[Doping] How Clean is the Tour De France?

[John the Monkey]

"It's clear that riders have learned to dope within the passport," says Michael Ashenden, one of the nine experts the UCI uses to analyze riders' blood.

Correctly manipulating transfusions and mini-doses of EPO requires a certain amount of know-how but not a PhD. "I could write it down on a post-it note," Ashenden says.

Nevertheless, the passport is better than anything else science currently offers, and the deterrent factor does appear to be considerable.

Article is cautiously optimistic, and can be read in full here;
http://www.courant.com/sports/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-cyc-john-leicester-080709,0,7232088.story

 

[Steve Austin]

[i don't know]

 

[Bigtwin]

They are all clean as a whistle.

Of course they are.

Which is why they all sit on the start line and refuse to race when "tricky moments" arise.

"Slur on our unblemished character" is what they are thinking.

 

[CotterPin]

The 80% figure is depressing - and in stark contrast to the "few bad apples" mantra that was often trotted out.

 

[Skip Madness]

Interesting, and as you say, CotterPin, depressing although not exactly surprising figures from a decade ago.

I never understand it when people nowadays (usually on Cycling News letters/forum) say stuff like, "I reckon 60% / 90% / 15% / whatever% of the peloton is still doping." How do you make a claim like that? What data can it be based on? I think there must be a significant proportion of the peloton still doping, but any actual figure estimate is just pulled out of thin air, isn't it?

 

[Chuffy]

I never understand it when people nowadays (usually on Cycling News letters/forum) say stuff like, "I reckon 60% / 90% / 15% / whatever% of the peloton is still doping." How do you make a claim like that? What data can it be based on? I think there must be a significant proportion of the peloton still doping, but any actual figure estimate is just pulled out of thin air, isn't it?

You could equally turn it round and say that when someone, usually a rider, says that xx% of the peoloton are clean that they too are plucking a figure of of thin air.

I was wondering about this. It seems to have gone very quiet and, although we're barely a week in, I can't decide if that's good or bad. It's been reported that L'Equipe has told (can't recall his name, broke the '99 Lance retro-positive story) to lay off the doping angle and cover the racing instead, so I do wonder if the silence is genuinely because there is nothing to say or whether it's because we're hearing what the authorities want us to hear.

I have to say that I'm not putting any flags out yet....

 

[Landslide]

This is the bit I found of most interest:

One of the most encouraging signs is that some riders are starting to volunteer tips to drug testers about rivals they suspect are still cheating, breaking the code of silence that long prevailed in cycling, says an official directly involved with testing at this year's Tour, which will roll into Paris on July 26.

Because of the necessary secrecy around drug testing, the official spoke on condition of anonymity. He believes that lesser-paid riders can no longer afford doping programs that are sophisticated enough to evade the passport regime and so are spilling the beans on those they suspect still can.

That is a somewhat cynical view. Riders also might be volunteering information for the simple reason that they have grown sick of cheating in their midst.

Whatever the true reasons behind the tip-offs, [/omerta]?

 

[Chuffy]

This is the bit I found of most interest:

Whatever the true reasons behind the tip-offs, [/omerta]?

It would be nice to think so.

 

[Globalti]

They're all doping; it's just that they have all read the same books as we have about keeping that hematocrit level below 50 so there's nothing to report.

 

[Skip Madness]

You could equally turn it round and say that when someone, usually a rider, says that xx% of the peoloton are clean that they too are plucking a figure of of thin air.

Of course. I don't see how people can draw grand conclusions without any meaningful evidence to back it up. At least that kind of thing doesn't tend to go on in these boards.

They're all doping; it's just that they have all read the same books as we have about keeping that hematocrit level below 50 so there's nothing to report.

Oh.

 

[Chuffy]

Incidentally, is it just me or is there a bit of a connection between Ashenden saying that dopers have learned to circumvent the passport and comments by Jonathan Vaughters to the effect that teams don't fully know how to use the data yet?

 

[simon_brooke]

Article is cautiously optimistic, and can be read in full here;
http://www.courant.com/sports/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-cyc-john-leicester-080709,0,7232088.story

Is there a connection between how clean the tour is and the fact that one team has four riders in the top six? Are Astana's pharmacists really that much better than everyone else's, or is it just that the rest of the peloton isn't doping any longer?

 

[Speicher]

Why do I think your sig line, is alledgedly appropriate.

 

[Chuffy]

Is there a connection between how clean the tour is and the fact that one team has four riders in the top six? Are Astana's pharmacists really that much better than everyone else's, or is it just that the rest of the peloton isn't doping any longer?

Maybe we'll find out when someone leaves the team....

 

[Ben M]

Does it really matter?

Why not just let them all dope? So long as they do it sensibly and don't end up killing themselves then what's the problem? It's not "unfair" if they're all doing it.

One could say that it's no more unfair than some people taking dietary supplements, whereas some people don't. Some go training at altitude to alter their blood chemistry. It's the same choice.

[/devils advocate]