TheKillerPenguin

Basically agree. I was so happy when after doping he sucked so bad!

tetonrider

like i said above...

i personally did not interpret that he was a "hero." certainly he was part of the doping system, but he was also a whistle-blower. it took someone of his stature to be able to credibly shed light on this situation.

he did put his life, his career and his family's lives: he gave up quite a bit, and i think that's notable. this wasn't a scenario where he was a doper cyclist who got busted and then ratted out friends to save himself.

i found at least 2 things particularly interesting:
1 - the early interview with some anti-doping officials who said that doping control is basically impossible;
2 - the mechanisms used to cheat the tests in Sochi, including cracking the tamper-proof bottles. aside from the sport aspect, it was really interesting to see the resources devoted to that challenge and the execution *during* the games.

Radish_legs

Watching Icarus now gives me ZERO confidence that the pro peleton is clean. 0.00%.

Doge

The UK junior busted for doping 1-2 years ago was in the same race as my kid. He was doping and finished in the bottom 50%. I wouldn't lighten his ban/sentence, but I do feel sorry for him.

mattm

That's part of my annoyance though - I think of a whistleblower as someone in an organization that sees something wrong, and blows the lid on it. This Russian doctor guy was fully in on the cheating - yes he blew the lid on it, but it's not quite the same. Maybe I'm applying more nuance than the term deserves, but it seems like an important different to me.

But I agree there were some interesting parts to the documentary, like the mechanics of how the cheating was done. It could have been 45 minutes though - cut out the doping to win a fondo part, and much of the "Russia is chasing me" part, and it would have been way better, in my opinion.

mattm

Could be - but I do remember in about 2012? or so that pro cycling seemed to change. The racing literally seemed to slow down around that time, it was actually a little less exciting to watch. I can only assume that's because it was cleaner.

To me it seemed like even if some guys were cheating, it was nothing like what they were on before.

Even if everyone is cheating, I don't think WADA/UCI should just give up. It's an arms race of doctors on both sides, always will be.

tetonrider

it's funny you mention that, as i had the same thought while i typed that word in the first place.

i actually think a whistleblower is a whistleblower, even if they were in on it. this guy was definite *enthusiastic* about the programs he ran, so while i'd imagine in russia there might be some coercive forces one might feel, it seems like this guy found a way not only to make peace with it but also to do his absolute best.

that said, can't a person have a change of heart? can't one redeem themself?

if he hadn't spilled all this data (at risk to his life), would we ever have learned this?

agree. i was doing some work while i watched it, and i'll repeat that i didn't give a $hi4 about his amateur doping story with one exception: the amount he was injecting shocked me. i figured people who do this stuff use creams or pills. injecting anything (drugs as recreation) always seemed to me crossing a significant line.

gsteinb

My opinion of the film was more in line with Matt's. I didn't particularly love it, thought it was too long. I was sort of rooting for the Russian guy not to get whacked, but I think I also just finished rewatching the sopranos before I watched Icarus. The documentarian was a wholly unlikeable guy who basically made a film so he could justify doping, which in all fairness was just a rip-off of something Outside did years ago. So not only was he a prick, but he wasn't particularly original. As Matt says, a lot of that would have hit the cutting room were it shorter.

As to injectables. The reality is a lot of that stuff is so toxic to the liver it's the safest root. Plus, wasn't he on EPO. Not sure there's a patch for that.

And as for the redemptive qualities of a character, sure they exist. But it never really fully exonerates their bad deeds. It does broaden the spectrum of their character, but of course as is human nature, many will always place a higher priority on the things he did that they don't like. We can find loads of examples where this is true, from news stories, to history, to literature.

topflightpro

I line up with MattM and GStein. The Russian wasn't so much a whistleblower as he was bragging about what they had done and let the cat out of the bag.

And the documentarian was a tool.

Heathpack 

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, it could be some doping substance I'm unfamiliar with. But I can't think off the top of my head of a drug that's given via injection or transdermally because it's safer for the liver to do so.

The typical reason meds are given via non-oral route:
1. Patient can't or won't take an oral med
2. The drug can't survive the low pH of the stomach or would otherwise be inactivated/digested into an inactive med before it could be absorbed
3. The medication has what is called a "first pass" metabolism, meaning that it's removed from the circulation by the liver before it gets to the general circulation. (The normal flow is: stomach/small intestine -> liver -> heart for distribution to the rest of the body via the general circulation.)

Once a med is in general circulation, it gets distributed to all tissues in the body, including the liver. So if it's toxic to the liver, the liver still gets exposed to the drug.

gsteinb

perhaps it's bro-science, but I had always heard that guys took testosterone and its derivatives via injection because the orals were more toxic.

Heathpack 

Interesting, not bro science.

According to this paper, oral testosterone is often ineffective because of first-pass metabolism. But it's also less-safe because oral high-dose testosterone (which is typically what men are given) is indeed more toxic to the liver. That's a bit unusual for a drug but in this case is actually part of the rationale behind the injectable dosing.

Testosterone Treatments: Why, When, and How? - American Family Physician

Learn something new every day.

gsteinb

wow. one of the rare occasions I don't end up feeling like a dumb ass

hack

Late to the party, but Icarus.

Didn't care for the lead guy. Not impressed with his goal of racing under the guise of a documentary. Do an FTP test, dope, and do another FTP test. You're now xx percent stronger. You already know your target race isn't testing, so just keep working with your skype pal to test the "testing". Just don't subject the guys you're lining up against to your BS (I get that some of them are likley doping, too). I was also surprised to see that he hasn't done much in the way of USAC given his ambition to race. Curious if he's a regular in the LA scene group rides (@doge?).

On Grigory ... whistle-blower or whatever, he's an odd bird. If I understand the timing of events, he was working with the documentary while still running the lab in Russia and was free to give out procedures to beat tests? Also, given what he seemed to fear back home, he was comfy just saying peace out to his wife via skype? Hey ... I get to go into hiding, but good luck to you? Maybe those details were left out, but that seemed odd.

Interesting on some levels, but the initial premise was a total swing n miss for me.

tetonrider

i read a thread on another forum that was discussing the guy @Ygduf knew who recently got suspended for doping.

there's some fighting and some conspiracy stuff, but there was also some info on that drug (clomid?) and it's known off-label use to stimulate testosterone. guess it works in males because the body senses more estrogen and ramps testosterone to even it out.

i have no knowledge here, but there was discussion that adding testosterone to the system reduces the body's ability to create it. maybe that means people who take it wind up needing more to just function, even after they stop using it to win amateur bike races.

tetonrider

i don't think he was bragging at all. he took pride in his work, sure, but at the point he was giving details to the NY Times and others he was very much aware what this would do, as it related to his life, his future, his wife's future.

he could have stayed in russia and continued doing what he was doing for the rest of his life without problems.

i think we can debate hero or not (i don't think he is) and many other things, but i don't think whether he was a whistleblower or not is debatable. the definition of one just includes exposure of what was going on, not whether they were complicit. it is normal for whistleblowers to face repercussions (firing, blackballing), and this guy CERTAINLY faced that and worse. he didn't have any guarantee of protection when he came forth.

having to give up your entire life -- literally EVERYTHING -- and go into witness protection is pretty damn serious. think about it for a moment. there's no bragging involved. and i bet there is never a day when he does not have at least a moment of nervousness for what could happen.

i'm sure his former comrades have not forgotten.

agree on the film-maker. he should have cut out his role in the film. i mean that's what got him the story, but (a) that story had already been done and (b) it would have allowed him to focus on the bigger/better story and do so more concisely.

ego probably got in the way.

Ygduf

Linky

tetonrider

most of it is a fight.

Doge

Me too. Not so interested. I guess I need to if I want to comment. I don't know the two most recently suspended. Are you asking about other than those?

Ygduf

that's "interesting" - I'm riding with dude Wednesday. Haven't seen him in a bit, will be glad!

hack

Nah, just the guy from the documentary. He appears to be SoCal based, so was curious if you heard of him.

Doge

Name?

gsteinb

Bryan Fogel

Doge

Name sounded familiar, but that is it. I see him in Wiki - pegged to Boulder.
No knowledge of him 1st hand.
I'd say if you pic a random <50% there is a 10% chance I've heard of them, but the better riders, most have heard of. SoCal is small. See the same riders over and over.

Doge

This bothers me (the DQs) https://www.usacycling.org/results/i...hp?compid=1917
I agree he broke the rules. I really don't admire him, never did as a person, and him being a jerk is OT to being a cyclist. But I wish I had his numbers to see. Why can't we see how he did (and do the dope interpolation)?

Lance was and is still representative of something other than doping and cheating.