# how 'clean' is pro cycling



## david k (1 Mar 2012)

there is sooooo much suspicion over pro cyclists doping and taking drugs, so quite simply, how 'clean' is pro cycling?


----------



## Hip Priest (1 Mar 2012)

Cleaner than it used to be, but you'll never fully eradicate cheating (in it's many forms) from professional sport.


----------



## Noodley (1 Mar 2012)

*sigh*


----------



## david k (1 Mar 2012)

Noodley said:


> *sigh*


 
why? been done before?


----------



## david k (1 Mar 2012)

Hip Priest said:


> Cleaner than it used to be, but you'll never fully eradicate cheating (in it's many forms) from professional sport.


 
i agree, is there a case for not trying?


----------



## david k (2 Mar 2012)

another question could be, where is the line?


----------



## raindog (2 Mar 2012)

How can we tell "how clean" it is? Impossible to know, even with all the testing going on. We just hope it's better now than it was.


----------



## david k (2 Mar 2012)

raindog said:


> How can we tell "how clean" it is? Impossible to know, even with all the testing going on. We just hope it's better now than it was.


 

good point, makes me think what is the point of testing then?

many who have not been tested positive dont condem those who have, thats interesting

if we cannot ensure it is clean, why not let everyone take drugs, at least then it is even for all


----------



## rich p (2 Mar 2012)

david k said:


> good point, makes me think what is the point of testing then?
> 
> many who have not been tested positive dont condem those who have, thats interesting
> 
> if we cannot ensure it is clean, why not let everyone take drugs, at least then it is even for all


 FFS!


----------



## Edwards80 (2 Mar 2012)

david k said:


> if we cannot ensure it is clean, why not let everyone take drugs, at least then it is even for all


 
Mainly because it costs people their lives.

It also won't make it even for all, drugs cost quite a lot of cash, the richest teams would have the best doctors/drugs.

We can't catch all criminals, I don't think giving up trying is a good plan.


----------



## david k (2 Mar 2012)

1748215 said:


> Because fit and healthy young men have died in their sleep, most probably because the used medication in the pursuit of glory and there is no need for it.


 
fair comment


----------



## david k (2 Mar 2012)

rich p said:


> FFS!


 
compelling argument


----------



## david k (2 Mar 2012)

Edwards80 said:


> Mainly because it costs people their lives.
> 
> It also won't make it even for all, drugs cost quite a lot of cash, the richest teams would have the best doctors/drugs.
> 
> We can't catch all criminals, I don't think giving up trying is a good plan.


 

i understand not allowing people to harm themselves but are all banned drugs dangerous? are all legal drugs without risk? do we have the balance of which are banned and which are legal right?

the subject is so complex i question where the line is and why. i think its too simplistic to say yes its banned because its bad for you


----------



## david k (2 Mar 2012)

1748505 said:


> It was succinct, direct and to the point. In fact it was just like actually talking to Rich.


 
doesnt answer anything though, so why post????????


----------



## david k (2 Mar 2012)

1748506 said:


> I have remembered an important point. EPO was not a level playing field drug. Some responded to it more than others.


 
ok, thats a valid argument against it being a level playing field


----------



## david k (2 Mar 2012)

david k said:


> ok, thats a valid argument against it being a level playing field


 
is training at altitude fair? as some live higher up than others they have an unfair advantage no?


----------



## Noodley (2 Mar 2012)

:troll:


----------



## Noodley (2 Mar 2012)

Those bastards with two legs and arms are the ones you gotta watch out for!


----------



## lukesdad (2 Mar 2012)

Noodley said:


> Those bastards with two legs and arms are the ones you gotta watch out for!


 Lucky Ive got forearms


----------



## Noodley (2 Mar 2012)

I blame the man who invented wheels...it was all going so well til then


----------



## Dave_1 (3 Mar 2012)

10 to 20 out of 200 is my guess..quite a lot but definitely a vast improvement on 1998 TDF-seemed like 80% were doped


----------



## raindog (3 Mar 2012)

but as you say, that's "your guess"


----------



## david k (3 Mar 2012)

i just feel that at time testing in sport is a bit of a charade as there are so many drugs, masking agents and techniques its hard to know who is taking something illegal to gain advantage. Some drugs are found in everyday over the counter cold remedies etc. We all take the same drugs yet sneer at the pros when they re tested for them, its so hard to know it what context it was taken

Im also not convinced that all banned drugs are harmful, not sure about cycling but some other sports ban creatine and caffiene etc. which i believe are naturally formed substances.

So my follow up question is where is the line? Not saying i know but i just dont believe its that simple to know. if sportsmen and women push to be at the top they will take supplements to get better results, seems reasonable to me, when does a supplement become cheating?


----------



## david k (3 Mar 2012)

Dave_1 said:


> 10 to 20 out of 200 is my guess..quite a lot but definitely a vast improvement on 1998 TDF-seemed like 80% were doped


 
we just dont know really do we, and with my previous post, what is cheating and what isnt?


----------



## just jim (3 Mar 2012)

david k said:


> is training at altitude fair? as some live higher up than others they have an unfair advantage no?


There is a case for those riders who live at high altitude to train at a lower altitude to make more level playing field, and vice-versa. The UCI should set a benchmark altitude. Nobody is going to say this, but everyone thinks it.


----------



## PpPete (3 Mar 2012)

if no one is saying it - how can you draw the conclusion that everyone thinks it ?


----------



## david k (3 Mar 2012)

just jim said:


> There is a case for those riders who live at high altitude to train at a lower altitude to make more level playing field, and vice-versa. The UCI should set a benchmark altitude. Nobody is going to say this, but everyone thinks it.


 
honestly??? i was being tongue in cheek!


----------



## just jim (3 Mar 2012)

david k said:


> honestly??? i was being tongue in cheek!


 me too.


----------



## oldroadman (8 Mar 2012)

david k said:


> i just feel that at time testing in sport is a bit of a charade as there are so many drugs, masking agents and techniques its hard to know who is taking something illegal to gain advantage. Some drugs are found in everyday over the counter cold remedies etc. We all take the same drugs yet sneer at the pros when they re tested for them, its so hard to know it what context it was taken
> 
> Im also not convinced that all banned drugs are harmful, not sure about cycling but some other sports ban creatine and caffiene etc. which i believe are naturally formed substances.
> 
> So my follow up question is where is the line? Not saying i know but i just dont believe its that simple to know. if sportsmen and women push to be at the top they will take supplements to get better results, seems reasonable to me, when does a supplement become cheating?


The line is simple - the WADA list. If it says banned on there, that's it. No further discussion needed. And to see if the peloton is cleaner, look at the state of riders finishing on a mountain topfinish, compared to a some years ago. Then they were all calm and reasonably OK, now they are mostly shredded, unless they have a win, when the adrenaline keeps you smiling for the last 50 metres!


----------



## Speedywheelsjeans (17 Mar 2012)

I would suspect sport is getting cleaner as a whole, not many cases seem to be brought into the public eye, athletes that are caught are shamed. Athletes train very hard these days and are paid a lot of money to do so, why risk your livelihood with cheating allegations. But then again I actually dont know, its all opinion based. We dont know about who has shares where, whos being paid to keep quiet, what masking drugs are being used.

Only the athletes can tell you how clean they are... and they arent going to are they?


----------



## Noodley (18 Mar 2012)

Speedywheelsjeans said:


> ...why risk your livelihood with cheating allegations.


 
Maybe ask this bloke who is maintaining his innocence:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mansilla-tests-positive-for-epo


----------



## Speedywheelsjeans (18 Mar 2012)

Noodley said:


> Maybe ask this bloke who is maintaining his innocence:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mansilla-tests-positive-for-epo


 
There will always be some people after that edge I guess.


----------



## User16625 (22 Mar 2012)

1748521 said:


> It's sleep at altitude train at sea level for the best result. That said some are born places where they will never receive sufficient nutrition for us to know how good they could have been at which point the advantage of having mountains to aid pales a little.


 

In the uk the highest point of land is 1344Ms above see level. That small bit of land is hardly big enough for a good bike ride, and its usually covered in ice or snow, and its usually very foggy, and its usually very windy. Most of all tho, there is no noticable difference in air quality between see level and 1344Ms. Its far better to work your balls off by varying your altitude as much as possible in a single ride.


----------



## dragon72 (22 Mar 2012)

I live at 2,500m and there is a heck of a difference.
I cycle 2.5km to work every day, uphill, 10% gradient most of the way. I've been doing it for a few months now and I'm still sucking in air like I'm dying at the top of the climb. I'd breathe heavily if that was at sea level, but not THAT heavily. 
I even get out of puff just going up a flight of stairs here, and I consider myself fit!


----------



## Noodley (23 Mar 2012)

The reasoning is sleep high, ride low...not sleep high, ride higher


----------



## Noodley (23 Mar 2012)

WADA indicating that cycling might be heading in the right direction?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-chief-praises-cycling-for-blood-testing


----------



## Keith Oates (24 Mar 2012)

It's good to see WADA giving the UCI some credit for a change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## david k (27 Mar 2012)

oldroadman said:


> The line is simple - the WADA list. If it says banned on there, that's it. No further discussion needed.


 
i know what they say is banned is therefore banned, i question how they arrive at he line


----------



## Noodley (5 Apr 2012)

Just spotted this link on yacf, mostly relating to how the blood passport system works and how EPO is used as a masking agent - and Dirty Bertie:
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2012/behind-scenes-contador-cas-hearing-michael-ashenden

Ashenden's view on Lausanne’s Athlete Passport Management Unit (APMU):
"...I find it unconscionable that an antidoping entity would seek to impose an omerta on us experts. Particularly where cycling is concerned, because we have struggled for years to break the rider’s omerta, and asked riders to speak out about their peers who are cheating the system. Yet Lausanne takes that omerta one step further and prevents its experts from speaking out not just via an unspoken code but also reinforced with a legal contract."


----------



## david k (6 Apr 2012)

any chance of a summary? i got confused lol!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## PaulB (17 Apr 2012)

A study performed at a top sports university in the US some years ago was guaranteed to be anonymous and it unearthed an interesting fact. The sportspeople were asked a simple question; if you knew of a drug that was completely undetectable and would make you win the ultimate prize in your sport (Olympic Gold Medal/MVP/World Record/World Cup Winner's medal etc) but it would be absolutely certain you would be dead within five years, would you take it?

More than 75% said yes!

This was a university composed of extremely motivated students who were there to take themselves to the peak of their sport so it's perhaps not so shocking to know how far they were prepared to go to get themselves to the pinnacle of their particular sport.


----------



## ColinJ (17 Apr 2012)

PaulB said:


> A study performed at a top sports university in the US some years ago was guaranteed to be anonymous and it unearthed an interesting fact. The sportspeople were asked a simple question; if you knew of a drug that was completely undetectable and would make you win the ultimate prize in your sport (Olympic Gold Medal/MVP/World Record/World Cup Winner's medal etc) but it would be absolutely certain you would be dead within five years, would you take it?
> 
> More than 75% said yes!
> 
> This was a university composed of extremely motivated students who were there to take themselves to the peak of their sport so it's perhaps not so shocking to know how far they were prepared to go to get themselves to the pinnacle of their particular sport.


I've quoted that study in the past. It shocked me when I first read about it. Not only that people are so obsessed with 'winning' that they are willing to die to achieve it, but also the fact that 3 out of 4 of them don't believe in those apparently old-fashioned concepts of honesty and sportsmanship! BTW - by my definition, you can't win if you cheat, even if everybody else is cheating, because winning is the feeling that you get when you know that you have beaten everyone fair and square, not having been the sneakiest!

I was highly motivated to get my degree and I worked very hard to achieve it, but I wouldn't have bribed somebody for a copy of my final year exam papers even if I thought I could have got away with it!


----------



## PaulB (17 Apr 2012)

ColinJ said:


> I've quoted that study in the past. It shocked me when I first read about it. Not only that people are so obsessed with 'winning' that they are willing to die to achieve it, but also the fact that 3 out of 4 of them don't believe in those apparently old-fashioned concepts of honesty and sportsmanship! BTW - by my definition, you can't win if you cheat, even if everybody else is cheating, because winning is the feeling that you get when you know that you have beaten everyone fair and square, not having been the sneakiest!
> 
> I was highly motivated to get my degree and I worked very hard to achieve it, but I wouldn't have bribed somebody for a copy of my final year exam papers even if I thought I could have got away with it!


 
I read about this study when I was at the peak of my running abilities. Like most of my team-mates and competitors, once I'd gone pretty much as far as I could and wasn't bringing times down even slightly, I used to wonder what I could do to obtain some sort of improvement. One thing a real rival of mine did caused him some grief from club-mates but it clearly had some effect. It sounds daft now as it involved a long-chain polymer, perfectly legal, but only obtained from Leppin, a company in a country we were boycotting, South Africa. It was a moral dilemma but he had shown a real improvement so I put those reservations aside and got some myself. Then came Creatine. There was such abhorrence over this amongst our purists that it was condemned but you have to be pragmatic and if things like adequate nutrition and diet are fully accepted why shouldn't Creatine be too? After that though, it was like the floodgates had opened and once we'd bought Leppin and Creatine, we were forever being offered more and more questionable and some outright illegal products. 

I can state without fear of contradiction that I never knowingly took any banned substance and though I was only tested four times, I was always clear. Some of my rivals though were not always clear! One guy showed a massive improvement in his performances and was always under suspicion and with good reason. He was targeted by the testers and found to have an abnormal level of EPO in his system. It wasn't actually on the banned list at that time but it was pointed out to him there had been a spike in the number of deaths of young cyclists in Holland and Belgium and EPO was strongly suspected. A few weeks later though, he was caught with an abnormal level of testosterone and when he was caught a second time, he was persona non grata and no-one will speak to him now. He moved to Hartlepool to get away from us and surely there can be no greater punishment that that?


----------



## oldroadman (18 Apr 2012)

What is shocking is the level of competitors who will do something illegal to boost "performance". It's one thing - and totally wrong - at top level, but when you see what could be termed club level (not even national) people in sport thinking about using substances that are clearly illegal and may even harm their future health, that's just plain crazy. I'm aware of a case where the person concerned was simply obsessive, and at a level of obsession that was bordering on clinical mental illness.


----------



## Crackle (18 Apr 2012)

Noodley said:


> Just spotted this link on yacf, mostly relating to how the blood passport system works and how EPO is used as a masking agent - and Dirty Bertie:
> http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2012/behind-scenes-contador-cas-hearing-michael-ashenden


 
That's a pretty impressive interview. Confirms what we all suspected.


----------



## Herzog (19 Apr 2012)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ricco-receives-12-year-ban

Will be a bit cleaner now...


----------



## raindog (19 Apr 2012)

Herzog said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ricco-receives-12-year-ban
> 
> Will be a bit cleaner now...


Good riddance - what a bloody muppet.


----------



## ohnovino (19 Apr 2012)

I'd love to know just how good a clean Riccò would have been. His performance in the 2008 TdF was breathtaking. Does that mean he was a talented rider who gained a small boost through doping, or can CERA turn a no-mark into a world-beater?


----------



## ColinJ (19 Apr 2012)

ohnovino said:


> I'd love to know just how good a clean Riccò would have been. His performance in the 2008 TdF was breathtaking. Does that mean he was a talented rider who gained a small boost through doping, or can CERA turn a no-mark into a world-beater?


If you read Laurent Fignon's autobiography, he described what it was like encountering riders who had previously never have been able to stay anywhere close to him in the mountains, just killing him on the climbs. That's when he knew it was time to retire.

Andy Hampsten was a top climber in the form of his life and out on a training ride when he was dropped by a group of so-so Italian pros who overtook him with their hands resting easily on the tops of the bars, and chatting nonchalantly.

Greg Lemond was a former World Champion and 3-time Tour de France winner and his career came to a sudden halt when he could no longer keep up with the peloton. At the time, it was blamed on lead poisoning from the pellets left in his body from his near-fatal hunting accident.

All this coincided with EPO's arrival in the peloton ...

If you were following pro cycling back then, it was very obvious that something really dodgy was going on.

Riccò, like Bjarne Riis before him, just took it to a stupid new level. I remember Riccò winning that stage with an ultra-steep climb at the finish, with top pros falling off their bikes or grovelling up and collapsing over the finish line, and he wasn't even out of breath - it was taking the piss, and I was shouting at the TV - "_You cheating little bastard!_" 

How about Claudio Chiapucci's epic 200km breakaway on the mountainous stage 13 of the 1992 TDF? There's good, there's great and there is just plain unbelievable!


----------



## raindog (20 Apr 2012)

photo gallery of a chubby cheeked Ricco receiving his new bike from Cipo
http://www.gazzetta.it/gallery/Ciclismo/02-2012/riccardo-ricco/variabili-81431026440.shtml#


----------



## pubrunner (20 Apr 2012)

PaulB said:


> I read about this study when I was at the peak of my running abilities. . . . . . . .
> 
> . . . . . . . I can state without fear of contradiction that I never knowingly took any banned substance and though* I was only tested four times*, I was always clear.


 
Whilst I've never competed at the same (very high) levels as yourself, I'm most surprised that you were even tested four times. I'm aware that track runners do get tested, but I thought that you are/were entirely a road runner ? Throughout my 30 years of running on road & fell, I've never heard of anyone being tested. Obviously, I competed at a (considerably) lower level than yourself, but several of my pals have competed for GB on the road and they've never ever mentioned being tested.

It is somehow ironic, that whilst cycling performances (legitimate, or otherwise) seem to be improving in this country; distance running (Men's) performances do not match those from between say 1960 - 1990. A friend of mine has done a 2:12 Marathon twice and won a marathon (Eindhoven) outright and run a sub 63:00 Half; but such were the standards, he 'only' ran for GB a handful of times. Today, he'd easily qualify for a national team. So far as running is concerned - in the UK, there just isn't the strength in depth that there was previously.

Paul's modesty has prevented him from mentioning it, but I can tell you that his marathon times (if achieved today) would see him *much* higher up the UK rankings, than at the time.

Perhaps the cycling gains in this country are largely to do with technological improvements ? ('better' drugs may also help  ). A customer in our pub did in the mid 50s for 25 miles (on singlespeed {fixed?}) back in the 50s; he eventually did 279.5 miles in 24 hours on a 'standard' 531 framed bike - with no aerodynamic aids - I wonder what he could have done on a current bike ? (He actually had to cycle to many events - on the bike on which he was competing).

It does seem odd, that whilst British Cycling (particularly on the track) is so successful, for running (both track & road in the UK), the same 'improvements' haven't materialised.



PaulB said:


> He moved to Hartlepool to get away from us and surely there can be no greater punishment that that?


----------



## david k (27 Apr 2012)

ColinJ said:


> All this coincided with EPO's arrival in the peloton ...
> 
> If you were following pro cycling back then, it was very obvious that something really dodgy was going on.
> 
> ...


 
whated marco pantani on youtube last night, think it was 1998 tdf, he took a clinb, won it and wasnt out of breath, couple of years later he is suspected of taking epo, now heres a surprise! must admit, i didnt realise how effective or dangerous epo was


----------



## ColinJ (27 Apr 2012)

david k said:


> whated marco pantani on youtube last night, think it was 1998 tdf, he took a clinb, won it and wasnt out of breath, couple of years later he is suspected of taking epo, now heres a surprise! must admit, i didnt realise how effective or dangerous epo was


I was once coming down a mountain on the Costa Blanca as Pantani was going up it on a training ride. It was pretty impressive to see how fast he was going, but of course we now know that he was fuelled by more than just pasta!


----------



## david k (27 Apr 2012)

ColinJ said:


> I was once coming down a mountain on the Costa Blanca as Pantani was going up it on a training ride. It was pretty impressive to see how fast he was going, but of course we now know that he was fuelled by more than just pasta!


super pasta


----------



## Noodley (27 Apr 2012)

david k said:


> whated marco pantani on youtube last night, think it was 1998 tdf, he took a clinb, won it and wasnt out of breath, couple of years later he is suspected of taking epo, now heres a surprise! must admit, i didnt realise how effective or dangerous epo was


 
He won the Giro and Tour in 98 and was then expelled from 99 Giro due to the 50% rule re hematocrit levels when he was leading it.

I am in the process of re-reading his biography, well worth getting your hands on...lots of medical stuff included as well as re-telling of his rise and fall. 1995 hematocrit level of 60.1 being a "highlight"...


----------



## david k (27 Apr 2012)

he had depression dues to people thinking he was a drug user i read?


----------



## Noodley (27 Apr 2012)

It was a lot more comlicated than that, Rendell's biography approaches it in context and with a deal of sensitivity and insight which has to be commended. One of the best cycling books I have read, although I have heard others disagree as they found it too "technical" in the second half of the book.


----------



## david k (27 Apr 2012)

i like to read war/military non fiction, i quite like the technical bits. ive got 2 cycling books i havnt read yet looking forward to it, when ve worked my way through i may try this one
i used ot read a lot when i was a plumber, enjoyed taxing my brain! now i manage at a college and my brains mashed half the time, i dont read when i finish i want to give my head a rest, i do miss reading for joy though

i know you say complicated and that probably not good, but makes it more intriguing


----------

