Doge

My statement was at the very top level. For cycling those on the WorldTour teams. Some of these guys are monitored hourly as to their whereabouts. Allowing one to inject anything is a big hole in the system that makes all the other intrusive processes and efforts moot. Personal, team, country based physicians can not be trusted. The level of athlete that can perform at this level is and will of course be limited to those not needing help.

The competition to find who is the best in the world should be between those without technology/drug exemptions to do what others can't. If one athlete that trains as hard as the other lacks physical ability they are not allowed to make it up with technology. Likewise if someone has missing or sub functional parts then like 99.99...% of the population they can't compete at the top level. As hard as the TUE drug discussion is I think the prosthesis discussion is more difficult. My view is the same.

Doge

Hematocrit is above 50 (I think) you are barred if you are a man, 46 (I think) for women. There are millions of men with that number naturally. It can be legally and illegally moved a bit. We move it legally. But - by total legal/allowed methods if the racer is tested over 50 - I'm not sure what the penalty is, but there is a limit.

gsteinb

Do they still test that number, even though there's an actual EPO test?

mattm

I think so - isn't that a part of the Biological Passport test?

gsteinb

no clue, really. thus the question. I don't follow the intricacies of this stuff much.

Duke of Kent

And you can get an exemption.

Several pros have this due to "growing up at altitude". Whether or not its legit is another discussion.

Doge

I had thought so.
What I can't find right now on the UCI site is the limit.

From UCI 2012 both are listed.
We pride ourselves on the fact that we were the first sport to introduce a whole range of scientific measures as tools in this fight. These include the haematocrit test, the EPO tests, the homologous blood transfusion test and the blood passport

I read this indicating they do from last year. Venezuelan pops for 63-percent hematocrit, misses chance to join Androni - VeloNews.com

Letter from the President to the riders

caloso

I'd like to thank the 33 for making me aware of baking soda as a supplement.

gsteinb

I'm snorting lines of baking soda right now!

Ygduf

me too! I'm going to brush my teeth and swallow.

Racer Ex 

Soda?

Not powder?

Ooops. That explains it.

Ygduf

just don't eat pickles just before...

Doge

I didn't think the juniors were doing it. This is a bummer.
British junior cyclist admits to taking EPO | Cyclingnews.com

caloso

Not interchangeable, which is why that batch of cookies came out so horribly.

Andy STi

Was just about to post that.
British cycling stunned after junior TT champion and masters road race winner guilty of doping | CyclingTips

Grumpy McTrumpy

Stunned?

British Cycling has been the same sort of dominant force that American Cycling was during the Lance years. Maybe these two are just amateur aberrations, and the remainder of British Cycling are clean as a whistle, but I seem to recall USCF being "stunned" as well. Look what happened there.

Racer Ex 

Stunned, after Tiernan-Locke? Geert Leinders?

Brailsford hired both guys, then claimed he was shocked about the doping. TL was a very good rider who suddenly rode like superman. Leinders worked for Rabobank for 7 years and more than a few doping positives including several TDF top five guys.

For a guy who claims he pays attention to all the little details, that's pretty obtuse.

Carmichael paid out money to settle doping some juniors while he was with USAC (Then USCF). I know people who rode for the US team as juniors in Europe under Eddie B and were given "vitamin" shots. So juniors testing positive is not a surprise. It's just sad. The article also talks about another guy who tested positive.

So we don't have a lock on misbehavior. USA! USA!

Doge

They don't test juniors that I know of. They can (I know because I had to sign they could) - they don't.

grolby

The Brits are feeling the same kind of nationalist exceptionalism we did in the 90's - we're the good guys, with good upstanding Protestant morals, not like those sneaky Euros - no way we'd cheat! It's just as silly and arrogantly naive as it was when it was us.

Doge

It would help the sport a lot if at the end of every armature (junior 14+, Cat P123) race the top 10 got bike checked and figure pricked and gave a urine sample. They could take those samples and throw them in the trash (secretly) and we'd be way better off. The fact that testing at the development level does not really exist is an issue that by the time they are pros / at the international level they have had the opportunity to cheat a very long time. By that time they are too far into it. Sure rides also start in their 20s but it would be better to check much earlier.

grolby

I mean, that's a great idea except for the part where it's fraud, medically unethical, and would very quickly be discovered and ruin the credibility of the anti-doping agency and/or governing body.

TheKillerPenguin

RE: peeing in a cup, I have a shy bladder, so if I ever have to give a sample there are gonna be some super bored testers watching me. Maybe there should be a designated juicer that bear hugs you from behind to force the pee out?

Ygduf

I don't really think it would be wrong or unethical to tell people we're collecting samples from the top-10 and 2 or 3 will be randomly tested. That's honest, up front, and peeing in a cup, tested or not tested, would scare a lot of people straight.

It's a lot of pee though and the expense of collecting would be a burden.

globecanvas

I would have no problem with collecting the data from lots of racers and discarding almost all of it. It's like a trooper parked on the side of the road, everybody slows down even if there's nobody in the cruiser.

grolby

Disclosure is the crucial element missing from Doge's proposal. However, I would need some convincing that there would be a functional difference between taking more samples and having most of them be shams vs. true random testing where only samples to be actually tested are taken. Just look at the pro dopers who took (take) dozens of tests with essentially no fear that they would (will) be caught.

There's also the question of cost. That trooper still gets paid to sit by the side of the road. Testing ten people, even if 7-9 tests are shams, is not going to cost the same as only collecting samples from 1-3.