I don't get it...

[shinomaster]

If Lance and Jan, all the others were doping and guilty as hell, then why, oh why, did they never, ever test positive for anything, in any tour, or classic, or any random drug test? (sorry about all the commas)
I don't understand. How could a rider keep beating the tests? If the crap wasn't in their system during the Tour does it mean they didn't cheat? Or was it? Was Lance using the synthetic Hemaglobin developed by NASA for outer space?
How do you guys "in the know" know so much? Who told you? Why wont you tell us what you really know? Or, are you just assuming?

[Ray]

I'm not one 'in the know' so take with the usual grain of salt. But I think it's largely like regulating anything else. The 'cheaters' have a lot of financial incentive to win. They can put a lot of money into the best doctors, scientists, whatever to find ways to help them do it. Whether it's by using and even developing new stuff that isn't illegal yet or stuff that isn't detectable from testing (is doping with your own blood detectable?) or otherwise masking stuff that is illegal so that it becomes undetectable, these guys are way ahead of the curve. The regulators, otoh, usually have a limited budget and are always playing catch-up. They're usually at least a couple of steps behind those who are trying to get an advantage.

In the case of using stuff that's not illegal yet, that's a good way to go because you can't be busted for it and its not cheating, at least technically. In the case of doing stuff that's not detectable or can be masked, you need something like the Puerta case where loads of evidence is uncovered.

The science is always a few steps ahead of the regulators. In any field.

-Ray

[toaster]

In order to dope and not get caught you stay within fairly generous limits, don't show sudden changes, and most of all, don't get implicated in scandals.

It's possible to get the most benefits from a program of doping and drugs if you do it just under the radar. A big spike in performance or results and/or testing limits will make you guilty.

Remember Ivan and Jan didn't test dirty, they were caught up in a drug ring investigation.

[victoryfactory]

Please remember that blood "doping" doesn't necessarily mean
using drugs.

Is it possible that Jan and Ivan were just using their own blood as
a training/ performance inhancement?

Also illegal, but not the same as taking epo/steroids. I think you can get
away with this "doping if you are careful to keep your blood cell count
"normal" whatever that means.

I think they are also considering banning those high altitude sleeping contraptions.

Remember that in pro cycling you are guilty until proven innocent.
A tough deal, perhaps

VF

[cinelli]

You will never test positive for Diet Coke if they don't test for Diet Coke. Simply use something else that does the same thing which is not being tested.

I suspect atmo might test positive for flux if they ever decide to test for it.

[telenick]

Hard telling not knowing. But, I suspect that there is nothing new under the sun. Follow the money and you'll find the answer.

[jeffg]

The fact of the matter is that the riders implicated in Operation Puerto have been tested many times, including in the French laboratory in Châtenay Malabry, both within and out of competition and have always proven negative.

Some of the most prominent riders that are named in the affair have been tested by UCI, by WADA and by national anti-doping organisations several times in the months of May and June 2006. WADA has conducted 189 out-of-competition tests on cyclists in 2005. One result showed positive (for EPO, not blood transfusion). All known results for 2006 are negative. And what about the number of out-of-competition tests that have been conducted in France?
So no amount of out-of-competition controls would have assisted in identifying the practises being utilised in Spain: these are simply not detectable by doping controls.