How do you identify the dopers?

by Punctured on Mar 24, 2008 1:21 PM EDT

The post race commentary on Fabian Cancellara was fascinating.

Every outstanding performance leads to the inevitable speculation about doped or not doped.

I was interested to find out how people determine whom they think dopes or doesn't dope.

There is the "superior performance = doped" logic. A rider blasts apart the field on a Tour mountain stage or takes 2 minutes out of everyone in the time trial so therefore the rider must have doped. The problem is that athletes do have superior performances without the benefit of dope. Wayne Gretzky scored 92 goals in a season when the benchmark had been 76 goals. No one could argue that Gretzky was doped, could they?

There is the "guilt by association" logic. A rider rode for Manolo Saiz and therefore must have doped. This is especially true if the rider rode for Saiz during the OP days. The problem here is that if doping was a widespread as is feared then anyone who rode before 2005 has to be included.

There is the "good day/bad day" logic. This involves two groups - the rider who never has a bad day in a major tour must have doped and the rider who has a great day followed by a terrible day (or vice versa) must have doped. The problem is both those things happen with and without doping.

There is the "degree of denial" logic. If a rider is an outspoken critic of doping then they must not be doping. Rafael Palmeiro stated before Congress "Let me start by telling you this: I have never used steroids, period. I don't know how to say it anymore clearly than that. Never." We know how that ended up.

There is the "I like the rider so he doesn't dope" logic. The problem is rooting interests will cloud your judgment.

The sponsor name logic. Astana is out because Vino et al doped but Rabobank is in even though the "Chicken" doped.

So how do you determine if someone dopes? This would be a great question for Christian Prudhomme.

Tweet Comment 24 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Great Topic

You really drilled down the data on this one. There is no clear cut measuring stick. Even the testing isn't foolproof, as we have found out many years after the fact. (And that goes all the way back to the U.S. track team that was blood doping at the 1984 Olympics.)

by Chief Commissaire on Mar 24, 2008 1:42 PM EDT reply actions

Easy

I look within the soul of the rider and discover the true answer.

Seriously, you've pointed out the conundrum we all face (and the shapes it comes in). I think the only even slightly reliable indicator is a twist on your "superior performance" metric: where the rider has an outstanding day not compared to others but compared to everything that rider has ever done before. That was the ~:> problem. Another potential one would be the rider who peaks for week after week of immense racing. Arguably that's the DiLuca dilemma, though I'm not sold on that one yet.

BTW, this is worthy of promotion to a post, a good summation and an interesting discussion topic. But I just don't want to put doping in the main column today; sun is shining, birds singing... no doping! I think it'll do well here in diaries.

by Chris Fontecchio on Mar 24, 2008 1:48 PM EDT reply actions

Patterns

One event nor one rationale is enough to condemn or confirm, but patterns of behavior can leave a definite perception.

I've come to see doping as rooted in the team structures more than in individual rider motivations. That's why I applaud Slipstream and High Road (despite the kits) and wonder at Kloden's decision to leave them and join Johan at Astana.

For me DS's like Saiz and Johan are from the same system, the pattern of their riders does not give me confidence. Saiz got caught red handed, many of his riders never got caught, but enough did.

Similarly, lots of former Postal/Disco rider have been busted after they left the fold. Heras' time trial to win the Vuelta with Liberty (year ?) is a great case of a rider way beyond his means.

For me, it's not just any one of the issues above, but more the gut check I get when I look at the patterns emanating from certain individuals.

America is all about speed. Hot, nasty, badass speed. -Eleanor Roosevelt

by ELVISGOAT on Mar 24, 2008 7:08 PM EDT reply actions

What about Riis at CSC?

He has a reputation of turning riders at the end of their careers into contenders again. He was Basso's DS during OP. Riis says he used EPO to win the Tour. Is that enough of a pattern to cast suspicions on his team?

by Punctured on Mar 24, 2008 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions

I'd say not at this point

I'm no fan of Mr. 60%. But Basso and Jaske are the only ones so far, correct? Hard to say. JaJa won the TdF KOM riding for Riis after leaving Saiz. It's a good point. Still, there are several prominent CSC riders that appear to be clean... Stuey, Sastre, Tony, Jens!, McCartney, etc... and Allan Johansen is supposedly one of the cleanest around... I'm not saying that every rider who rode for Bruneeyl is dirty.

America is all about speed. Hot, nasty, badass speed. -Eleanor Roosevelt

by ELVISGOAT on Mar 24, 2008 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions

aberations

For me its the instances of the miraculous. Vino in last year's tour: crashes and makes hamburger of his knees and then later puts the wood to a bunch of world class time-trialers ... yeah, right!

"Race radios in Cat 4?"

by gravel road on Mar 24, 2008 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions

Degree of denial

For me, there's a big difference between someone who strongly denies their own doping when confronted with a positive dope test or other damning evidence, and someone who is an outspoken critic of doping in general.

You're correct that the denials of people like Landis, Hamilton, Armstrong, Millar (before he came clean), Di Luca, etc. are no indication of the rider being clean.

I do accord a good deal of credence, however, to the words of guys like Bradley McGee and Bradley Wiggins, who, while never under suspicion themselves, have consistently spoken out against doping throughout their careers, even in the years before such talk was fashionable.

by Susie Hartigan on Mar 24, 2008 9:08 PM EDT reply actions

yep

and that Millar and McGee ride for Slippy and CSC lead me to give the Riis team the benefit of the doubt.

America is all about speed. Hot, nasty, badass speed. -Eleanor Roosevelt

by ELVISGOAT on Mar 24, 2008 9:19 PM EDT up reply actions

Don't Be So Quick To Say Slipstream Is Clean

From the March issue of ROAD Magazine:

ROAD:
Tell me something about the team that readers might not know.

Vaughters:
We could have a rider go positive in 2008.

Hmmm...

by Chief Commissaire on Mar 24, 2008 10:56 PM EDT reply actions

Riis

I'll say this about him:

he made about the most incriminating confession we've heard to date. Saying he juiced to win the Tour, well beyond anything Zabel or Basso or anyone else fessed up to. Shouldn't he get credit? Isn't this what we want people to do?
He juiced in 1996. This is news? Moreover, why would we assume a guy who juiced in an era where you had to or would be lucky to finish the day's stage would necessarily act in 2008 like nothing has changed?

I can't look into Bjarne's soul, so maybe he has a tiny, stone-cold heart. But you can at least argue he's more honest and running a cleaner program than a lot of others we aren't tut-tutting at.

by Chris Fontecchio on Mar 25, 2008 2:08 AM EDT reply actions

correct you are

I'm just not a big fan of his... maybe it's his bike tossing prowess.

America is all about speed. Hot, nasty, badass speed. -Eleanor Roosevelt

by ELVISGOAT on Mar 25, 2008 8:00 AM EDT up reply actions

I have a different notion about Bruyneel

because the riders were caught doping after they left his management. I always wondered why, if they were successfully doping under his direction, they got so procedure sloppy after they left.

The way I see it is the riders left, found themselves without the strong leadership they were used to, and began to dope in order to compete. I know there are many that disagree with this theory, but it is the only way I can make sense of Hamilton, Heras, et al.

If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.

by bethie on Mar 25, 2008 9:58 AM EDT up reply actions

I disagree with it

because it's magical thinking, not logical thinking.

How does "strong leadership" provide performance enhancement? Strong leadership can identify goals, can help riders be positioned correctly, and read the tactics of a race better (and perhaps take care of logistical problems so that riders don't have to), BUT . . .

strong leadership does not turn also-ran domestiques like the pre-99 Tyler Hamilton, Frankie Andreu, or Kevin Livingstone into guys who can lead the peloton up the 4th climb of a Tour mountain stage.

by R Mc on Mar 25, 2008 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions

I have no illusions about Bjarne

but i agree with you Chris. Maybe I am more cynical but I don't think he is mostly with the "new" program for calculating reasons. I think he's one of few in the old guard who realize that it's the only way to keep cycling profitable. I also have some nagging doubts that he wouldn't be entirely negative to his riders using cutting edge (still undetectable) methods.

by Jens on Mar 25, 2008 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Well

whatever it takes. I certainly don't want to tell you he is doing things out of love for the sport or personal integrity. Maybe yes, maybe no. I just don't think he'd be foolish enough to flout the system now simply because that's how they did things back in his day. He might flout the system, but only if he thought he could win like that. And he's smart enough to see that he probably can't.

by Chris Fontecchio on Mar 25, 2008 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions

This strikes me as a completely

reasonable -- and also plausible -- assessment of Bjarne. By which I mean it actually makes sense. I, for one, say thanks, Chris.

by NE Observer on Mar 25, 2008 10:53 PM EDT up reply actions

Agree

Combine Jens & Chris's posts here and that's my assessment of the Bjarne, too.

Bjarne was among the first to see what Puerto really meant for the sport.

-K-

by KevinK on Mar 26, 2008 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions

Yay!

It's official. Thanks guys!

by Chris Fontecchio on Mar 26, 2008 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions

Does this also mean

that it wasn't the "Venga! Venga! Venga!" that made Monolos boys TT like demi-gods?

by Jens on Mar 25, 2008 1:26 PM EDT reply actions

By the way

Answering this question was waayy easier last year. I don't know why they don't simply go back to the system of stamping "Kazach Railways" on the dopers asses. I thought that was easy and understandable.

by Jens on Mar 25, 2008 2:00 PM EDT reply actions

The darker underbelly...

This topic makes me absolutely sick to my stomach. I, like many of you, have to look back at every champion since the early '90s, and just assume they were all juiced on EPO, HGH, Blood Transfusions, Cow Blood, etc.

In my opinion, the last clean Tour rider was Lemond. I have a feature planned for the blog, which will dive into some of the physiological data which would support this conclusion.

Probably more disturbing, there is reason to believe PED use is merely the offshoot of a darker recreational abuse culture, which has been around for decades. A culture not only condoned, but supported by some fans.

Here is one alleged affair involving Jalabert:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/jun06/jun20news2

Of course, the event was quickly swept under the carpet:

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/technique/article/jalabert-im-living-a-nightmare-9181

This all got started with the soigneurs and mechanics - the original junkies, who used to inject pot belge (a mixture of heroin, cocaine, and amphetamines) to stay awake and service the riders, and bikes, during stage races. The practice then spread to the riders, thus completing the brotherhood of the the needle.

Is it any wonder that EPO was so widely embraced?

I'll start believing in the riders once power outputs drop to human levels again. We are not there, yet...

thevirtualmusette.com

by The Team Chef on Mar 25, 2008 7:39 PM EDT reply actions

You mean

the last clean Tour winner? I think it's a makeable case for the next 12 years after him, though I'm not sure you'd put the last two official winners down as dopers. But you're welcome to try. Nothing brings in the traffic like a good doping argument!

by Chris Fontecchio on Mar 26, 2008 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions

Yes, winner was what I meant.

I have my doubts about The Accountant. Again, it goes back to those freaky high power outputs. That's the shame of it all, we don't know who is truly a physiological freak, or who has the the best doctors. The legacy of the EPO generation will hang over the peloton for years.

I almost forgot that Pereiro was the official winner in '06, so I suppose he might conceivably be the first clean Tour winner since Lemond. I'm no Oscar fan, but he doesn't rub me the wrong way like Valverde used to.

As for Floyd, I don't even want to open that can of worms.

If we see a bunch of guys blasting up the mountains above 400 watts for extended periods of time at this year's Tour, I think it's safe to say the "new clean era" is a pack of lies. We'll just have to wait and see.

thevirtualmusette.com

by The Team Chef on Mar 27, 2008 12:09 AM EDT up reply actions

so sad

So last night I'm watching college basketball and was struck with the springy-ness of a couple of large, muscled up dudes. I've watched college b-ball all of my life(I live in NC), so I think I have an eye for the nuanced stuff of the game. Last night, one team in particular had some fast-twitch performances that were ahem, not human and didn't jibe with the bulkiness of its players.

"Race radios in Cat 4?"

by gravel road on Mar 29, 2008 1:10 PM EDT reply actions