Dopers have had access to undetectable drugs in the past. We saw that with BALCO, where the only way authorities found out about "the clear" and "the cream" was from an insider giving samples to USADA.

We have also seen at least one turnaround: Roche collaborated with WADA on a test for CERA, and popped a few riders with it.

One thing about the biological passport is -- if performed properly -- it doesn't rely on finding an undetectable drug. It tries to pick up on physiological markers of doping that can't be explained naturally. E.g. if you see a rider's hematocrit going up during a Grand Tour, or that's a big red flag.

Or, think of it this way: To evade a well-executed bio passport, you'd have to dope so subtly that it would barely alter your performance.


I have my doubts. AFAIK gene doping/therapy has a lot of promise, but has a loooong way to go before it goes beyond "promise."

Armstrong's generation also had a lot more latitude. They doped with impunity for the better part of a decade, just by microdosing and refusing to answer the door. EPO wasn't detectable at all for many years, HGH (afaik) still isn't detectable.

And again: Whatever Sky can get, anyone else in the pro peloton can get. Thus you really can't point the finger at Froome and Porte and say "they rode well, therefore they're the only ones who doped!"