Bo Hamburger admits to EPO use

Danish pro Bo Hamburger has, after denying it for so many years, admitted to using EPO from 1995-1997. This adds yet another pro athlete who denied, denied, denied, and now finally admits he took drugs. In fact Hamburger was the first rider to test positive under the UCI's new testing procedure in 2001. He was later cleared as one of his "B" samples came back negative, even though he admits to doping again in 2005 after an injury.

And the bad news for Danish cycling fans continued as Michael Rasmussen admitted not to doping, but to lying to the UCI about his whereabouts when he missed two pre-tour doping tests earlier this year. He maintains that the nature of his absence was marital problems, and the he lied to protect his private life. He also insists that his team knew about this and even gave him money to travel in France during this time period when he missed the doping tests.

"I have never taken (the banned blood-booster) EPO (erythropoietin) at any point during my career."

Well, that is all good and well, and we believe Rasmussen. It would be insane for a cyclist now to take EPO. The test is improving all the time, and numerous pros have tested positive for it. However, what he has not yet denied is taking a substance called dynepo, which is similar to EPO but one for which there is no test yet.

Where to now?

Since our last post on EPO and this drug's measured effects in a laboratory trial, we have received several comments from readers about doping in sports. The gist of these comments centers around reluctance to believe that the winners are actually doping, and also the real advantage athletes gain when (ab)using performance-enhancing drugs.

In July we wrote on this topic as the Tour de France provided a topical backdrop for these posts. We painted quite a dark picture, it seemed, leading many cycling fans to ask, "Why watch when they are all cheating and on drugs?" We responded with a post about why we should still be fans, and how not to let doping get you down. So we want to reiterate and elaborate a bit on this topic and why, even if so many (top) athletes are doping, why we should still be fans.

Training still predicts performance

In our model we believe that the athlete with the superior training adaptations will ultimately have the best chance at winning an event. How does that work? Well, simply put, the more training and more specific training one does, the larger and better the adaptations one will produce, and it is these adaptations that will predict how well you perform as they allow you to do more work in a shorter period of time (i.e. you ride or run faster).

"Ok, great, but they are still doping," we hear you saying. Indeed they are, but even when doping, the athletes still must go out and train themselves into a coma on a day to day basis. It is still necessary for them to punish their physiological systems, as that "punishment" represents a stimulus for the body to adapt. So in other words, doping does not necessarily make it easier all of the sudden---the athlete still must train day in and day out, and therefore doping is not a short cut in this respect.

Let's be clear, though, that we are not condoning the use of performance enhancing drugs. What we are saying, though, is that when taking drugs an athlete still must put in hours and hours of mind-numbing training. The drugs' role is that they reduce the recovery time, therefore making more (harder and longer) training a possibility. And it is this longer and harder training that ultimately produces larger and more specific training adaptations that then give the athlete an edge.

In addition, the use of drugs during a stage race such as the Tour de France make it possible for a cyclist to maintain a high level of consistency from day to day. So instead of attacking to take the yellow jersey on the first day in the mountains and then melting down the next day from such a heroic effort, the drugs allow for consistent racing, therefore reducing the chance of having a "bad day," and, again, they do this by reducing the recovery time between hard efforts so that it is possible to go again the next and race hard.

So they are all taking it. . .why watch?

In our perhaps cynical opinion a majority of the peleton is indeed using performance-enhancing drugs. However this will not deter us from watching, and here is why. As we mentioned above the drugs do not necessarily make it any easier for a rider to race up a mountain. Do they increase his total capacity to do work? As we mentioned yesterday, the answer is a resounding "Yes." However the athlete is still pushing himself to his limit. The limit has been extended, for sure, as a result of the drugs and their effects, but still they have to attack each other all the way to the top, fighting for every second. So in other words whether they are on drugs or not, they still race at the same intensity---it is just that their total capacity has been enhanced, meaning they can do more, but again at the same intensity as before.

Being fans at heart, we continue to hope that admissions from pros like Hamburger, Riis, Brian Holm and Jesper Skibby continue to encourage others to 1) come clean and admit to past wrongs, and 2) encourage new and younger riders to ride clean.