OT: Paris Roubaix and the Spring Classics (cycling)

"...because if everyone were doping they would all have the same benefits." Simply not true, physiologically. Besides the fact that there is substantial evidence that different bodies react differently to the same doping stimulus, these athletes are obviously not participating in a controlled experiment where their doping inputs are exactly the same (as well as other variables such as diet, exercise, etc.). 

It is precisely because people react to doping very differently, that we can never say, for example, whether someone like Lance would have won any TdF's with a completely clean field. We'll just never know. 

I also disagree with your statement that cycling doesn't gain as much advantage from doping as other sports; other than weightlifting, I cannot think of a major sport where doping provides as much direct advantage as cycling! Among the top athletes, cycling is purely a matter of extended physical endurance and muscle recovery, two things directly and immediately improved by current doping methods. This is why some have said that cycling's major events place way too much emphasis on pure endurance, it actually encourages doping. 

While I believe at some level cycling is "cleaner", in that some of the most obvious tactics are tougher to get away with, I also believe that the science of doping will always be at least one step ahead of the science of doping detection, almost by definition. That is one reason why, in my late middle age, I focus more on my own cycling with my club and my friends, and now my sons, and don't pay much attention anymore to the grand tours. 

I disagree with most of this premise. The whole "everyone is doping so it creates an even playing field" is the argument that frustrates me the most when it comes to doping. 

First off, its not true in cycling now nor was it true in cycling 10-15 years ago. Sure, its likely that the top 20 finishers in the TDF were all doping, but I do think that many many professionals were not doping. Based on "Reasoned Decision", and Tyler Hamilton's book, its clear that the sophisticated programs were reserved for the team leaders. On top of that, there are many stories of professionals who quit the sport because they were not willing to dope. These people are victums of doping.

Secondly, its not an even playing field as introducing doping results in different people winning than might have won clean. Different riders benefit differently from doping. It is well documented that LA had a relatively low natural hemocrit level vs. other riders. Thus when he could dope up to the 50% threshold to avoid a negative test, he had more to gain that others. So even if its an even playing field, its a DIFFERENT playing field. You are rewarding people who respond more to drugs. 

Lastly, I will say that I think cycling is more clean than it was, and much much cleaner than the NBA/NFL/MLB. Strigent testing gives a sport more positive tests and a bad reputation but does help clean things up. Unfortunately, I'm highly skeptical of Chris Horner winning the Vuelta last year and think he is an ex-doper and likely current doper. 

To be clear, I am in favor of use of chemicals (for lack of a better term) to improve performace so long as it does not cause harm to the rider. An example of this would be caffiene. If something were to be developed which allowed physical gains without negative long term effects I don't see any harm there.

Additionally, I mean that in cycling everyone is doping for the same goal (more endurance) rather than everyone doping makes everyone equal. In other team sports where each position requires a different skillset each player would not be doping with the same goal in mind.

I hope this provided some clarity rather than muddling thing more.