Getting to the truth about dopers/Clean riders who dare to win

Also, did you know that the man who introduced Armstrong to Michele Ferrari was a chap called Eddy Merckx? Must have been a different Eddy Merckx. I'm sure the greatest cyclist of all time wouldn't have anything to do with a doping doctor. Or have pushed his own son to see this doctor.

I didn't even realise Roche had written an anti-doping book. I wonder what Dad thinks about it.

I recently read 'Inside the Peleton' by Nicolas Roche in which he takes a strong anti doping line and suggests that Contador should have been banned for a minimum of 4 years and preferably life.

A couple of seasons on and who is he riding with?

This suggests lip service only at the top of the sport.

Yes, I sort of feel that the winners are likely to be the best dopers if you see what I mean (the most effective and careful at not getting caught).

It's a problem endemic in many sports. The pandora's box has been opened and there is no way of shutting the lid. The only way you can really affect this is by anti-doping vigilance, and punishing the athletes heavily. Although there is the problem that occasionally the testers get it wrong too.

If they are able to catch the main beneficiaries of cheating (i.e. the winners of big prize money), it will mean that athletes will be circumspect about cheating because they gain nothing. In the case of Lance Armstrong they are undertaking this process, but it is about ten years to late.

Tennis has gone to great lengths to keep its own scandals from coming out. I don't doubt that football is much the same - just look at the amount of running players do now, and how physically big they are. Rugby too.

@notfastenough, I quite agree. I was more referring to public perception and acceptance rather than my own view.

I genuinely believe the British guys who have come up through British cycling share none of the doping culture.

The 'new generation of clean riders', as a concept, does not exist yet with the British public at large. Cycling will have extra work to do, compared to other sports, to convince people of it's cleanliness, even though other sports such as tennis, football are likely to now have dopers at the very top levels.

I think more scandals are waiting to break, just hope they don't hit cycling

There's too much money to be gained by winning for the sport - or any sport - to be 100% clean. That, and the will to win at all costs mentality.

But there's no doubt cycling is a huge amount better now than it was even 5 years ago, and that it's probably a lot cleaner than most of the big sports around the world.
It's just that the gains from doping are so much more tangible in a (almost) purely endurance-based sport like cycling.

But you know what will help.... The teams and authorities coming down hard on all competitors caught doping. And by hard I mean Lance -style bans.

I hope the apply this to Di Luca to start getting the message out now.

There is no such thing as a 'new generation' of clean riders when you have people in the peleton still doping and getting caught.

It'll take a long period -perhaps years - of concerted efforts by the testers with consistent clean results before people even start to believe that there is a 'new generation'

Even then they'll still be doubters, and understandably so.

You only have to read about Lance to realise that doping and catching dopers are complicated sciences. The catchers are always going to be one step behind. Human nature and the desire for fame and fortune dictates that there will always be someone who will risk it. To me this means that more money in the sport = more cheating. If the rewards are great enough then you can afford to both cheat and pay a Scientist/Doctor/Professor to cover your actions up...
Otherwise you cheat and hope for the best... Ricardo style

I think there's a lot more than mumbling going on about Froome already!