The ultimate Lance doping thread
Comments
-
StrangelyBrown wrote:rockmount wrote:
..you should get a load of me !! 8)StrangelyBrown wrote:Yeah the guy can be aggressive and come across like a bit of an ars* at times, but so what..
What an ars*
I guess that makes two of us .. who said that, internet forum people ?0 -
Interesting thread. I still retain an open mind about Lance, in the interest of fair play, but not without suspicion. Just looking at the amount of circumstantial evidence against him makes me more than a bit sceptical.
And Mark. I think you're English and British. You cannot argue wth geography. That is all. Love your country by the way. Your views suck a bit though.0 -
Submitting DNA is not some violation. You submit your DNA to everyone every day based on who you are and what illness, mood or knowledge you have to contribute (Or your bodily fluids).
If a super talented champion cyclist will not give their DNA to authorities or governing bodies thats telling. A freaky talented clean rider would be happy to submit DNA, do total body hemoglobin to prove their not taking refills, and allow their power to be tracked. These are not violations. If I was a super-freak clean rider I'd be proud to show my power profiles from week to week.
I dont believe Lance's doping is rocket science. He is Autologous blood doping with his now frozen red cells stored in the freezer at -80 C in glyceral. He's using an 02 transport similar to hemopure. And he's probably still using HGH and IGF-1. Their are legal products not yet banned that work very well as well.0 -
ninjaslim wrote:I agree and doping is undoubtly still going on and moving very well ahead of the testers. /quote]
I would agree that "doping is undoubtly still going on" but if it is "moving very well ahead of the testers" why have so many(it seems) racers been caught recently?
Dennis Noward0 -
dennisn wrote:ninjaslim wrote:I agree and doping is undoubtly still going on and moving very well ahead of the testers. /quote]
I would agree that "doping is undoubtly still going on" but if it is "moving very well ahead of the testers" why have so many(it seems) racers been caught recently?
Dennis Noward
They (Schumacher, Ricco, and gang) is that you cannot do animal-based EPO anymore. It is possible to test for ANY animal based EPO. In fact, nobody at the top in Europe is using EPO anymore. I'd be surprised to see anymore EPO positives out of the ProTour. And if it happens, it will be because they took to much while Autologous blood doping.
Now, they migh still micro-dose EPO to keep their rectic counts up (baby red cells.) That way, they wont test positive for Autologous blood transfusions, because if the UCI sees they do not have rectics thats a major piece of evidence that somebody is taking blood-refills. They can also use the Dynepo (human identical EPO.) But they wont "use" it.
Blood doping is still rampent in Pro Cycling in those with the money and connections. It is not really tested for (total body hemoglobin the only way). They have it down to an art and it wouldnt surprise me if there are still 100 guys on the Bio Passport that are Autologous blood doping in-competition. They could do random crit checks on the startline, but they would have to be random so the riders wouldnt 'prepare' for them. If the UCI did this, it would be a disaster and they'd catch everyone.
Now, I know from what I've heard that post-stage hematocrit is not even checked... Because the riders all will claim dehydration for a jacked crit... So its fair game to be jacked at 60% AFTER moring controls are done. Just take the blood out back out, in the motor home before sleeping.0 -
This is a genuine question to KKspeeder, If you know so much about how Lance et al are doping and it is so obvious, how is it that the testers are not able to identify this and aprehend the culprits? Bearing in mind they have a lot more info to hand that you do, it seems strange how you can be so sure yet they are not when they will know more than you.0
-
BenBlyth wrote:This is a genuine question to KKspeeder, If you know so much about how Lance et al are doping and it is so obvious, how is it that the testers are not able to identify this and aprehend the culprits? Bearing in mind they have a lot more info to hand that you do, it seems strange how you can be so sure yet they are not when they will know more than you.
It's pretty obvious to me that KK is the ultimate athourity on all of this. His quote in his last
post "Now, I know from what I've heard........" definately shows a knowledge and understanding of the problem that goes way beyond what mortal men like you and I could possibly grasp in our small minds.
Dennis Noward0 -
I won't answer for KK, but think about EPO. For years it was known to be in use, rumours were going round for several years, even making the pages of Cyclesport. It took several years before the UCI came up with the haematocrit test. Then when an EPO test finally arrived, it was only able to catch those using it within a couple of days of the test; the current test is now a bit better. But the EPO test simply encouraged many to avoid doping controls by training away from races and in odd places like Mexico, Argentina or the Crimea. Then there were all the tales of blood doping and again many knew what was going on but there was no way to nail the cheats. Look how riders were using Fuentes' services for some time and passing every test.BenBlyth wrote:how is it that the testers are not able to identify this and aprehend the culprits?
So the testing authorities are miles behind the dopers. Look at this summer's Tour, the French doping chieftain Bordry said "80% of the peloton are clean", meaning he believed 20% to be doping. Yet how many could he nab? Ricco, Beltran, Kohl and Schumacher, plus Casper for an apparent paperwork mix-up. In other words, he believed many riders to be doping but couldn't catch them.
One solution to this is retro-testing, to keep all the samples and to test them when new testing methods can be applied. It won't solve everything but is another thing.0 -
BenBlyth wrote:This is a genuine question to KKspeeder, If you know so much about how Lance et al are doping and it is so obvious, how is it that the testers are not able to identify this and aprehend the culprits? Bearing in mind they have a lot more info to hand that you do, it seems strange how you can be so sure yet they are not when they will know more than you.
Its obvious they dont want to catch Lance and many others. Its very SIMPLE people. You are over-thinking it. Lance & Co. are blood doping. Nothing strange, aliens dont exist. You dont need to be a rocket scientist to understand this. Puerto showed the blood bags to your face on TV, and riders continued to blood dope during that year's Tour. It never stops as long as they can keep getting away with it guys... Pantani & other teams were still shooting EPO in 98' while the police were running around outside checking buses and motor homes....
The UCI bio-passport people collect data out of competition. Post-stage blood results are not factored in because of "dehyration" and needing to get back to the motor home to re-hydrate. The UCI is corrupt as hell.... And have been for years. Look at the 50% hematocrit limit. Nobody who trains hard has a 50 guys.... Unless you have your camper parked on top of a mountain in Utah at 12,000 feet all summer long... Or you smoke 2 packs a day... Lance's un-doped crit while training is 41 range. Just look at his out of competition blood values on his webpage, "LiveStrong". Ricco had an exemption to have a 52 crit! I think Ricco might have just used the CERA to dope with.
UCI would not do startline hematocrit checks. It would be easy to RANDOMELY put a dozen blood testers (vampires) out on the road at the start. They could take tiny little 1/4 cc blood samples from the top 15 riders. After ther race leaves, they'd get a quick hematocrit reading. They didnt do this because they dont want to catch EVERYONE in the top 15 with their crits jacked at 59. :?
Now, I think if WADA had their way they would have done startline blood samples. The reasone I say "would have" is that this might never work now.... Because taking on some Pentaspan (starch based plasma expander) will lower hematocrit but not the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood OR the total body hemoglobin. And... A couple of big pee breaks if you know what I mean; and the Pentaspan weight is gone.
So.... they now are left with total body hemoglobin testing. But the UCI is corrupt.... And they want to leave it how it is. :? IF they instituted total Body Hemoglobin and the power output level of the riders fell off, then I could believe in the sport that I am laughing at right now because Contadoper won the 11 minute flat prologue TT and he weighs about 130 pounds soaking wet....
I like to look at the NHL and how they reacted when Dick Pound took a slap shot at their drug testing procedure (or lack of.) Guys, Dick Pound has been around... for a VERY long time. His comments were very accurate and very revealing to what WADA thinks of the system (not good.)
Historical norms for sustained wattage is about 390 range for 150 pound freaks like LeMond and Hinault. Maybe 410 for a big guy.
But Gustov averaged 480 last week at Amgen... And he said he expected it. Ha! He know how many watts he can press after a blood transfusion.0 -
Any chance of next week's lottery numbers ? .. who said that, internet forum people ?0
-
The idea that they cheat now and we shouldn't be allowed to catch them later would be hilarious if it was not so blatantly against all ideas of fair play and good sport. The last few post s by Kkspeeder and Kleber have been excellent and I would largelky ignore the Sand Heads that follow yous around like unemployed body snatchers.
Don't forget KK that Armstrong will be aware of your posts and actively tracing you or even be in the process of nailing you, no Im not paranoid but you should be. Keep it up you shouldn't have gone and PED up a tree.0 -
Kléber wrote:BenBlyth wrote:how is it that the testers are not able to identify this and aprehend the culprits?
So the testing authorities are miles behind the dopers. Look at this summer's Tour, the French doping chieftain Bordry said "80% of the peloton are clean", meaning he believed 20% to be doping.
I don't buy your claim that they "are miles behind the dopers". If they are that far behind
how did they catch anyone? You make the dopers out to be evil criminal genius's, able to elude everyone(well, everyone but you). Yet on the other hand you call them all stupid idiots for doing drugs. What are they? Evil genius's or complete morons? The two don't add up. You're either an evil genius, ala Dr. No or Goldfinger or you're an idiot ala Dumb and Dumber. So, the only possible explanation for never testing positive is "evil genius"?
Say I buy into your "evil genius" theory. How does that explain how everyday people
like yourself, and others on this forum, have such an insight into this, let's call it, "The Evil
Empire" that you all rant about? I always thought that these things were so secret that even James Bond had a hard time rooting them out? Yet more than a few people here seem to think, no believe, that they are more informed than Bond himself(so to speak).
You all ramble on and on and on(sometimes ever worse than myself) but I would be willing to bet that no one, not you and not me, has changed anyone else's mind.
Dennis Noward0 -
don key wrote:The idea that they cheat now and we shouldn't be allowed to catch them later would be hilarious if it was not so blatantly against all ideas of fair play and good sport. The last few post s by Kkspeeder and Kleber have been excellent and I would largelky ignore the Sand Heads that follow yous around like unemployed body snatchers.
Don't forget KK that Armstrong will be aware of your posts and actively tracing you or even be in the process of nailing you, no Im not paranoid but you should be. Keep it up and PED free.
Your right... Lance has admited to being on Forums all the time. In fact.... Mellow Johnny was his original screen name in the 90s.
No doubt he is on Cutting edge... Probably this forum for SURE. Maybe the Cycling Forums maybe not. Probably not.0 -
Nice "Straw Man" argument. I have not credited anyone with superb criminal intelligence, neither slated anyone for total stupidity.dennisn wrote:I don't buy your claim that they "are miles behind the dopers". If they are that far behind
how did they catch anyone? You make the dopers out to be evil criminal genius's, able to elude everyone(well, everyone but you). Yet on the other hand you call them all stupid idiots for doing drugs. What are they? Evil genius's or complete morons? The two don't add up. You're either an evil genius, ala Dr. No or Goldfinger or you're an idiot ala Dumb and Dumber. So, the only possible explanation for never testing positive is "evil genius"?
Say I buy into your "evil genius" theory. How does that explain how everyday people
like yourself, and others on this forum, have such an insight into this, let's call it, "The Evil
Empire" that you all rant about? I always thought that these things were so secret that even James Bond had a hard time rooting them out? Yet more than a few people here seem to think, no believe, that they are more informed than Bond himself(so to speak).
You all ramble on and on and on(sometimes ever worse than myself) but I would be willing to bet that no one, not you and not me, has changed anyone else's mind.
It doesn't take an evil genius to take EPO or use blood doping when there were no anti-doping methods test because you can't be caught.
As for a secretive "evil empire", it's not secretive at all. Look what Bordry says above, he suspects riders but doesn't have the methods to prove their misdeeds. The UCI bio passport might catch some soon though. Or take the court room testimony from Swiss rider Alex Zulle, he explained in detail how Manolo Saiz ran an organised doping scheme. It's like Dr No's plans for world domination get published. But what happens? In the normal world Saiz would have been removed from the sport but in the topsy-turvy world of cycling, few tried to get him away from team management.0 -
It still comes back down to the same question. If it is so easy to dope and everyone is doing it. How come people get caught. Fair enough someone on a small team with no 'doping' buget but not some of the 'top' riders. It just doesn't sit right with me that 'all' riders are on juice. Given any coross section of people, there is no way all of them would be willing to cheat. If there are riders who ride clean, but 'know' everyone else is doped, they wouldn't bother. It just doesn't all ring true to me.
Before I am jumped on and people avoid the question, I do appreciate there will still be a, possibly significant, minority who do dope.0 -
I think it is pretty much accepted and well documented that in the recent past all the top riders doped,almost without exception,and not many got caught.It`s an arms race,testing gets tougher,beating the testers gets a bit harder.You only have to look at athletics,there are people who have never tested positive that we now know were on drugs programmes.Smarter than the average bear.0
-
BenBlyth wrote:It still comes back down to the same question. If it is so easy to dope and everyone is doing it. How come people get caught. Fair enough someone on a small team with no 'doping' buget but not some of the 'top' riders. It just doesn't sit right with me that 'all' riders are on juice. Given any coross section of people, there is no way all of them would be willing to cheat. If there are riders who ride clean, but 'know' everyone else is doped, they wouldn't bother. It just doesn't all ring true to me.
Before I am jumped on and people avoid the question, I do appreciate there will still be a, possibly significant, minority who do dope.
I'm with you "If it's so easy.......?". I think this question will be avoided by most. For all their "answers", I doubt they have one for this.
Dennis Noward0 -
BenBlyth wrote:It still comes back down to the same question. If it is so easy to dope and everyone is doing it. How come people get caught. Fair enough someone on a small team with no 'doping' buget but not some of the 'top' riders. It just doesn't sit right with me that 'all' riders are on juice. Given any coross section of people, there is no way all of them would be willing to cheat. If there are riders who ride clean, but 'know' everyone else is doped, they wouldn't bother. It just doesn't all ring true to me.
Before I am jumped on and people avoid the question, I do appreciate there will still be a, possibly significant, minority who do dope.
There's a big diff between just doing HGH and IGF-1 and thats it... And being on a full-program. Those 2 drugs have such short half-lives there's no way your gonna get caught! THats easy doping. What costs the money is the autologous blood doping and heavy drug therepy that requires test beating. It costs money to beat the tests!
And Autologous blood doping and jacking crit to 60% and still beating the controls.... Autologous blood doping is rampent amongst the wealthy athletes with the money and the know-how. There were 38 guys with Fuentes and probably more with a doctor like Chechini or somebody. But many will not be able to blood dope and they will just use HGH, insulin, etc.... Oh and 60% of the field have use exemptions for corticoids to treat their saddle sores. Right he he he
But.... Blood doping, HGH, IGF-1, HCG, 02 carriers Program Costs 40,000 Euros or more depending on how much you make! Seeing a doping doctor is better than any team "program" you can bet your life on that. Unless you ride for Postan/ Disco/ Astana....And rest assured, the Astana "Program" is a shi*load better than the other teams. Contra beat a jacked Wiggins by 7 seconds... And contadoper is 130 pounds and a climber... Wiggins was a 4k pursuit specialist and big and strong and jacked....
NObody will even keep up with the pack cleanly for multiple weeks in a row if you have 20+ guys Autologous blood refilling and jacked on HGH and other heavy sh*t... The pace is too incredible and any clean rider will get left. So the minimum doping becomes corticoids use exemptions and HGH, IGF-1 to recover. But these riders are basically riding at their natural power levels still if they are not blood doping. But now the gap between the top and the bottom is HUGE!
The first guy that went off yesterday averaged 44.7 km/hr. Contra 3-hours later went 50.6 km/hr! Thats a huge power difference! Somebody calculate the power difference between 45 and 51! And some of the smaller team guys ride just to get time cut, I'm not shi*ting.... Doping is not fair one bit.
And many smaller US Pro teams are totally clean and doping is not expected or accepted....0 -
So you are saying ALL the top riders are jacked? I just do not believe all of them are, I'm sorry but there is no way that in a cross section of people, all of them would be willing to cheat with the consequences they all face. Despite clearly knowing exactly how Astana are running their program, you have not actually said why this can't be spotted by the testers. Is this back to the line that they are corrupt as well?
Seriously, can you tell me how you have all this inside info and know so much? To be making statements like you make I would want to have seen evidence, not just 'be told by someone'. A kid I went to school with told me his brother could run as fast as a train. It didn't mean he could.0 -
Look at another way, modern doping is so effective that even if 'only' 20% of the field were doped, the other 80% might as well resign themselves to being also-rans. In short the consequences of NOT doping are far too serious to be contemplated by very many riders.BenBlyth wrote:So you are saying ALL the top riders are jacked? I just do not believe all of them are, I'm sorry but there is no way that in a cross section of people, all of them would be willing to cheat with the consequences they all face.
On top of this why not dope when so many doping products and procedures cannot be traced? The doping expert Jean Pierre de Mondenard, who has studied doping in cycling for decades, has often pointed out that drugs like Synacthen have been in use since the 1960's and still cannot be tested for. Given that there was no Epo test for years, and right through the Armstrong era there was no test for homologous blood doping, and when such doping methods typically give a 5-15% advantage, why on earth would anyone chose not to use them knowing full well that other riders are?
On top of all this it is clear that the UCI still ascribes to what Paul Kimmage termed the 'Poorly toe' approach to doping, meaning they might be willing to bust a few riders who become stupidly careless or arrogant in their doping but they are not willing to expose the full extent of doping by using strategies such as doing on the line blood tests. Look at the way Hein Verbruggen dismissed out of hand the doping revelations of people like Graham Obree and Giles Delion, and McQuaid has argued that there is no such thing as team-level organised doping in cycling, even as Jorg Jaksche was revealing how there had been organised doping in every team he had been in. See:
http://www.thepulse2007.org/?p=73
Also the UCI has in the past made it clear that it does not see 'busting' riders for doping as being the best way to deal with the problem. For example, Verbruggen has openly stated that he believes that doping should be dealt with behind closed doors, with the UCI giving riders who fail blood tests a 'red card' by the UCI without making this public.
What's more it is clear that some riders are actively protected by the UCI. Just look at the way Hein Verbruggen commissioned that hatchet job on the LNDD in order to ensure that nothing would come of Armstrong's ‘positives’ for Epo and the way the UCI accepted a pre-dated TUE from Armstrong when he tested positive for corticoids (steroids) even though only days earlier Armstrong had publicly stated that he had no such exemption. The UCI did exactly the same when Laurent Brochard tested positive after he won the world RR championships. Sometimes the consequences of a rider being shown to be positive are so potentially explosive that the UCI will simply turn a blind eye and even actively help to enforce the traditional doping omerta 'For the good of cycling'.
Further, very many people involved in cycling have a vested interest in keeping the extent of doping out of the public eye and do everything positive to avoid their riders testing positive. The methods for avoiding a positive dope test whilst doping are legion, and often the very people supposed to be trying to catch the riders are actually helping them to avoid 'making a mistake’. One example is the way the doctor running the UCI’s blood testing facility in Spain used to tip off his friend - the doctor on USP/Discovery - when the UCI 'vampires' were about to make a call.
http://www.multriman.com/news/riendechange.pdf0 -
Some riders simply love the sport and want to do it clean. You can often find them in the 'bus' half an hour down on the blood-doping 'heroes' at the front. Some such riders even have the balls to speak out about what they know, but they usually find themselves marginalised and even bullied out of cycling as a consequences (Bassons for one).BenBlyth wrote:If there are riders who ride clean, but 'know' everyone else is doped, they wouldn't bother.
Would you consider 70-90% (of those in the UCI top 100) to be a 'minority'?BenBlyth wrote:I do appreciate there will still be a, possibly significant, minority who do dope.0 -
This doping issue is crazy- and i don't know enough about it to start judging who's shooting and who isn't. But if Lance doped, and is continuing to dope- it's the ultimate conspiracy!
Now Lance has long been something of a hero of mine, however I recently read Jeremy whittle's fascinating book, "Bad Blood" which while not incriminating Lance outright- it raises some dark suspicions, particularly with regards to his alleged close "friendship" with Dr. Ferrari and his godfather-like orchestration of affairs inside and outside the peloton backed by his shadowy entourage.
I've become gradually more skeptical of pro cycling in general and I can easily believe some pros, even the majority of pro's are using performance enhancers on some level- but i just feel the equation doesn't balance for Lance- this guy has/had too much to lose! Too much to lose for the tour, cancer community, coca-cola, nike, America...
Like guys like Ricco and Schummy were obvious dopers both in there characters and their performance- I feel the same for the likes of contador (I enjoy the way he's evolved from promising pure climber in to the best time trialist and stage racer in the world..) but lance..
I don't know, It just doesn't add up either way.. i did this fast but look at the pros and cons of why he'd do it?
Didn't dope
- Exceptional inherent, natural physical ability before cancer
- Nothing to gain from cheating (it's a fantastic enough story that he survived cancer and could even ride a bike again, let alone win)
- Was on his deathbed- who would want to risk health, pride... everything like this?? After going through this ordeal, would he really want to launch in to a new life based on a massive lie??
- Focussed everything solely on success at the tour
- Too much to lose for cancer community
- Why make a comeback when he'd made a clean getaway?
Did dope
- Association with Ferrari
- Association with Bruneel (part of the epo generation)
- Weird cagey, defensive attitude to doping investigations and questions
- Smattering of former associates admit individual doping or doping on the team
- Seemingly superhuman dominance
- lots of rivals doped (Jan, Basso, Hamilton, Landis, Pantani etc.)
Sorry if this has turned in to a massive confusing rant of nonsense!
Also KKspeeder- Surely the darling child Wiggens' isn't doping? I've never liked the man but he's whiter than white no?0 -
aurelio wrote:
Some riders simply love the sport and want to do it clean. You can often find them in the 'bus' half an hour down on the blood-doping 'heroes' at the front. Some such riders even have the balls to speak out about what they know, but they usually find themselves marginalised and even bullied out of cycling as a consequences (Bassons for one).BenBlyth wrote:If there are riders who ride clean, but 'know' everyone else is doped, they wouldn't bother.
Would you consider 70-90% (of those in the UCI top 100) to be a 'minority'?BenBlyth wrote:I do appreciate there will still be a, possibly significant, minority who do dope.
So are you saying all the Brit riders are on juice (I'm not saying this just because they are British), Jens Voigt, Ballan, Gilbert, Sastre?
I'm just curious because if you are not saying these are all doped then does that not disprove the theory that everyone else must be doped.
On a seperate note, it is excellent for a change to have a decent discussion without it descending into the usual insults etc.
(I didn't mean that to sound patronising :oops: ) 0 -
Yes they would. You can earn a decent wage with outfits like Francaise des Jeux. In 1998, following the discovery of EPO inside the fridge of a team camper van, the team management took the decision to run a clean team and knew this would mean few results, so it put a deliberate aspect on having fun.aurelio wrote:BenBlyth wrote:If there are riders who ride clean, but 'know' everyone else is doped, they wouldn't bother.
Remember most of these riders will have been cycling within formal structures and teams from their late teens onward and few will have bothered with finishing their schooling, yet alone any vocational training or university. So the alternative to a pro contract is a fairly menial job, none of the travel or status, nor camaraderie.
Of course it must be hard. I remember one French guy saying he was riding up a col in the grupetto during the Giro on one of the stages into France. A spectator shouted something like "you're useless", but the poor rider was on the limit after two weeks of trying to follow the Giro, which at the time was a festival of doping.0 -
Why then don't riders come out straight after retiring and spill the beans with what is going on? I appreciate Lemond has his say along with Kimmage but they have been out of the game a while and seem to have there own agenda's.0
-
One addition point: things are getting better. The anti-doping lab at Lausanne has been monitoring samples from cycling - and other sports - for some time and in a recent interview one of their researchers said things are looking much better for cycling, the readings are returning to much more normal values.
This same lab said some time ago that many riders were doping but the data they had was not worthy enough to convict but gave strong clues. The data though is now being used for the bio passport and may now be used to convict though under new WADA and UCI rules.
In the same interview, the researcher said that if the values in cycling are becoming increasingly clean, "we've got readings in some sports which correspond to those from cycling a decade ago", in other words other sports are where cycling was in around 1999.
Maybe the corner has been turned, cycling is cleaning up?0 -
When you talk about various drugs that can't be identified, then surely the Blood profiling will highlight the impact these drugs have no?
If, as you say, it looks like things are cleaning up, then this goes against the notion that 'most' riders are doped. Whilst I don't believe that all riders are doped, I find it hard to believe the minority is still with the clean riders.
Judging by kkspeeders comments, he does not believe a single one of them to be clean which is highly depressing.0 -
What's there to say? Many have know doping was widespread but there was no means to catch the riders. If a retired rider says doping is widespread, many might nod but there's no proof, unless you took photos or taped conversations.BenBlyth wrote:Why then don't riders come out straight after retiring and spill the beans with what is going on? I appreciate Lemond has his say along with Kimmage but they have been out of the game a while and seem to have there own agenda's.
Riders have given court room testimony that stated there were institutionalised doping schemes at ONCE and Banesto. The result? Nothing, there was no follow up. So an ex-rider can't do much. Besides, many have earned a good living, there is not going to be a big desire to stand up and say "I broke the laws", indeed doping in criminalised in some countries so they could be exposing themselves to arrest and judicial action.0
