Professional Cycling For the Fans - Turning the corner on doping in the UCI

McQuaid says they've turned the corner (http://www.velonews.com/article/97080/mcquaid-no-doping-positives-at--09-tour).

I think he has a point. You may differ.

Discuss.

i think there's another thread

i think there's another thread

F the other thread. This is the authentic Pcad® Turned the Corner on Doping thread.

There may be a lag between the new testing regime and the tricks around the tests. For every testing regime there will be someone who figures out a way around the rules.

Turned the corner, no. Temporary roadblock, yes.

Meanwhile, in the NFL, they're still trying to figure out how to situate the big stadium video screens so the punters don't hit it.

Idiots. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/sports/football/25fast.html?em)

Maybe management is on steroids, which might explain such staggering stupidity.

F the other thread. This is the authentic Pcad® Turned the Corner on Doping thread.

this is why i didn't post a link to the other thread disguised by a witty comment.

they haven't started testing for synvisc yet.

they haven't started testing for synvisc yet.

We'll all fail Creaky.

No positive results (yet) from the Tour means no one was doping during the Tour? Yeah right. A lack of scandal is great, but past experience makes it pretty clear that a lack of positives only mean that no one was caught. That's not really turning the corner.

"It's looking like the Tour de France will not have any positive tests for a number of years."
.....
.......
.....
and then Lance will retire,........again.

Pcad, Does this not start to feel like a record skip? Iwish,...I really, really do,........that I could believe that the UCI and ASO aren't currently involved in compromise solutions that do as much to turn a blind eye, as they do, actually clean the sport up. I just find it very hard to believe that for three years running the entire pro peleton, including the tour, is hounded by constant positive tests, then,........suddenly, "it's cleaned up".

Meanwhile, in the NFL, they're still trying to figure out how to situate the big stadium video screens so the punters don't hit it.

Idiots. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/sports/football/25fast.html?em)

Maybe management is on steroids, which might explain such staggering stupidity.

I hadn't seen that particular issue with the new stadium, but it is really hilarious. But Jerry Jones on steroids could explain many of his stupid decisions like his penchant for facelifts.

They're all doping...just look at the historical performance results and their improvement. And please dont tell me crap about nutrition. Simple case in point, the all-time best results on Alpe d'Huez:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Alpe_d%27Huez

See who's at the very bottom - LeMond and Hinault. You mean to tell me a guy like Pantani or Urlich were almost 10 minutes better than those two?

Same applies to track and field, and Mr. Bolt. I dont buy any of it and those that do, you are being naive.

When baseball records started falling with McGuire/Sosa/Bonds everyone was in complete denial about it. Same thing applies to todays world of Cycling and Track...

Doesnt mean I cant enjoy it. I do. Just the historical perspective is gone.

How did the speed on the flats and climbs compare to previous years when there were a lot of positives? If they were comparable then I would assume doping is still prevalent. The cyclists and their doctors will always be one step ahead of the testers with drugs that are undetectable. This is not just in cycling, but also track and field etc.

No positive results (yet) from the Tour means no one was doping during the Tour? Yeah right. A lack of scandal is great, but past experience makes it pretty clear that a lack of positives only mean that no one was caught. That's not really turning the corner.

I'm inclined to believe that there is something new that's being used. I find it very dubious that nobody tested positive. There were also very few positives at the track and field World Championships. Hard to believe that all participants have suddenly gotten clean.

See who's at the very bottom - LeMond and Hinault. You mean to tell me a guy like Pantani or Urlich were almost 10 minutes better than those two?

Same applies to track and field, and Mr. Bolt. I dont buy any of it and those that do, you are being naive.


Actually, you are being oblivious, considering that fact that F. Coppi rode the Alpe several minutes faster than Lemond in 1952 on a 20 lb + ancient bicycle. Bugno and Indurain were both sub-40 minutes as far back as 1991. What were those guys on? Coffee?

Which leads me to this question:

What will it take for you (and others) to actually believe testing that does not produce positive results.

Actually, you are being oblivious, considering that fact that F. Coppi rode the Alpe several minutes faster than Lemond in 1952 on a 20 lb + ancient bicycle. Bugno and Indurain were both sub-40 minutes as far back as 1991. What were those guys on? Coffee?


They were on UPPERS :thumb:

boniek1982 - your logic here is that

1) all people who rode in the 50s were clean,
2) all people who ride in the 90s and beyond are riding much faster than those in the 50s,
3) drugs make people ride faster

Therefore - all riders in the 90s and beyond are on drugs.

Sorry - but that is flawed logic. Even those who are not on drugs will demonstrate significant improvement in times/performance when compared to those in the 50s - technology is the largest reason. Better bikes, better and more specified training, and (most importantly in my opinion) better roads!

Backing this up with some all important anecdotal evidence - even those who cheated and then came back (mostly?) clean are able to perform at similar if not identical levels.

Drugs don't really make a difference on ONE day. They make a difference over MANY days.

Unless you are talking uppers! Read Joe Parkins book for some good stories of what a guy on uppers can do with a bike!!!

They're all doping...just look at the historical performance results and their improvement. And please dont tell me crap about nutrition. Simple case in point, the all-time best results on Alpe d'Huez:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Alpe_d%27Huez

See who's at the very bottom - LeMond and Hinault. You mean to tell me a guy like Pantani or Urlich were almost 10 minutes better than those two?

Same applies to track and field, and Mr. Bolt. I dont buy any of it and those that do, you are being naive.

When baseball records started falling with McGuire/Sosa/Bonds everyone was in complete denial about it. Same thing applies to todays world of Cycling and Track...

Doesnt mean I cant enjoy it. I do. Just the historical perspective is gone.

Are you saying drugs gave these guys a 10 minute advantage on a 40 minute climb? I'm not buying that at all. Did drugs possibly give them a few minutes? Sure I can buy that completely...Coppi in 1952 put almost 3 minutes on Lemond's and Hinault's fastest climb up the Alpe d'Huez. Luis Herrera put 6 minutes into them on that climb. Looks to me that they didn't climb it all that fast. Honestly, I think that the lighter bikes, paired with the training, and the team strategies of today have really helped this era of cyclist. Are drugs not helping them? I wouldnt' go that far but I don't think drugs are the only reason they are better.

I will share a theory of mine with this topic. TdF doping control seems to be more strict than other races. Evidence: Ricco got away with it at the Giro but got caught at the TdF. If so, then a clever rider would dope early in the season while training for the Giro. He'd kick ass at the Giro and then he'd stop taking the stuff and go to the Tour clean, with some modest performance enhancing benefits still with him.

It would explain why several riders (we know who they are) did so well at the Giro and/or at Dauphine, but just blew up at TdF.

They were on UPPERS :thumb:

boniek1982 - your logic here is that

1) all people who rode in the 50s were clean,
2) all people who ride in the 90s and beyond are riding much faster than those in the 50s,
3) drugs make people ride faster

Therefore - all riders in the 90s and beyond are on drugs.

Sorry - but that is flawed logic. Even those who are not on drugs will demonstrate significant improvement in times/performance when compared to those in the 50s - technology is the largest reason. Better bikes, better and more specified training, and (most importantly in my opinion) better roads!

Backing this up with some all important anecdotal evidence - even those who cheated and then came back (mostly?) clean are able to perform at similar if not identical levels.

Drugs don't really make a difference on ONE day. They make a difference over MANY days.

Unless you are talking uppers! Read Joe Parkins book for some good stories of what a guy on uppers can do with a bike!!!

I wasnt even looking at the 50s - I am sure they were on something else at that time. My point was that respected champions like LeMond and Hinault couldnt make it into the top 20. How do you explain that?

Does the EPO madness explain the 10 minute gap? Probably not entirely, because yes there are advances in tactics, equipment and training. But still its shocking to see such a discprenancy and so far NONE of you have been able to explain that.

Autologous blood doping. The testers acknowledge there is still no way for them to detect it. Does anyone think it doesn't happen any more just because Fuentes got busted?

Reminds me ....

I went to a doping symposium and a bicycle race broke out.


(apologies to fans of both hockey and the original joke)

Either people are not using drugs or they're using less drugs....both of those are steps in the right direction.

Actually, you are being oblivious, considering that fact that F. Coppi rode the Alpe several minutes faster than Lemond in 1952 on a 20 lb + ancient bicycle. Bugno and Indurain were both sub-40 minutes as far back as 1991. What were those guys on? Coffee?

Actually they were on cigarettes. In time we will find out all about how smoking improves an athletes performance. You'll see, I just know it.

Autologous blood doping. The testers acknowledge there is still no way for them to detect it. Does anyone think it doesn't happen any more just because Fuentes got busted?

Yeah, but they can and do check hematocrit level. That severely limits the effectiveness of blood doping.

Yeah, but they can and do check hematocrit level. That severely limits the effectiveness of blood doping.

Same argument could be made for EPO et al. The hematocrit limit has been in place since the 90's. It didn't stop anyone from using CERA before they knew it was detectable, and it didn't stop the Op Puerto crew from blood doping. If the rats are to be believed, Fuentes was just one of many...

Concerning the differences in times on a course like L'Alp D'Huez...

Keep in mind that also the way the race is panning out can have a big influence on the end times for a particular stage. For example, how many attacks are occurring? Is the stage in a part of the race where a lot of race leaders are pushing hard or not? I can imagine that being a big factor in end times.

Not to mention the entire stage before the climb... is the climb occurring after 100 miles of riding? Were the leaders pushing out front that whole time or getting rest? Is it in the middle of the stage? All huge factors.

I hadn't seen that particular issue with the new stadium, but it is really hilarious. But Jerry Jones on steroids could explain many of his stupid decisions like his penchant for facelifts.

Im certainley no JJ fan but he built the stadium with specs signed off and approved by the NFL. Hes also one of the most winning owners in the history of the NFL...he could have been even more winning if he would stop trying to be a coach.

As for testing turning the corner on doping....nah...the dopers are just back ahead of the curve again...the testers will catch up soon enough to the latest and greatest and then their will be another whirlwind of positives.

I for the record could care less. Just ride fast and entertain me.

They were on UPPERS :thumb:

boniek1982 - your logic here is that

1) all people who rode in the 50s were clean,
2) all people who ride in the 90s and beyond are riding much faster than those in the 50s,
3) drugs make people ride faster

Therefore - all riders in the 90s and beyond are on drugs.


great post. and to boniek1982 i will use one sport were i dont think steroids has been used quite as much as other sports. look at 50s basketball...LOL, then look at it now.
now whether cyclist are on steroids or not, you dont think that nutrition, lighther parts, better components, better compounds, and a natural progression in human beings is not a factor? that would just be ignorance.

Actually, you are being oblivious, considering that fact that F. Coppi rode the Alpe several minutes faster than Lemond in 1952 on a 20 lb + ancient bicycle. Bugno and Indurain were both sub-40 minutes as far back as 1991. What were those guys on? Coffee?

EXACTLY.................Anyone who has ever played the ponies knows how useless final times are unless you account for all the variables which is really impossible to do. Greg Lemond or anyone else who really thinks they can accurately predict "final times" are missing their calling. They could be making millions at the racetrack instead of looking like whiners and witchhunters.

Just because there is a test for something doesn't mean a rider can't take that drug and beat the test. They have margins of error, especially with things like EPO (to prevent the supposedly common "false positive"). All they have to do is keep the dose low enough. Lab technicians have even been paid by dopers to find out how high of a dose they can get away with.


Yeah, but they can and do check hematocrit level. That severely limits the effectiveness of blood doping.

That doesn't even stop riders from going over 50%, let alone stop them from using it. Even so, late in a grand tour, a rider is supposed to have a lowered HCT... a boost from 40% to 50% could be huge in those circumstances.