Is Doping Widespread?

[neenaw]

Now I might be naive asking this but is doping as widespread in Pro Cycling as you'd believe form reading the likes of the Bikeradar forums?

It appears that anyone who does remotely well 'must' be doping and that if you disagree you're obviously an idiot! That is, of course, apart from Andy Schleck who they never even suggest has done anything wrong.

Now, I'm not interested in the whole Lance Armstrong/Alberto Contador did he?/didn't he? debate but I'm curious to find out other's thoughts on the subject overall.

Surely if doping is as prevalent as people make out, nothing much has changed since the scandals of 1998 etc?

[itsnotarace]

Have a read of Mark Cavendish' book Boy Racer. From what he describes, they get tested hundreds of times a year more than other sports. I would imagine there are ways round it but surely you'd get caught sooner or later

So yes, I'm sure people do. But again I'm sure that plenty of them aren't

[scubadude]

I'd imagine all of the pros take "something" even the ones (possibly especially) who don't do well...

In fact in all sports people will take everything they can to improve performance thats not illegal, drug testing only tests for what they are Not allowed to take. Due to the endurance nature of pro cycling PEDs can (and do) have a very beneficial affect but I don't think there is a single type of atheletic sport where some performance enhancement is not taken.

Its no different from taking a flexible view of the regulations in motorsport, you sail as close to the regs as possible without breaking them- ditto PED's in cycling, they all take everything they can right up to the limits of what the testing will pick-up, to deny this is naive IMO.

[mk1fan]

I agree. I all comes down to what you mean by 'doping'. Top athletes, regardless of sport, don't have a 'regular' diet to start with.

Although, it would be interesting, in a morbid way, to see what a fully doped up and drug enhanced human is capable of

[Parrot of Doom]

It's a game of catchup - ie, the drugs tests are always a few years behind the drugs.

Personally I think most of them are at it. I reckon if you tested most professional athletes to see how much power they could output, and compared that with their road performance, the figures wouldn't add up.

[neenaw]

mk1fan said:

I agree. I all comes down to what you mean by 'doping'. Top athletes, regardless of sport, don't have a 'regular' diet to start with.

Although, it would be interesting, in a morbid way, to see what a fully doped up and drug enhanced human is capable of

By doping I'm meaning the more 'normal' methods like using EPO or other such drugs.

Is it possible that cycling will ever be clean? Would it be possible for cycling to become a drug free sport or will it just be a constant game or cat and mouse between riders and testers?

One thing I was pondering this week while watching the cycling on TV, is doping as common in women's cycling or track cycling?

[dubbs]

Only when I'm commuting and running late...

Doping is all relative - it brings in the whole question of what is a drug, what's considered "doping" and differing views. Taken to the Nth degree certain energy gels could be seen as doping.

Personally I think going to the point of tranfusing blood is probably too far - utilising carefully blended chemicals/nutrients to allow better fuelling efficiency for muscles and energy take-up is fine. Anything that fundamentally alters the state of the rider mentally (for example out and out stimulants) should probably be illegal - for example early TdFers were known to take cocaine to keep going and it wasn't initially banned!

It's a minefield