I'm sorry.....

redddraggon

.....to start another thread on doping.

Surely the rider's who take these performance enhancing drugs win more races and are therefore more likely to get caught (after every race they win, don't they get tested?).

I can't believe that they could cover up their doping if they were repeatedly winning races and getting tested. And if they are doping and not winning - what's the point?

iainf72

Not really.

The tests look for specific "Things" in the samples. If you can remove those "things" then you're not positive. You could have wee like a 9 year old boy, but you would not return a postiive.

A test is a process which is followed and if you understand the process, a good doctor will work out how to evade it.

That's why continual monitoring of hormone level / blood etc is the way to go. They know who's up to no good at the moment BUT the very black and white test system won't return a positive.

Kléber

That's like saying speed cameras work. They do, but only for the 100m section where people slow to make sure they don't get flashed by the Gatso. As soon as you've passed those white lines on the road, you can put your foot down with impunity.

Or let me use an example. A shop manager suspects an employee is stealing goods, so each day, when the employees leave work in the evening, they get frisked by the manager to check for stolen items. The manager is testing for people breaking the rules.

But our crooked employee gets away with stealing things because every lunch break, he loads up a bag with hot gear and walks home. In other words, the predictable testing system means anyone planning to steal knows when to do it and when not to.

It's the same for doping. Dope testing is not very thorough, usually a pro gets a blood test early in the morning and a urine test after the race. So, for the dodgy teams, it means that you have plenty of time after the early morning blood test to manipulate your blood, to thicken it up with more red blood cells. And since only the winners are urine tested, everyone else can use the race for training and load up on hormones, knowing so long as they don't win, then they'll come out of the race stronger. And many dope out of competition, where testing is very rare.

So the UCI is like our shop manager, he knows there's a problem but has an inflexible scheme that almost encourages dodgy riders to cheat because he sets out predictable rules that say don't steal between 5pm and 6pm but we can't catch you any other time. It's almost as if they don't want to find riders. But things look to be getting better, they've appointed more inventive people to work a bit harder now.

Michuel

redddraggon wrote:

.....to start another thread on doping.

Surely the rider's who take these performance enhancing drugs win more races and are therefore more likely to get caught (after every race they win, don't they get tested?).

I can't believe that they could cover up their doping if they were repeatedly winning races and getting tested. And if they are doping and not winning - what's the point?

In a recent interview on Radio Five-Live Victor Conti said any athlete who tested positive in competition was basically mentally retarded. He said the time to dope was in training. Those countries who didn't have rigorous out-of-competition drug testing provided environments in which doping flourished. There were also methods of concealing drug use.

terongi

redddraggon wrote:

...... And if they are doping and not winning - what's the point?

A lot of doping is not about winning. Read Paul Kimmage's book - "Rough Ride".

Many work-a-day domestique riders struggle just to keep up with the peloton day after day in stage races and to cope with the heavy workload of racing and travelling. Getting dropped by the bunch and abandoning races will not get you a contract with your team for next season. So many dopers are just desperately trying to cling on to their livelihood. Cristian Moreni and Patrick Sinkewitz did not dope to win. They doped just to stay in the race.

This is not justifiable, but it demonstrates that not all doping is about winning.

Pagem

it's winnnig in the sense that they are sometimes keeping clean riders out of teams. what about their livelihood?

iainf72

terongi wrote:

Patrick Sinkewitz did not dope to win. They doped just to stay in the race.

This is not justifiable, but it demonstrates that not all doping is about winning.

Oh no, no, I'm sure Pat doped to win. And he did so quite successfully. But you're right, many people just do it to survive.

None of us are in their situations so we don't know what we'd do. I suspect if a lot of people on this forum had turned pro they would've given in to the needle too.

iainf72

Jorg says it best

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... oct16news2