthetic drugs. The problem here is that all someone needs to do is create a synthetic that leaves a metabolic signature that is ONE ATOM different from a known agent, and the test will fail to detect its use. So that means you hire a chemist to invent a new anabolic/androgen that is unknown and you will never fail a drug test EVER. That's exactly what Patrick Arnold's job was at BALCO. Arnold, to my knowledge, was the first to synthesize the various "Andro" products, so he knew enough to get the job done. This is what THG represented at BALCO. Again, no one failed the drug tests ever and to this day, no one would know about THG if track coach Trevor Graham hadn't sent in a syringe filled with THG to the testers. In the end, he sabotaged his own athletes. If that was the end of the story, then fine and dandy. However, there is still an entire pharmaceutical subculture especially in the former Soviet Bloc countries and these people are not so stupid as to disclose their synthesized hormones. What I'm saying is that the doping structure that was established under Communist rule in these countries (recall that international dominance in sport was used by the "state" as a patriotic rallying effort in its constituency) still exists to this day. So it should be completely obvious how drug testing creates an unlevel playing field in the area of synthetic androgens/anabolics because if you've got the $$$, you just hire someone to create a designer steroid that will remain undetectable forever under current testing protocol. If you don't have the bucks, then you've got to resort to using fast acting orals like Primobolan Acetate, Anavar, Dbol, etc. and hope you don't get tested until they clear because those drugs have been around for 50 years and every test can detect their metabolites.

Speaking of Dianabol, 99.99999% of people will never know that the U.S. federal government actually subsidized the creation of anabolic steroids. When U.S. athletes got smoked in one of the Oly games in the 1950's, the federal govt. contacted Ciba labs, specifically Dr. John Ziegler, and commissioned these scientists with the task of finding out what had happened. When a former Eastern Bloc athlete defected to the U.S., Ziegler's team discovered the athlete had an enlarged prostate - benign prostate hypertrophy (BPH) is generally caused by excessive estrogen levels - so they knew the guy was using exogenous T. For those that don't know, testosterone is aromatized into estro via the aromatase enzyme because some estrogen is necessary for baseline endocrine functions even in men. Take a bunch of T, and your estro levels will increase correspondingly unless you take aromatase inhibitors like Arimidex, Femara, etc.

Ziegler was told to "level the playing field" by the federal govt. which he did when he created Dianabol (methandrostenolone). To this day, Dbol is mg. for mg. the most potent anabolic steroid ever created. Looking back, I'm absolutely floored that the guy got it right on his very first try. Simply amazing. And thus created the escalation of drug use in competitive sport. So I find it extremely ludicrous that the same government that is actually the most responsible entity for the creation of AAS is the same government that is wasting my tax dollars trying to implicate a bunch of athletes simply trying to remain competitive as they age instead of fixing the impending social security/medicare disaster, illegal immigration, and the completely screwed up healthcare system. What a total joke.

Of course drugs like Dbol would kill a biker's performance, so they really have no place in the pelaton. So when the OP asked about "roids" that really is not the right subject matter. The key to enhancing performance on the bike is with RBC's (red blood cells). And that's where EPO comes in. I remember when I was riding back in ~1991 when the Dutch and Belgium teams lost about half of their guys on a training ride. EPO had just been developed and there were rumors, but there was no drug test until just a few years ago. So nothing came about from it. Obviously and unfortunately for those riders, someone really messed up and that was the result. That is something that could never happen with anabolic steroid use or HGH use. In that respect asprin is much more dangerous than AAS.

Fast forward 15 years, and you have doctors like the one in Spain who figured out the optimal mix of all these drugs - namely test, hGH, insulin, IGF-1, and blood doping. And that really is the magic blend for the Tour riders, and that's why riders flocked to the guy. He likely possesed more clinical knowledge than their team docs did. But like I said earlier, they're simply not going to gain the performance enhancement benefits with the testosterone, hGH, insulin, or IGF-1. Those drugs are used simply to speed the rate of recovery and protein synthesis to some degree. And in that respect, there really is very little difference between your 50 year old dad going to an anti-aging clinic and getting test and hGH prescribed and what these guys are taking. It's basically the exact, same concept. They're trying to limit the effects of aging and remain competitive well into their 30's because they can't use the same drugs or the doses that the bursty, ATP athletes use because it would kill their performance. The only big performance enhancing drug used by these guys was EPO, now back to good ol' fashioned blood doping since that remains undectable because it's your own blood, assuming you stock your own reserves and reinject for comp.

That takes me back to drug testing. It's clear to anyone with half a brain that drug testing does not work. And of course, you have those people that counter, well if it didn't work, no one would fail. And to that I say, the only people who fail drug tests are people who aree sloppy, take unnecessary risks, or don't have the financial resources to hook up with people who can help them beat the tests. And this is exactly how the drug testing system has created an inherently unlevel playing field because "drug tested" does not equate "drugfree" contrary to what the drug testing lunatics want you to believe. I will also say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to remain competitive on the international level in most sports today without using pharmaceutical products. Simply not possible, I don't care how good your genetics are, particularly as you get older. What are my qualifications for saying this? A couple years ago, I was #2 in powerlifting in the U.S. and top 5 in the world. It is impossible for 99.9999999% of the world's populace to recover from the training necessary to achieve that level of success without pharmaceutical help. The human body simply does not possess the raw capacity to do that without drugs. Yet, the viewing public always clamors for more impressive feats of strength and endurance, expecting these athletes to just produce practically in-human results. The fact of the matter is that if all of the drugs used in sports would suddenly disappear off the face of the Earth one day, the level of performance routinely achieved today in some sports would fall to that of somewhere between high school and collegiate levels. Now, whether John Q. Public wants to hear that is irrelevant to the fact of the matter. The viewing public has become so desensitized to truly incredible human feats in sport after viewing countless performances enabled under the influence of drugs that the vast majority of sports would literally become unwatchable to all but the most die-hard fans (read "amatuer participants").

And this is why I always take the position of letting these guys use whatever they want. Keeping everything out in the open is the safest thing to do anyway. And tragedies like what happened on that training ride 16 years ago would never happen because the experts with the experience of creating doping programs would be openly consulted. The only drug test that I do emphatically support is the hematocrit blood test, and that's just common sense for everyone's safety. Set a hard limit - 56, 58, 60, whatever - and anyone who tests above that threshold is prevented from competing until their level drops beneath the cutoff. Beyond that, use whatever you want. Drugs have been in sports for 50 years. The genie was let out of the bottle a long time ago and there is no putting her back in. It's an exercise in complete futility to believe anything else. And when gene doping goes mainstream, guys like Dick Pound will be permanently out of job.

Amazing post,

how little we know,

still the one thing that is obvious is that the athletic organizations and sponsoring institutions are more corrupt than the athletes. But this is no surprise as polititians and businessmen are generally as corrupt or worse than athletes.

This makes me fear for Landis because even if he was doping his test results should never have been called a positive test. But the testing agencies have so much at stake for thier credibility so they can represent to the people at large that athletes are clean.

And since endurance athletes are only using the drugs to help them recover and beat aging one has to admit that cycling has not the black name that everyone thinks it has since many other sports use the drugs to enhance the performance instead of just survivng the ordeal.

This makes me fear for Landis because even if he was doping his test results should never have been called a positive test. But the testing agencies have so much at stake for thier credibility so they can represent to the people at large that athletes are clean.
Actually, that is not correct. Landis' T:E ratio came in at 11:1. Recall that idiot Dick Pound's WADA reduced T:E + ratio from 6:1 to 4:1 what, a year or two ago? 6:1 dates back long before my time; some conjecture that the jacked up Eastern Euro's influenced that decision because you will hear the biochemists claim that under baseline conditions, T:E should equal 1:1. So there was definitely some wiggle room in there for decades. I can only assume that WADA has tried to squeeze the transdermal users and catch more use both out of comp and in comp by reducing that ratio even further. HOWEVER, I have read statements from board-certified U.S. domiciled doc's claiming that even 6:1 can exist at least temporarily in non-using athletes. So, in my mind, if there's at least one person out of a million that could test false positive, that's enough to throw out the entire testing protocol and come up with a different ratio. The fact that Pound has REDUCED the ratio even in light of such public statements from physicians having nothing at stake either way indicates his "to hell with the athletes" attitude to me. He's a lawyer after all, what do you expect? Also, I have a serious problem with his passing judgement before the results from the B sample were released. He actually made condemning statements immediately after the A was released, maybe even before. That's pathetic because it violates the very policy established by that agency to protect the athletes. Plain and simple, he's corrupt. Since he's running WADA, that makes WADA corrupt in my mind. I'm not saying the indy testing facilities are bogus, although that may very well be the case with the morons in France...

So 11:1 is definitely not acceptable according to today's screen. So someone in Landis' camp screwed up, plain and simple as that. Something happened to his Epi level that no one was expecting. I don't possess enough physiological expertise to even begin to postulate a reason on that topic. A mistake was made and now you see the results. Landis did the only thing he could which forced the hand of the testers to dig even deeper and evaluate the nature of the structure of the tesosterone using more expensive means. As soon as it came back reflecting synthetic, then the gig was up. So even though his T may have been within human physiologic range, the source of that testosterone was exogenous, not endogenous. That was the KO punch right there. So even though he was not running supraphysiological doses of T, he's crucified for trying to bring his T levels up to "normal" human levels, making sure not to exceed the 4:1 ratio. Now anyone who would not do this is just stupid. I don't care if T is banned. Anyone with any sense at all is going to say, "4:1 is the cutoff, fine, let's titrate this transdermal T so that we can get my T levels as high as possible without exceeding that limit." That is just common sense.

Trust me, 4:1 is not going to do anything for you all things considered. Sure, you'll get a bit of a kick in the protein synthesis dept, better hard-ons, a little kick in energy, but nothing SIGNIFICANT. The difference between the dose that will yield that ratio under normal circumstances compared to shooting 2-5 GRAMS of T/week is laughable. There's just no comparison. No one who has ever taken thousands of mg's/wk of T is going to even bother with it - it's just a complete waste of time. Once you've done it to yourself, you'll know what I'm talking about. Take a look at what the bodybuilders/fitness guys think of Andriol. This is the pharmaceutical equivalent to this discussion. Compare Andriol to the injectables and you'll begin to see my point. It's a nifty little 40mg cap from Organon, but compare it 250mg of depot T and it's a joke - bioavailability, potency, duration, etc. Give it to your wives so you get laid more often. But again, those kind of doses would KILL your biking performance because of the physiological side effects that would be triggered. So no one is going to do that anyway.

One of the reasons that the tested guys do bother with the transdermal stuff, however, is that with the synthetic androgens/anabolics (designers that are undetectable like THG used to be for the tested athletes), those drugs bind to the androgen receptor which inhibits the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis through negative feedback resulting in decreased endogenous T levels. So to counteract that condition, you supplement with exogenous T. It maintains quality of life - no one wants Deca dick, lol - and essentially replaces what is lost when your endocrine system shuts off your balls.

Actually, that is not correct. Landis' T:E ratio came in at 11:1. Recall that idiot Dick Pound's WADA reduced T:E + ratio from 6:1 to 4:1 what, a year or two ago? 6:1 dates back long before my time; some conjecture that the jacked up Eastern Euro's influenced that decision because you will hear the biochemists claim that under baseline conditions, T:E should equal 1:1. So there was definitely some wiggle room in there for decades. I can only assume that WADA has tried to squeeze the transdermal users and catch more use both out of comp and in comp by reducing that ratio even further. HOWEVER, I have read statements from board-certified U.S. domiciled doc's claiming that even 6:1 can exist at least temporarily in non-using athletes. So, in my mind, if there's at least one person out of a million that could test false positive, that's enough to throw out the entire testing protocol and come up with a different ratio. The fact that Pound has REDUCED the ratio even in light of such public statements from physicians having nothing at stake either way indicates his "to hell with the athletes" attitude to me. He's a lawyer after all, what do you expect? Also, I have a serious problem with his passing judgement before the results from the B sample were released. He actually made condemning statements immediately after the A was released, maybe even before. That's pathetic because it violates the very policy established by that agency to protect the athletes. Plain and simple, he's corrupt. Since he's running WADA, that makes WADA corrupt in my mind. I'm not saying the indy testing facilities are bogus, although that may very well be the case with the morons in France...

So 11:1 is definitely not acceptable according to today's screen. So someone in Landis' camp screwed up, plain and simple as that. Something happened to his Epi level that no one was expecting. I don't possess enough physiological expertise to even begin to postulate a reason on that topic. A mistake was made and now you see the results. Landis did the only thing he could which forced the hand of the testers to dig even deeper and evaluate the nature of the structure of the tesosterone using more expensive means. As soon as it came back reflecting synthetic, then the gig was up. So even though his T may have been within human physiologic range, the source of that testosterone was exogenous, not endogenous. That was the KO punch right there. So even though he was not running supraphysiological doses of T, he's crucified for trying to bring his T levels up to "normal" human levels, making sure not to exceed the 4:1 ratio. Now anyone who would not do this is just stupid. I don't care if T is banned. Anyone with any sense at all is going to say, "4:1 is the cutoff, fine, let's titrate this transdermal T so that we can get my T levels as high as possible without exceeding that limit." That is just common sense.

Trust me, 4:1 is not going to do anything for you all things considered. Sure, you'll get a bit of a kick in the protein synthesis dept, better hard-ons, a little kick in energy, but nothing SIGNIFICANT. The difference between the dose that will yield that ratio under normal circumstances compared to shooting 2-5 GRAMS of T/week is laughable. There's just no comparison. No one who has ever taken thousands of mg's/wk of T is going to even bother with it - it's just a complete waste of time. Once you've done it to yourself, you'll know what I'm talking about. Take a look at what the bodybuilders/fitness guys think of Andriol. This is the pharmaceutical equivalent to this discussion. Compare Andriol to the injectables and you'll begin to see my point. It's a nifty little 40mg cap from Organon, but compare it 250mg of depot T and it's a joke - bioavailability, potency, duration, etc. Give it to your wives so you get laid more often. But again, those kind of doses would KILL your biking performance because of the physiological side effects that would be triggered. So no one is going to do that anyway.

One of the reasons that the tested guys do bother with the transdermal stuff, however, is that with the synthetic androgens/anabolics (designers that are undetectable like THG used to be for the tested athletes), those drugs bind to the androgen receptor which inhibits the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis through negative feedback resulting in decreased endogenous T levels. So to counteract that condition, you supplement with exogenous T. It maintains quality of life - no one wants Deca dick, lol - and essentially replaces what is lost when your endocrine system shuts off your balls.


The problem is not the 11:1 ratio but the test as a whole. IF you go thru the presentation which shows the actual test results and judge them according to WADA standards the testing was faulty. So in all likelihood the ratio was not 11:1 at all but the test sample was contaminated. The testing procedure did not fall within the standard of error considered acceptable by WADA standards. Therefore, it should have been thrown out. Instead it was used to destroy someones character.

In fact the actual test data point to the fact that the test sample was accidentally contaminated by the technician. Also, the labs test equipment was out of calibration and the tolerance of the machine at the level it was referenced was greater than the difference suggested by the 11:1 ratio.

This is why they want to retest the sample. The only problem is that evidence points to the fact that the lab does not care enough to do a well documented accurate test or admit error on there part at the present time.

yeah, agreed 100%. I have not followed the situation as closely as most of you guys have because it's mostly been a fringe interest of mine - my wife is racing again so I'm trying to support her to the fullest of my capabilities, so that has rekindled the biking bug in me a bit. And since the Tour is the culmination of the efforts of the world's best each year, we're usually glued to the set like everyone else.

Anyway, yeah, if you're talking about that French lab, forget it. That entire society is corrupt, so I don't believe anything coming out of that country. They're all a bunch of idiots. When I mentioned the independent labs, I was talking about the one(s) in the United States.

This kinda reminds of the Ben Johnson fiasco 20 years ago. He was popped for stanozolol (Winstrol) but I believe his track coach when he said Ben wouldn't use it during competition so the test sample must have been contaminated. Now I'm sure he used it in the past because from what I remember seeing on the TV as a kid, we were all floored when the guy peeled off his warmups. He was shredded. And that's what Winny will do for you. But the cost is that it inhibits collagen synthesis and dries out your joints as well. So over time, your connective tissue gets screwed up (brittle) and is subject to rupture. There's just no way an experienced athlete is going to risk blowing a hamstring at the peak of his career or compete with painful knees just to come in hard as nails. Plus, anyone with the kind of assets he had at his disposal is going to know how long it's going to take for these drugs to clear, so he just would not have made that mistake. Personally, I think someone was out to get him because everyone knew he was using (just look at the difference in muscularity between Ben and Carl Lewis - wasn't even close) but couldn't prove it. Humorous fact - Dick Pound was his advocate as the Canadian athlete representative, LOL!

The problem is not the 11:1 ratio but the test as a whole. IF you go thru the presentation which shows the actual test results and judge them according to WADA standards the testing was faulty. So in all likelihood the ratio was not 11:1 at all but the test sample was contaminated. The testing procedure did not fall within the standard of error considered acceptable by WADA standards. Therefore, it should have been thrown out. Instead it was used to destroy someones character.


That some "trivial" protocols were breached during the presentation doesn't imply the test sample was contaminated.

yes, they are all using. And there's really no reason not to use. I'm sure I'll catch a ton of flack here but I am the largest proponent of banning drug testing in sports that you'll ever meet. Why? Because it's the only way to create a perfectly level playing field. There are several sports that do not drug test or follow dickhead Dick Pound's WADA protocol - the guy is just pissed that he got smoked in one of the 60's Oly games and probably attributes his loss to competing against jacked up athletes. In nontested sports (like strongman and certain powerlifting feds), you will never NOT ONCE hear any complaints about drugs in competition because everyone is using and everyone knows it. When the results are posted, drug use will have absolutely ZERO affect on the outcome of the comp. The only thing that will affect the results achieved by each participant is the effort he put into his training.[/size]
the guy on npr argued this a few years ago. level the playing field and find out the true limits of the human being/ athlete.

^^^that makes for interesting rhetoric but the fact of the matter is that not much would change because athletic performance for the past 50 years has been influenced by drugs irrespective of the drug tests. Yeah, the guys might get a bit of a kick using the banned stims, but really not much would change. This kinda reminds me of the no drug testing policy hype surrounding the XFL several years ago. When all was said and done, there really weren't any differences in physiques between those guys and the NFL guys. You did not see teams comprised of pro bodybuilders. If anything, their performance was lackluster relative to the NFL. That says a couple of things. First, everyone in the NFL is using because the majority of those physiques are simply unattainable without drugs. Second, these drugs won't turn a second rate player into an all star. Simply isn't possible. Third, you cannot perfom competitively in most sports jacked out of your brain because of the adverse physiological side effects. When I am seriously loaded, I'm out of breath just bending over to tie my shoes. Then I go out and try to keep up with my wife on the bike. When she puts the hammer down, I'm dieing. I'm sure having a resting HR of ~100BPM doesn't help, LOL.

When you get right down to it, the list of guys who can get away with being seriously jacked is limited to pretty much the bodybuilders, powerlifters, and strongman/Highland games/etc. - to some degree because you have to do well in the timed events. That's really about it. Everyone else can get away with using during the off season because the adverse side effects will disappear after discontinuing the drugs. They benefit by leaning out and building some LBM that can later be conditioned to enhance performance. And it's going to stay this way until science works the kinks out of genetic engineering.

Of course, EPO/blood doping is another story but the application of that drug is self-limiting by its very nature. IOW, you take it too far, and you die.

That some "trivial" protocols were breached during the presentation doesn't imply the test sample was contaminated.

True but some of the protocols breached were not trivial but capable of completely throwing off the test result.

I just think that based on what has been stated that endurance athletes are really only doping to aid in thier recovery rather than to enhance performance. This to me is not the same thing as taking something that directly enhances performance. After all, most racing sports allow pit stops for recovery or to repair broken machines. IS not the human body a machine. If the competition is so demanding that athletes cannot fully recover for the next days performance then in seems unethical to disallow drugs that are used for recovery purposes.

They should stop testing endurance athletes for testosterone period and concentrate on drugs which actually enhance performance in an endurance event such as EPO or anything that raises red blood cell count above an abnormal level.

seriously, are all of the riders on the TdF on 'roids? here's the deal: just be straight up. what do you think... yes or no? for arguments' sake, i believe they are. i wanted Floyd to be innocent, but every time he opens his mouth, he just seems more and more guilty. also, all of those guys' bodies look exactly the same. and if some of them get busted for doping, how do you explain the rest of the 'non-dopers' physiques?

First off, Tom Boonen and Magnus Backstedt have physiques that are nothing like Dennis Rasmussen or Paolo Bettini. You wouldn't mistake Matt White or Alexander Vinokourov for Ivan Basso or Alberto Contador.

Secondly, when I was in my early 20's I had a physique that very much resembled that of a pro cyclist - 5' 9", 125 lbs and disproportionately muscular in my thighs. I was very active - running and some cycling, and that without using performance enhancing drugs. Nearly all the pro riders are far more dedicated to their training than I ever was, so I have no difficulty accepting that they come by their physiques naturally.

In principle, I wholeheartedly concur with Dick Pound when he states that we need to try to ensure that competitive sports need to have an environment where our children do not feel they have to use performance enhancing drugs in order to have a chance to compete. Unfortunately, he is dogmatic to the point where he is willing to overlook his own organization's rules in order to gain publicity for his crusade. It doesn't help that cycling has such a patchwork of organizations that each have their own agendas, and that amidst all the wrangling that goes on, very political sets of rules and agreements get made - in some cases to the exclusion of other rules, scientific facts and common sense.

If nothing else, Floyd's case highlights virtually every conceiveable problem that exists - from the athlete's perspective, to the teams' to the UCI's to WADA's and USADA's as well. Very, very sad.

^^^I agree with everything you say. As a father of three, I intend to do everything in my power to dissuade my children from using this stuff. Adolescents have absolutely no business whatsoever using these drugs. Period. Unfortunately, Dick Pound's competitive sport panacea does not exist and will never exist using today's technology. So by continuing down this path of complete futility, all that is accomplished is the fact that these drug testing nuts are drawing more attention to drugs in sports than if they just shut up and ignored athletic use.

As a kid, I had absolutely no idea that the MLB players that I idolized were more than likely meth junkies (in effect). Had it not been for all of the stupid drugs-in-baseball hearings, I probably would never have known that. Sometimes blissful ignorance is best for everyone. I think this is probably one of those instances.

...I have not followed the situation as closely as most of you guys have because it's mostly been a fringe interest of mine ...

Anyway, yeah, if you're talking about that French lab, forget it. That entire society is corrupt, so I don't believe anything coming out of that country. They're all a bunch of idiots. When I mentioned the independent labs, I was talking about the one(s) in the United States....


God bless America !

Goldenear,
Very impressive and informative posts, thanks for sharing the info-

I'm not going to sit here and say i KNOW that 100% of the peleton is doping. But, I am on the U.S. ski team for alpine racing and i have seen the doping that occurs in my sport. I personally am guilty of using small amounts of hgh ENCOURAGED by my team trainer two summers ago. In a world cup ski race 60 guys go out of the start gate. i can guarantee you all with all my heart that 45 of them have doped in the past 16 months. i am on the inside of this sport and see how much it happens. in a sport where it makes more of a difference like cycling, or any endurance or pure strength sport. i have not a doubt in the world atleast 95% of everyone who starts the tour is guilty of doping. you would be surprised at the massive amount of drugs need to be in your system to test positive. with proper cycling (of drug intake) and smart trainers, an athlete can basicly get away with doping of conseco/mcgwire like standards. its sad that the WADA cant just test everyone weekly but there is simply not the funds to do so. until the WADA gets as much money as microsoft there will always be dopers in all sports.

I would say 60% are doping. The ones that are clean are the low level support riders and maybe some specialists. But I think all the contenders are doping. Just one man's uninformed opinion.

i have not a doubt in the world atleast 95% of everyone who starts the tour is guilty of doping. you would be surprised at the massive amount of drugs need to be in your system to test positive. with proper cycling (of drug intake) and smart trainers, an athlete can basicly get away with doping of conseco/mcgwire like standards. its sad that the WADA cant just test everyone weekly but there is simply not the funds to do so. until the WADA gets as much money as microsoft there will always be dopers in all sports.

This is eactly why the USADA will not drop or be fair in the Landis case because they need a way to show congress that they need more funding.

you would be surprised at the massive amount of drugs need to be in your system to test positive. with proper cycling (of drug intake) and smart trainers, an athlete can basicly get away with doping of conseco/mcgwire like standards.
Sorry, but that is completely wrong. Feel free to try it for yourself if you'd like. First of all, I don't know what you'd consider "massive amounts" to be, but to me, that equals several grams of androgens/anabolics injected per week. This is the norm for bodybuilding & powerlifting. The most commonly used testosterone injectable is testosterone enanthate with cypionate closely following behind. One cc of test enanthate is generally 250mg, while one cc of test cypionate is typically 200mg. Of course the homebrewers can create whatever concentration they want, usually with an upper limit somewhere around 300-350mg/cc. Anything higher, and you have to use too much alcohol to keep everything suspended in oil, which causes brutally painful injections.

Anyway, if you shoot 250mg of depot test (a very minimal amount IMO) and are tested soon thereafter, you will fail. The spikes due to the rapid onset will get you nailed every time and that's why transdermal is a safer application method. Of course, with the synthetic androgens/anabolics, the test looks merely for the presence of metabolites. So if the drug has not yet cleared, then you're going to get popped. Then you have problematic drugs like nandrolone that even though the depot may have been fully released and metabolized, metabolites have been reported to be present in adipose tissue and excreted up to 18 months after withdrawal of the drug.

And cycling no longer works because of the likelihood of out of comp testing of the best guys. So you're still better served with a bit of transdermal T, a bunch of hGH, insulin, and IGF-1, and a designer anabolic that no one knows about (like THG once was).

seriously, are all of the riders on the TdF on 'roids? here's the deal: just be straight up. what do you think... yes or no? for arguments' sake, i believe they are. i wanted Floyd to be innocent, but every time he opens his mouth, he just seems more and more guilty. also, all of those guys' bodies look exactly the same. and if some of them get busted for doping, how do you explain the rest of the 'non-dopers' physiques?

i think they all use something illegal at some point. why would a person not willing to dope be attracted to the sport?

i mean it may be something as simple as caffeine or a testosterone patch but i think they all cheat and most would full on dope given the opportunity.

ed rader

No, best doctor wins.

the best riders have access to the best doctors.

ed rader

I would say 60% are doping. The ones that are clean are the low level support riders and maybe some specialists. But I think all the contenders are doping. Just one man's uninformed opinion.

but don't you think even the low level guys use something at some point?

ed rader

The only people that say that ALL TDF riders are on drugs are the ones who tacitly advocate drug usage to level the playing field. A great many of the riders, Armstrong, Ulrigh, Basso, etc. have used EPO, but not all the riders do. The good ones, like Lance, just cheat and get away with it.