Anyone want to venture a guess as to how many pro riders are doping?

1) All of them, every single one.

2) All but a few (ie, all but the riders we like, OR all but those off the back)

3) More than 50% but not a vast majority

4) Less than 50% but more than 10%

5) 10% plus or minus, ie the minority. This means that the number of people recently caught are representative of the number of cyclists doping.


The evidence we have so far is consistent with possibilities 2 thru 5. I'm trying to be optimistic, so I pick 4. In other words, it's rampant but it's not yet in the majority.

I consider possibility 3 to be less likely. if the majority of riders are doping, that means people like Armstrong, Ullrich, Hamilton, all the top riders are doping. I have enough faith in humanity left to place some stock in Hamilton's denial. I may not be a fan of Lance anymore, but given his bout with cancer it's unlikely (still possible, though) that he'd want to put more chemicals into his body. of course, I wouldn't be surprised if I were proven wrong.

This year marks a change in opinion for me. Last year I would
have said that nearly all pros were doping during the middle of
the 90s. It was simply the way it was. Up until the advent of
EPO, doping was used mostly for recovery. EPO changed that. It
is so effective at increasing performance that use of EPO became
mandatory if you wanted to stay a pro past the expiration of
your current contract.

For example, the only contenders for the Tour during that period
who we don't know were using are Ullrich and Indurain. Bugno.
Chiapucci. Virenque. Pantani. Riis. Rominger. Zulle. Berzin.
Ugrumov. All doped up. Given that EPO will improve performace by
10 - 15%, which is absolutely huge at the top level, you can draw
your own conclusions about people not on the list.

Festina was scapegoated. Everyone likes to point to them as a
rogue, but it just isn't true. Festina was one of the later teams
to adopt systemic doping. Teamwide doping started with the Gewiis-Ballon
team in '94--under the watchful eye of Armstrong's good friend
Dr. Ferrari, who was the team doctor. When Ferrari had his medical
records siezed, it was found that he had dutifully tracked the
racers rise in hematocrit. In a six month period team members had
these increases:

Riis 41.1 to 56.3
Gotti 40.7 to 57
Berzin 41.1 to 53
Ugrumov 42.8 to 60

When Gewiss destroyed the field in Fleche Wallone '94, all the
other teams took notice and began their own doping programs.
Individuals had been effectively using EPO since '90 when doctors
Conconi and Ferrari finished their research on using EPO to enhance
athletic performance at the University of Ferrare. But '95 marks the
time when things changed from individuals seeking out their own
suppliers and the teams stepping into that role. Many did it with
the rationalization that they were protecting the racers from harming
themselves.

When Zulle first cracked under interrogation, he explained how the
team's prize money went into a slush fund used to purchase drugs so
it would be off the books of the team's accounting. He was not one
bit surprised when he first joined Festina; ONCE had a similar system.
At least that's what he first said, then ONCE's lawyers got to him and
Zulle decided he should limit what he said to just Festina.

Only a halfwitted osterich can believe that doping was not cycling's
standard mode of operation during the '90s. The hematocrit limit,
which was instituted in '97 was supposed to change that. Some riders
like Indurain retired as soon as it became clear the limit was going
to be put in place. Up until this year I believed that the limit had
probably been effective at radically decreasing the prevalence of doping.
I no longer believe that. This year has been a tipping point where it
is clear that things have not changed.

Too many people have been caught by tests. Others have been caught
because of their own stupidity (Miller). It is clear testing is not
effective. The recent Belgian rider who was caught by the EPO test was
caught because he was tested the day after a race ended where he had
also been tested on the last day; the reasoning being that he would be
most likely to inject right after the race, thinking that his chances
of being tested in the next 48 to 72 hours were slim. It was a sneaky
tactic; and it underscores just how ineffective the tests really
are: They had to resort to guile to catch their fish. It's the sort of
thing that is not viable for testing all riders. It can only be used
to target a single person who is under suspicion; and once used, all
others will be aware of the tactic so it stops working as well.

Manzano implicated the entire Kelme team. Miller was being looked after
by Euskatel's team doctor. Matt Decanio has written some hilarious stuff
about Pascal Richard's use of drugs when they were on the same team (How
does using a hypodermic to inject drugs directly into your tool in
preparation for a date sound? Ouch!). Armstrong enforcing the peloton's
code of silence and afterward making the zip the lips gesture to the
laughs of other racers does not inpire confidence that anything is
different from '96 and '97.

BTW, rumor is that three members of Health-Net tested positive for EPO at
the Tour of Georgia, and the results will be revealed next week on the
18th or 19th. Might just be rumor though.

Armstrong enforcing the peloton's
code of silence and afterward making the zip the lips gesture to the
laughs of other racers does not inpire confidence that anything is
different from '96 and '97.



yes, I found that gesture rather disturbing also, although he could have just been saying that he had silenced Simeoni (and not implying anything Omerta-ish).

yes, I found that gesture rather disturbing also, although he could have just been saying that he had silenced Simeoni (and not implying anything Omerta-ish).

Let us not forget what happened to Christophe Bassons.

During interrogations of Festina team members and staff, where they all ratted on each other, one fact was consistent across all the stories. Bassons had absolutely refused to participate. He became a minor hero and an example of resisting peer pressure and doing the right thing. During the '99 Tour he was approached by one of the big men of the peloton, who told him that it would be best for the sport if he dropped out of the race. In fact, it would be best if he didn't show up at next year's Tour either and he should leave the sport. Bassons' public stand against doping was destroying cycling.

That big man of the peloton was Armstrong.

I'd guess, based on my knowledge of other pro sports, that it's nearly all. A friend of mine is a sports agent--no cyclists, but some very big name pro football players and a few basketball players. He claims the incidence of perf-enhancing drugs is virtually 100 percent at some point during a career. Some people use all the time, some go on and off, but the rewards are so great, the competition so fierce and the difference between "good enough" and "great" so small that most players are willing to chance a few years of drug use. Sounds logical, at least: Is it worth some risk to have a five-year career at $5 million a year instead of a three-year career at $800,000?
What I wonder, though, is if even the players/riders know for sure who's using and who's not. If I were, I wouldn't noise it around.

The 1/2 counts for the rider who tried it, but didn't inhale.
Now if you were talking about second division teams, I would thing that quite a few are taking something just to make it into the "Big Time."
There will always be riders who feel that they have to do something to make it to the top or to stay in the game another year or two.

Doped consistently? Doped thier entire career? Doped once or twice?

My two cents is that there are a few clean riders around...some young very gifted riders who don't understand yet. Some others that are afraid of being caught...in other words, most of the clean riders may be clean for reasons other than the "noble" ones.

But, I'll point this out for bashing...I beleive that most of the French riders are clean. (hopefully Virenque is clean now). The "Festina affair" may have been a house cleaning, for french riders atleast. Since then, we've been waiting for the next generation of young French riders to arrive. This explains some of the Leblanc's tour decisions since then...leave out some deserving foreign teams and put the young clean french riders in to grow.

If I'm going to generalize, I should not leave out the Italians...most are probably doped. Big rise in Italian results coincides with the EPO popularity I beleive. Chiapucchi showed the way to win was thru Dr. Ferrari. Wasn't there some evidence/admission of Fondriest also?

Can't forget the Spanish...Delgado positive on his tour win. Maybe he cleaned up and that explains his lower level of riding afterwards. Indurain could have been clean. But in his aftermath, the search for the next "Indurain" would have put a lot of pressure on.

I used to think you could tell a doped rider by the 1998 rule...if they had good results before August 1998 and then never surpassed came close again, they were probably doping and the Festina affair scared them off. It was a simple rule. But doping goes back decades in cycling in some form or another (recovery only? small riders rider support etc etc) it just a matter of how, is it detectable and if it's hit the "banned" list yet or not.