> drugs are not used much

they just switched to drugs you cant easily detect.

ah, the magic undetectable drug that's just the right kind of effective without the pesky side effects, which you'd need other undetectable drugs for.

this drug would be worth a lot of money, but we'll keep secret except just for the one top performer, because wide distribution would increase the risk of a leak substantially.

and remember: the top performers getting busted would probably mean the end of pro cycling as we know it for decades. cycling isn't a huge money maker for financial investors like football, rather it's a money pit for sponsors. do sponsors love a podium placement more than being forever associated with dirty cheaters? they'd risk it all for modest gains. a young superstar would trade a life of a good salaried position with some more money but also a high risk of being banned from the sport forever, thus no source of income at all and also the questionable title of being the killer of a whole sport.

so imo: it's possible, but unlikely.

I would argue that history suggests this is likely. The dopers have substantially more financial resources than the testers. EPO is a great example. It was widely used in cycling for almost 10 years before tests were developed. It was pretty much a miracle drug from a performance standpoint and undetectable. The very few cyclists that tried to blow the whistle were run out of the sport. Similarly, blood doping was widely used for a decade after the EPO test was developed and no one ratted out the teams doing it until USADA brought the hammer down on Armstrong.

It’s also worth thinking about the incentives to test and catch cheaters. Do the organizers of the Tour de France really want to bust the biggest names in the sport? That would destroy their livelihood. Do the national anti-doping authorities want the athletes from their country busted (look how many national antidopingborgs have successfully appealed adverse rulings through CAS)? It’s in everyone’s best interest to bust a low level doper here and there to make it look like they are watching but to ignore the big names that fans are coming to see. All of this is also why motor doping is unlikely. Motor doping leaves incontrovertible evidence of cheating. Positive drug tests can always be challenged as either inaccurate testing or unintentional contamination.

i'm unconvinced. EPO was undetectable, but not anymore. new undetectable substance would run the risk of being detectable in a few years. who would ignore whistleblowers today? and the USADA did bring the hammer down on LA at some point.

sure, they pay off is high, but the risk - at least in cycling - is even higher, exactly because they've been caught once and now all eyes are on them. if pog gets popped, nobody will trust cycling to be clean ever again; it's hard enough today, as this thread proves.

We can agree to disagree. People said cycling would be clean after the '98 Festina affair because all eyes were on them. All that happened was that teams (that could afford it) switched from EPO to blood doping. The next Tour after everyone said the Festina bust had cleaned up cycling was Lance Armstrong's first win (1999).

Looking at how Armstrong and Contador are revived, there is not much downside getting caught years after doping.

EPO was always detectable. The trouble was detecting synthetic EPO. In fact, the maker of synthetic EPO (Amgen) was the title sponsor of the Tour of California!

After they developed that test stage speeds dropped dramatically. Now speeds are back up to where they were right before the EPO test was developed. You really think that’s natural?

Cycling has a doping scandal once every decade or two. Why would another one kill the sport this time when it never did before?

yeah, i think i'm convinced.

It's not necessarily a new performance-enhancing molecule that nobody has heard of, but alternative posology or training regimen to stay under detection threshold, new masking products, etc.

Doping has been a cat-and-mouse game for decades, it's not unrealistic to think this is still happening.

The fact that Pogacar this year managed to reach Bjarne "Mr. 60%" Riis levels of performance in the mountain makes you wonder if this is only standard athletic and performance science or if they're something else.

> and remember: the top performers getting busted would probably mean the end of pro cycling as we know it for decades

You mean, like when Lance Armstrong got caught?

It was less than 20 years ago and yet you still argue like it didn't happen. Undetected doping was indeed possible (he did it for years) and no it didn't destroy pro cycling…

this also supports my point, though: armstrong got caught. he was stripped of all his titles. there were whistleblowers (even though they were ignored back then). everybody knew they were cheating but nobody did anything about it ... well, until they did.

i don't know how hard pro cycling was affected after his bust, i just remember reading that it took a few years to recover (i.e. a few teams got dissolved, some sponsors jumped ship).

even today, if you talk about cycling to an outside person the FIRST thing they ask you about is doping.

so in my opinion, professional cycling is on its doping redemption part - forced, whether they want it or not - because if they (and by "they" i mean Pog) get popped big time again, it's going to be viewed as irredeemable. they'd have had their chance after LA and blew it.

This sounds like the same fud Armstrong conned most people into believing. In his case EPO was so hard to detect he got away with it for how many years?

So imo: it’s possible but more likely than you think.

It's been proved scientifically that microdosing EPO is undetectable and results in a significant performance boost:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36317927/ https://www.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/R058.pdf

Now I cannot say this cannot be proven in the future, but right now it is definitely possible, and not even a secret.

Perhaps there's drugs which mask the actual performance enhancers now. The women's marathon record was broken last year by Ruth Chepngetich by a considerable margin. Seemed too good to be true, and many of the groups I'm in called out doping straight away.

She has just been suspended for 2 years for a drug which I believe (may be wrong) masks other performance enhancing drugs.

I think that you have to actually watch the grand tours to understand why this seems plausible:

Both Pogacar and del Toro (UAE’s gc riders in the Tour and Giro, respectively) are able to keep up with (and even drop) the strongest climbers, and then look fresh as a daisy across the line. Like they aren’t even trying.

This was most obvious when del Toro lost to Yates on the last stage of this year’s Giro, but Pogacar does it too. They start the final climb a few minutes behind the leaders, then match the fastest rider up the climb and then magically have zero fatigue for the final sprint across the line to pick up a few spots. Yates only won because del Toro made a huge tactical mistake of focusing on Carapaz

Everyone else is dying and the riders from this one team look like they could do another stage… and we’re supposed to think that’s natural?

"cycling isn't a huge money maker for financial investors like football, rather it's a money pit for sponsors. do sponsors love a podium placement more than being forever associated with dirty cheaters? they'd risk it all for modest gains."

To me, this is an interesting comment, because on the surface it may sound true, like come on, this is common sense, but it is far off the reality that it is in front of us everyday. People want to win. They want to be better than others. You go to any gym and there are plenty of people who assume substantial quantities of hormones--test, hgh--just to look better in pictures. You go to any martial arts gym, and there are plenty of people of all ages, including 50+ years old, who are on TRT and more to win some rolls at the gym or dream about winning a cheap medal at a local tournament with 5 people in attendance.

People buy local teams because they want to be known, popular. They want to win. They want to humiliate the owner of the other team. Athletes are getting caught? Well, I strongly condemn their actions, they say.

You can do worse than reading "Speed Trap" or the book by Sandro Donati on doping, if you can find it translated from Italian.

For the prestigious pro events samples are kept for years afterwards and are subject to re-testing at any time as science advances. If any of those re-tests fails (or if cheating comes to light through any other means) the rider would be dq'd, stripped of the result, and be liable to pay back prize any and sponsorship money.

These are riders in their twenties, that's such a long time to rely on getting away with it I personally do not think it's happening at the highest pro-level.

> For the prestigious pro events samples are kept for years afterwards and are subject to re-testing at any time as science advances.

That’s easy to solve. Use some of the prize money to stage an elaborate heist of the blood sample and replace it with a clean sample.

I bet this would make a good movie. Could be called “Blood Spoke”.

Their Wheel Be Blood by the Traffic Cone Brothers.

Of course it happens. At the highest levels and at the amateur levels. People want to win. It's like telling people they shouldn't commit crimes because they might end up in prison or worse. But people continue to commit crimes and end up in prison when they are caught, or worse, when they are killed.

If prostitution is the oldest profession in the world, according to some, cheating is the oldest way to gain an advantage.

I mean, just a few weeks ago, we found out about a guy who was working for I don't know how many companies at the same time, that a start-up had developed some artificial intelligence software to cheat during tech interviews and had secured some good funding. Well, but that can't happen in sport, even though it's been happening since the dawn of time. Sport is business, and business is dirty.

Do you have a source to support that claim?

"just"

That word can mean several different things. In their sentence "just" means "only", as in "only switched, not stopped", it doesn't mean it was simple which is presumably what you are replying assuming it meant.

> The Tour de France was originally intended to be so tough that only one person might finish it.

The difficulty has been toned down a lot since the early days though. (You'll never see a 466km long stage like the first of Tour de France 1903[1] ever again).

[1]: https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1re_%C3%A9tape_du_Tour_de_Fr...)

There are still races with much longer "stages" than 466km, but they are not part of the contemporary pro-cycling world. The classic brevet events, Paris-Brest-Paris and Boston-Montreal-Boston are 1200km ridden as a single stage. PBP is older than the TDF also, starting in 1891. The nature of brevet events means that they can essentially never be a spectator sport, hence the lack of any significant attention to them.

Pedantically, brevets are not races.

In what sense is PBP not a race? It is a timed event, with a cutoff. The organization that runs it maintains a results list that includes times.

If you mean there are no prizes, then fair enough, but that's not my definition of a race.

The nature and culture around the event discourage treating them as races. The point is completion, not competition. It shares a lot of the definition of a race while not being one.

The culture centers on completion because that's so damn hard. The fastest riders, however, are absolutely racing each other.

Would you say that Tour Divide or TransEurope are not races, because enough people fail to finish them that the focus is on completion, not competition?

Another reason why the culture is different: drafting is not widely used, and pack formation is rare. This magnifies the effects of very small differences in riding speed so that riders are generally widely spread out. I know from own experience doing brevets in the 90s that it would be rare to be in visual contact with other riders. Same is true for Tour Divide, TransEurope, RAAM etc. This makes "competition" look and feel very different than in pro-cycling and cat racing where "can I hang with the pack?" and "should i attack now?" are the constant questions.

However, all the same things are true of ultramarathon running too. Limited visual contact with other racers, high DNF rates, completion being the goal for the majority of participants. Nobody says, however, that WS100 or UTMB are "not races". And the reason for that is: in this category of racing, there is no other format. Nobody runs 100 miles like the pack on a track and field event, or even the way most major marathons play out. The nature of racing WS100 or UTMB just simply is the nature of ultramarathon running races.

And so it is for cycling. When you increase the distances and terms (e.g. "the clock runs non-stop"), the nature of the event changes. PBP is nothing like any TdF stage, but it is still a race. Granted, more like triathlon where only a small percentage of the entrants are actively racing other people, but people don't say that's not a race, either.

I think a thing fit all the definitions of something while not being that thing. For example, tomatoes are berries according to the definition set by botanists, yet if you ask anyone in genpop they consider tomatoes a vegetable because that is how people view them.

I’m not trying to disagree that PBP isn’t a race, because i acknowledge it fits the definition of a race, but I hope we can agree that calling it a race does a disservice to its history and culture.

For similar reasons I wouldn’t consider the Tour Divide a race either because the organizers don’t call it a race. For the same reasons an ultramarathon or rides like Unbound, Silk Road, TransAm, or Transcontinental is a race; because the organizers call it one. Is this a rational viewpoint? Definitely not, but that’s fine with me.

There is a power in what things are called and I think it is important to stay true to roots.

With satellite trackers and social media these kinds of events have developed into a spectator sport. Bikepacking races tend to be in more remote locales than the French countryside so racers are required to carry a satellite tracker which reports to a public website. "Dot watchers" who live along the route come out to watch racers go by or leave water/snacks in coolers along the side of the road. Far more dot watchers are limited to the live tracker and check daily updates from racers or journalists covering the event on social media.

After the event some racers upload videos for spectators and it helps them with sponsorship. This video gives a glimpse into what its like to race the Tour Divide competitively. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azJS106xeNA

What I mean by a "spectator sport" in this context is primarily that the event can be monetized because huge numbers of people will watch it either in person or via video of some sort.

The number of people watching the trans-europe or other similar solo events as they happen is likely less than the population of a typical US liberal arts school. The monetization that might follow from YT videos that occurs later is completely different from what the TdF manages to encourage. The winner of 2023's Tour Divide has 58k views ... even Lael only gets 300k or so views for her adventuring and racing videos. This is not a spectator sport in any sort of historical sense of that term.

This is a naive view of doping, sport, and physiology. Of course, they use doping nowadays, just as they did yesterday. I would go so far as to say that all top professional athletes in individual sports use banned substances. They use methods and substances that allow them to avoid testing positive. At the highest levels, all athletes are genetically gifted. However, the performance differences created by substance-induced physiological alterations are too great to be compensated for by slight differences in genetics, training, and nutrition.

Almost all records in individual sports have been broken since competitions were basically not subject to doping controls. Athletes from the DDR and the Soviet Union, and more recently from China, have used enormous amounts of hormones. Yet almost all records set in the 1980s have been broken. Is there better talent selection today? Certainly, along with better training, science, and nutrition, as well as better surfaces and shoes/equipment. But physiology reigns supreme.