why do people think pro cycling is now cleaner - *Mod Warning Post #3*

wpd

I am interested to hear why people see pro cycling is now cleaner than in 2007.
I am obviously sceptical as you can tell from my question.
I would point to the same cycling organisation being in place, same team management most of whom seem to be ex doping riders (Riis), same team assist. directors/helpers as during that era. Also most of the top riders today were riders during Armstrong era, Contador/Basso etc. The racing hasnt changed interms of distance/frequency/intensity. pressure for results is the same.
.

So please tell me what i am missing. I have heard the argument the the tour avg speed has droped by 2km however i think this is weak evidence of a change in culture

ballygowan1

People that don't know Doctor Geert Leinders might think this

Beasty

Just to lay out some ground rules to minimise the risk of us having to take action against posters or close the thread

No doping speculation and in particular no discussing specific riders or hinting that anyone may currently be involved in doping. Mentioning individuals that have been proven to have been involved in doping is fine - to suggest they still are is not.

Thanks

Beasty

Beasty

wpd wrote: »

I have heard the argument the the tour avg speed has droped by 2km however i think this is weak evidence of a change in culture

Seems pretty significant evidence to me, although that clearly cannot be taken as a sign that everyone is currently riding clean. However the introduction of the biological passport does seem to have curbed a lot of the more extreme practices

Brian?

Cleaner than 2007? Probably. Cleaner than 1997, definitely.

It's not 100% clean and never will be. But it's at least trying, unlike other sports that don't even have out of competition testing like Rugby. The irony is that as long as cyclists are being caught cycling will appear dirty, even though every positive test is a win for te sport long term.

Op, why don't you think it's cleaner?

Lumen

It's cleaner because Lance says so.

Hermy

While it may be cleaner it still has a long way to go. The current pro's are slow to criticise and the outspoken critics within the sport are still in the minority. While it's understandable that riders wouldn't want to risk jeopardising their livelihoods by being too critical, nevertheless until there is a significant change in attitude of those involved in the sport at an elite level - be they riders or other interested parties - the sports perception as 'dirty' will remain.

mistermatthew

EPO i think is mostly gone. Blood doping, probably not.
And there is Carbon Monoxide doping. Not illegal and absolutely rampant in cycling at the moment.

The methods have changed, I doubt we'll see a non carbon monoxide/altitude tent and various other shady methods winner of the tour for a long time.

Cycling is cycles of doping bust, then claims of cleanliness, doping bust. Give it five to seven years and there will be new dark days.

The UCI needs to outlaw every unnatural training tactic. It'll never happen so its always gonna be winners using things that are on the line of illegality. My 2c

dvntie

mistermatthew wrote: »

EPO i think is mostly gone. Blood doping, probably not.
And there is Carbon Monoxide doping. Not illegal and absolutely rampant in cycling at the moment.

The methods have changed, I doubt we'll see a non carbon monoxide/altitude tent and various other shady methods winner of the tour for a long time.

Cycling is cycles of doping bust, then claims of cleanliness, doping bust. Give it five to seven years and there will be new dark days.

The UCI needs to outlaw every unnatural training tactic. It'll never happen so its always gonna be winners using things that are on the line of illegality. My 2c

Describe "unnatural training"

ballygowan1

mistermatthew wrote: »

EPO i think is mostly gone. Blood doping, probably not.
And there is Carbon Monoxide doping. Not illegal and absolutely rampant in cycling at the moment.

The methods have changed, I doubt we'll see a non carbon monoxide/altitude tent and various other shady methods winner of the tour for a long time.

Cycling is cycles of doping bust, then claims of cleanliness, doping bust. Give it five to seven years and there will be new dark days.

The UCI needs to outlaw every unnatural training tactic. It'll never happen so its always gonna be winners using things that are on the line of illegality. My 2c

Is epo really gone? Is there not meant to be varients that are had to test. Surely micro dosing is still going on?

Brian?

ballygowan1 wrote: »

Is epo really gone? Is there not meant to be varients that are had to test. Surely micro dosing is still going on?

Micro dosing to balance blood profiles after transfusions. The micro dosing itself isn't performance enhancing, not that that makes it ok.

The days of miraculous recoveris a la Landis are gone. The days of tour winners not having a single bad day a la Armstrong are gone.

Look at this years Vuelta, agony everywhere among the leaders.

robs1

I read an article a few weeks ago that an Italian judge had done an investigation into drugs in sport. they had discovered that a drug that came from China was rampant in the Olympic s in 2012 and that it was so new to the market that they didn't even know a name for it. so as another poster said other sports are ignoring there drug problems. isn't it good that cyclists are being caught. it shows that anti doping measures are working in cycling

ballygowan1

Brian? wrote: »

Micro dosing to balance blood profiles after transfusions. The micro dosing itself isn't performance enhancing, not that that makes it ok.

The days of miraculous recoveris a la Landis are gone. The days of tour winners not having a single bad day a la Armstrong are gone.

Look at this years Vuelta, agony everywhere among the leaders.

I would have the total opposite view of the Vuelta.

mistermatthew

dvntie wrote: »

Describe "unnatural training"

Unnatural training I would count as Carbon monoxide doping using hypoxic tents. Altutude tents too I'm not a fan off.

Anything of a similar vein I would count as unnatural, I'm no expert on the subject but these strike me as un natural methods.

Anyone agree?

Beasty

mistermatthew wrote: »

Unnatural training I would count as Carbon monoxide doping using hypoxic tents. Altutude tents too I'm not a fan off.

Anything of a similar vein I would count as unnatural, I'm no expert on the subject but these strike me as un natural methods.

Anyone agree?

So if you ban altitude tents do you allow training at altitude (which, of course, is the natural environment for some athletes)?

Brian?

ballygowan1 wrote: »

I would have the total opposite view of the Vuelta.

Which is?

mistermatthew

Beasty wrote: »

So if you ban altitude tents do you allow training at altitude (which, of course, is the natural environment for some athletes)?

If it is their natural environment, yeah train away at altitude. However I feel when we get into tents and "natural" doping then we are just welcoming people to take liberties.

Am I too harsh beasty? Perhaps I am.

I just think there is too much grey area at the moment.

mistermatthew

Brian? wrote: »

Which is?

Sorry to butt in, but I agree and wonder if the point was the Vuelta was won after a rest day, By a convicted Blood doper, rest day being a traditional blood doping day.

ROK ON

I think an interesting angle is not whether it is cleaner per se, but how effective are the methods being used.

The doping used up to the 1970's was not reckoned to be actually that effective in the enhancement of performance - so you could try all you like to cheat, but it may not have been very beneficial.

Now you may cheat only a little bit, but what you are taking goes a long long way toward improving performance. That is important I feel.
So I am pretty sure that Kelly was a huge cheat so to speak, but it maybe the case that he had more talent than the other cheaters at the time.

It is not so simple with Pantani - given that he had been taking EPO and blood doping since a teen - we will never actually know ever, how talented he was.

Then we have the present day, where techniques allegedly used by Sky are not banned and thus not cheating - but to my mind they are an artificial aid. While that is not illegal, I view it is cheating as it is completely contrary to the spirit of sport. But it is not doping as we understand doping.

I think that cycling is irredeemable as a sport at the highest level. I have doubts about everyone - I think that "Sports Science" is akin to the "Transfer Pricing" of international tax. Completely legal, but immoral from where I stand.

What I mean by that is that some time ago we have passed a line in terms of the analysis of performance. Everything can now be analysed to such an extent that cheating of some form is always likely. I mean does anyone really think that oxygen tents are in any way natural. Sport has changed and it is not ever going back to what we imagined sport to be when we were kids.

I will still watch cycling because as a form of physical entertainment it is a fantastic one. But at the pro level, it is not to my mind a sport.

MrCreosote

mistermatthew wrote: »

EPO i think is mostly gone. Blood doping, probably not.
And there is Carbon Monoxide doping. Not illegal and absolutely rampant in cycling at the moment.

The methods have changed, I doubt we'll see a non carbon monoxide/altitude tent and various other shady methods winner of the tour for a long time.

Cycling is cycles of doping bust, then claims of cleanliness, doping bust. Give it five to seven years and there will be new dark days.

The UCI needs to outlaw every unnatural training tactic. It'll never happen so its always gonna be winners using things that are on the line of illegality. My 2c

If it's not banned then it ain't doping. Carbon monoxide "doping" as you call it is actually carbon monoxide training, akin to altitude training.

Elite sport is unnatural by its very nature.

Sports science is immoral?? Where do you draw the line- HRMs or powermeters? Or focussed training of any kind? They're all based on sports science

ROK ON

As kids we have a view that sport is down to talent and training - kicking a ball etc. It is a naive view - but one that is at the core of why so many adults feel let down by cheaters in sport.

As adults we know that there are advances in science that allow humans to make the most of what they have. Some of these I am simply uneasy with. The kid in me would like the guy winning a race to have trained on his bike, ate well slept well and done almost nothing else to create that victory. The adult that I am knows that that is not a realistic view of elite sport.
Nothing more than that really.

mitosis

I don't for one minute think it's cleaner. Like any professional sport with lots of money it is corrupt. In my opinion all that has changed is the doping method. I would expound further on my opinion and give examples, but I am not permitted to do so by the regulations of this forum.

To quote my own post elsewhere:

Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss

mitosis

ROK ON wrote: »

I think an interesting angle is not whether it is cleaner per se, but how effective are the methods being used.

The doping used up to the 1970's was not reckoned to be actually that effective in the enhancement of performance - so you could try all you like to cheat, but it may not have been very beneficial.

Now you may cheat only a little bit, but what you are taking goes a long long way toward improving performance. That is important I feel.
So I am pretty sure that Kelly was a huge cheat so to speak, but it maybe the case that he had more talent than the other cheaters at the time.

It is not so simple with Pantani - given that he had been taking EPO and blood doping since a teen - we will never actually know ever, how talented he was.

Then we have the present day, where techniques allegedly used by Sky are not banned and thus not cheating - but to my mind they are an artificial aid. While that is not illegal, I view it is cheating as it is completely contrary to the spirit of sport. But it is not doping as we understand doping.

I think that cycling is irredeemable as a sport at the highest level. I have doubts about everyone - I think that "Sports Science" is akin to the "Transfer Pricing" of international tax. Completely legal, but immoral from where I stand.

What I mean by that is that some time ago we have passed a line in terms of the analysis of performance. Everything can now be analysed to such an extent that cheating of some form is always likely. I mean does anyone really think that oxygen tents are in any way natural. Sport has changed and it is not ever going back to what we imagined sport to be when we were kids.

I will still watch cycling because as a form of physical entertainment it is a fantastic one. But at the pro level, it is not to my mind a sport.

I agree with much of this.

For example, was it doping to use EPO before it was banned? In my opinion, yes, but perhaps others wouldn't agree.

mistermatthew

MrCreosote wrote: »

If it's not banned then it ain't doping. Carbon monoxide "doping" as you call it is actually carbon monoxide training, akin to altitude training.

Elite sport is unnatural by its very nature.

Sports science is immoral?? Where do you draw the line- HRMs or powermeters? Or focussed training of any kind? They're all based on sports science

HRM or Powermeters? Why bring these up?
Reasoning like this is why nothing will ever change. There is in my view a clear distinction between tents and HRMs. If there is not to you then there is nothing that I can say to convince you to my argument.

I simply believe there is a line between what is natural and unnatural. This line should be zero tolerance. All other roads in my mind are folly and invite the opportunity for further shady practices.

The justification for stepping from carbon monoxide training to blood doping would be a lot easier in my mind to make than stepping from powermeters to blood doping.

MrCreosote

mistermatthew wrote: »

HRM or Powermeters? Why bring these up?
Reasoning like this is why nothing will ever change. There is in my view a clear distinction between tents and HRMs. If there is not to you then there is nothing that I can say to convince you to my argument.

I simply believe there is a line between what is natural and unnatural. This line should be zero tolerance. All other roads in my mind are folly and invite the opportunity for further shady practices.

The justification for stepping from carbon monoxide training to blood doping would be a lot easier in my mind to make than stepping from powermeters to blood doping.

HRMs and powermeters are sports scientific tools and immoral in your view.

Cycling is far cleaner than it used to be- just look at the average speeds and power outputs in the Tour. It's never going to be totally clean, no professional sport is, but if they can get it to a point where clean riders can compete again, that's the best that can be hoped for.

There's no clear "line" between cheating and not, or between natural and unnatural. There's a big unclear grey area. I'm always worried about people that like to see things in black and white. Nothing is that clearcut.

Ceepo

ROK ON wrote: »

So I am pretty sure that Kelly was a huge cheat so to speak, but it maybe the case that he had more talent than the other cheaters at the time.


.

WTF !!!

Beasty

mistermatthew wrote: »

If it is their natural environment, yeah train away at altitude. However I feel when we get into tents and "natural" doping then we are just welcoming people to take liberties.

Am I too harsh beasty? Perhaps I am.

I just think there is too much grey area at the moment.

I guess one of the issues would be how could use of something like altitude tents ever be policed?

In addition, think about whether a ban could actually put athletes from poorer low lying countries at a disadvantage - getting something like this for Irish athletes is likely to be affordable when sending them off for altitute training somewhere may not be - the likes of Team GB however would be able to do just that

Clearly we are moving into where do you draw the line territory - if something is considered to have no harmful side-effects, and is just replicating conditions that can be found naturally, should it be banned?

TBH, I'm not sure I have a strong view either way, although if it's something that cannot be monitored and is not going to cause harm then I guess I would tend to the "why not" camp.

mistermatthew

MrCreosote wrote: »

HRMs and powermeters are sports scientific tools and immoral in your view.

I give up.

wfdrun

to consider altitude tents (substituting for altitude training) as cheating is wrong in my opinion.

look at the advantage kenyans/ethiopians have in running.

just my 2 cents

Chips Lovell

I don't know what race other people were watching but what I saw was what seemed to be the cleanest Vuelta in years. That's not to say there could have been some doping, but if there was it was on a much reduced scale. Made for much more exciting racing too.

kumate_champ07

mistermatthew wrote: »

HRM or Powermeters? Why bring these up?
Reasoning like this is why nothing will ever change. There is in my view a clear distinction between tents and HRMs. If there is not to you then there is nothing that I can say to convince you to my argument.

I simply believe there is a line between what is natural and unnatural. This line should be zero tolerance. All other roads in my mind are folly and invite the opportunity for further shady practices.

The justification for stepping from carbon monoxide training to blood doping would be a lot easier in my mind to make than stepping from powermeters to blood doping.

perhaps because they are measurement tools, they dont boost performance. they provide data which you have to analyze and then adjust your training to.

a tent allows you to improve your body with no physical effort

MrCreosote

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

perhaps because they are measurement tools, they dont boost performance. they provide data which you have to analyze and then adjust your training to.

a tent allows you to improve your body with no physical effort

That's not true- you still have to do the training to improve. Just like using a HRM, or anabolic agents or EPO. The physical effort still needs to be put in.

Brian?

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

perhaps because they are measurement tools, they dont boost performance. they provide data which you have to analyze and then adjust your training to.

a tent allows you to improve your body with no physical effort

So does eating right. So does getting 12 hours sleep instead if 5. So does creatine.

My thoughts would be that there's no negative implications associated with oxygen tents or altitude training so have at it.

The moral reason for banning doping is not that it helps you win, it's that the drugs cause harm. People die or shorten their life span from abusing them. If there was no anti doping measures athletes would dope themselves to death regularly, there's plenty of evidence to that effect.

Creatine allows you to train harder, it's not banned because there are no negative side effects to creative supplementation. Despite some of the Joe Duffy/ George Hook nonsense.

ashleey

With that in mind, you should distinguish between tents with carbon dioxide and tents with carbon monoxide (designed to stimulate the body to boost EPO). Carbon monoxide is not 'natural' to respiration. Carbon dioxide tents would be designed to get your body more used to running on low oxygen levels which would give you an advantage climbing Alpe d'Huez, for example (twice). Carbon monoxide is a poison.
It just shows what a torrid mess this would be to police.

Beasty

ashleey wrote: »

It just shows what a torrid mess this would be to police.

Just make the bikes out of some kind of degradeable carbon and disqualify anyone caught sniffing their handlebars ...;)

titan18

Beasty wrote: »

I guess one of the issues would be how could use of something like altitude tents ever be policed?

In addition, think about whether a ban could actually put athletes from poorer low lying countries at a disadvantage - getting something like this for Irish athletes is likely to be affordable when sending them off for altitute training somewhere may not be - the likes of Team GB however would be able to do just that

Clearly we are moving into where do you draw the line territory - if something is considered to have no harmful side-effects, and is just replicating conditions that can be found naturally, should it be banned?

TBH, I'm not sure I have a strong view either way, although if it's something that cannot be monitored and is not going to cause harm then I guess I would tend to the "why not" camp.

Problem with that is where do you define occurring naturally? Is it just altitude training, or is it for some people having high levels of testosterone etc, so we're allowed take to that value (which happens now I'd imagine, considering they have limits with stuff like T/E ratio)

Beasty

Please read the warning in post #3 (wich is referred to in the thread title), then I should not have to hand out any more cards or delete any more posts. In particular, doping speculation contravenes forum (and indeed Boards) rules

PM me if you require any clarification - do not respond in-thread

Thanks

Beasty

leftism

mistermatthew wrote: »

Unnatural training I would count as Carbon monoxide doping using hypoxic tents. Altutude tents too I'm not a fan off.

Anything of a similar vein I would count as unnatural, I'm no expert on the subject but these strike me as un natural methods.

Anyone agree?

Hypoxic tents and altitude tents are the same thing. They work by filtering out a small percentage of the oxygen in the air. Are you sure you're not getting confused with hypobaric chambers, which work by reducing atmospheric pressure? Either way, i completely disagree with you on this. How are these methods any different to living in Colorado or Flagstaff, as most top US endurance athletes do? Should we ban the Kenyan middle distance runners because they're all born and raised in Iten?

I've no problem with hypoxic tents and it is highly unlilkely that WADA will ever ban them. It is no different to sleeping at altitude. The Belgian Olympic Committee (BLOSO) have built a multi-million euro altitude facility for their athletes in Mechelen. There is nothing shady about that! Why should Irish or Belgian athletes be at a major disadvantage just because our countries are low altitude???

The carbon monoxide rebreathing that i've seen mentioned a couple of times on this forum is an entirely different story. It is highly dangerous, potentially fatal but i'm not convinced its anywhere near as prevalent as you suggest. I've only seen one article online which talks about it being used, and i wouldn't classify that as a reliable scientific source.

Carbon Monoxide has a higher affinity for haemoglobin than oxygen which would indeed reduce your circulating oxygen concentrations. This would cause renal hypoxia and hence upregulate EPO production. No arguments with any of that... The problem is that carbon monoxide has a much higher affinity for myoglobin (the oxygen carrier in your muscles). So when it diffuses into your muscle cells, it binds extremely tightly to myoglobin and is a bastard to get rid of. One of the main training adaptations that endurance athletes look for is an increase in myoglobin concentrations within their muscles.

So while you may increase your circulating RBC production and improve your oxygen carrying capacity, you're potentially reducing your muscle's ability to efficiently uptake that oxygen.

Muscle oxygen uptake is just as important as blood oxygen delivery capacity. (I'd like to see some more articles on this practice if anyone has a link, but until i read them i will take it with a pinch of salt.)

Either way, i'd be very surprised if riders are performing any of these practices in the middle of a Grand Tour. Sleeping in an hypoxic tent may slow the rate of Hgb or Hct depletion over a three week Tour, but it is potentially going to reduce your rate of recovery between stages. Reoxygenation of your muscles is an important part of the normal recovery process. So what you gain at one end, you lose at the other.

From reading the doping statements over the last 5 years, the big game changer was a mid Tour blood transfusion or EPO dose. Thanks to the blood passport system, we're not likely to see this happen anymore. So Tours now should be a lot cleaner; certainly clean enough for a talented honest rider to succeed in.

Interestingly, i was reading a 2009 WADA presentation which stated that over 150 new blood boosting substances have or will come on the market. Many are currently undetectable. However, the genius of the blood passport system is that we don't need a test for any of those drugs. By monitoring an athlete's blood profile and by knowing the normal haematological response to participation in a Grand Tour, we can catch most of the cheats.

Link to the presentation:
www.wada-ama.org/Documents/Science_Medicine/Scientific Events/Tokyo_Symposium_2009/WADA_Tokyo_Symposium_Dr.Schmnidt.pdf

My 2c is that cycling is significantly cleaner than it was 10 years ago. It'll never be 100% clean but neither will any other sport. What we need though, is for the UCI to get off their ar$e and start changing the structures of professional cycling to reduce the temptation to dope. One simple thing that could be done:

Implement a policy that all professional cycling contracts must include a clause whereby a positive doping test will immediately result in a large monetary fine against the rider (some percentage of yearly salary). This fine will be used to compensate the team sponsor for the inevitable loss of reputation and earnings. A policy like this not only acts as a disincentive to dope, but as an incentive for big corporate sponsors to have faith in the sport once again... Win win.

Beasty

leftism wrote: »

Implement a policy that all professional cycling contracts must include a clause whereby a positive doping test will immediately result in a large monetary fine against the rider (some percentage of yearly salary). This fine will be used to compensate the team sponsor for the inevitable loss of reputation and earnings. A policy like this not only acts as a disincentive to dope, but as an incentive for big corporate sponsors to have faith in the sport once again... Win win.

I would extend this to the team - they must also be financially penalised if one of their riders dopes

lg123

Brian? wrote: »

The moral reason for banning doping is not that it helps you win, it's that the drugs cause harm. People die or shorten their life span from abusing them. If there was no anti doping measures athletes would dope themselves to death regularly, there's plenty of evidence to that effect.
.

+1 on this above, this is where we draw the line.

leftism

Beasty wrote: »

I would extend this to the team - they must also be financially penalised if one of their riders dopes

I would agree with you, except how does the team actually make money? Most of it comes from the sponsors so if we want to keep the team alive, we've got to convince sponsors that the reward for investing in the sport is worth the financial risk. Best way to do that is by reducing the risk to them...

Essentially i see pro-cycling teams as a bunch of current or ex-riders that move wherever the sponsorship money is. Look at CSC, Saxobank, Cervelo, Geox etc. The riders, directors, managers, support staff all just bounce from one team to the next. The team IS the sponsor! So we've got to protect that asset.

MrCreosote

Personally I think the blood passport has revolutionised the anti-doping. The blood manipulation is just too difficult and risky now, and I'd say we're back in a situation like the 80s (maybe with fewer stimulants) when clean riders like LeMond and Charly Mottet could compete and win.

I'd say there's still plenty of anabolics being used- possibly designer steroids, probably IGF/insulin and HGH which are much harder to detect. It's always fun looking at the cyclists' jaws and wondering. They say corticosteroids are used pretty extensively as well.

The thing that makes me wonder about attitudes was when there was that kerfuffle about Cancellara's hidden engine a couple of years ago. The immediate and overwhelming response from the peleton was that that could never happen- that would be cheating. Compare that response to the lukewarm reaction to Contador doping, and to the whole Lance business, just makes me wonder if the feeling is still that doping is just another form of training, and the real crime is getting caught.

GlennaMaddy

implement a policy that all professional cycling contracts must include a clause whereby a positive doping test will immediately result in a large monetary fine against the rider (some percentage of yearly salary). This fine will be used to compensate the team sponsor for the inevitable loss of reputation and earnings

and a 5 year ban

dvntie

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

perhaps because they are measurement tools, they dont boost performance. they provide data which you have to analyze and then adjust your training to.

a tent allows you to improve your body with no physical effort

In that case why not ban the use of turbo trainers and rolling roads too as that are "unnatural"

ballygowan1

Brian? wrote: »

Micro dosing to balance blood profiles after transfusions. The micro dosing itself isn't performance enhancing, not that that makes it ok.

The days of miraculous recoveris a la Landis are gone. The days of tour winners not having a single bad day a la Armstrong are gone.

Look at this years Vuelta, agony everywhere among the leaders.

Of course micro dosing. Is performance enhancing. It raises your hemocrat level to same way as normal dosing. It is just harder to detect. Have you read Hamiltons book? He explains all this.

I don't know here you got the idea it is not performance enhancing. They were micro dosing well before they went back to blood transfisins

ballygowan1

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I don't know what race other people were watching but what I saw was what seemed to be the cleanest Vuelta in years. That's not to say there could have been some doping, but if there was it was on a much reduced scale. Made for much more exciting racing too.

You being serious? I thought it was a crazy looking race. Most people I know did also. Day in day out tearing up the climbs. We all know About Bertie and Valverde.

An ex pro I know couldn't believe the watts being produced.

AIR-AUSSIE

Some articles on this Tour de France that probably worth a read on this subject.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18921784

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/10/tour-mountains-science-of-sport

M cebee

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/nelissen-confesses-to-doping-at-rabobank

Former Rabobank rider Danny Nelissen says former sky doctor personally administered epo

Beasty

M cebee wrote: »

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/nelissen-confesses-to-doping-at-rabobank

Former Rabobank rider Danny Nelissen says former sky doctor personally administered epo

... in 1996 and 1997 - not exactly "now". And if you want to try and turn this into a "Sky" thread, please don't bother

M cebee

Beasty wrote: »

... in 1996 and 1997 - not exactly "now". And if you want to try and turn this into a "Sky" thread, please don't bother

i think it's relevant to the question of whether or not cycling is clean now

he was employed until 'recently' by sky-a team which has a no dopers policy

fact

Henlars67

I'd be fairly certain that Sky are now clean and all their riders will be racing clean this season.

There's no way that they would be getting rid of everyone with a doping past just for show.

If they were to be found doping it would be a bigger deception than Armstrong's.

They've won the TDF and established themselves as one of the world's top teams so I'm confident they'll be clean from now on.