While it is true that a hematocrit level is not 100% proof of EPO doping in itself considering the other _correlated_ factors at play it definitely lays a strong foundation for such conclusion.

How else would you explain Pantani's unusually high hemocrit level? It is my understanding that a level above 50 is exceptionally rare. If Panatani was such a rare natural exception, he surely would have been tooting his horn quite a bit about it.

Epogen was available in 1989 to the common public, in the US at least. The year you cite, 1998 was the year of the Festina drug scandal. And those riders were not busted for using a topical cream to treat saddle sores. That is what you are referring to with Armstrong testing positive for steroids.

Regarding steroids, it's no surprise to me that Barry Bonds has been (still is?) using steroids.

In the case of Barry, he not only would hit a homer run, but knock it out of the park. Sure you list Panatani's palmares, but you don’t list by what margin his victories were (e.g. time differences - nor do I expect you to a sit would be totally unreasonable).

It's easy to see Bond's stats and see how it is so that he's been on the juice. It's also quite easy to see how his physique changed over the course of his career with steroid usage.

With cycling and it's performance enhancing drugs we don't have that luxury of pyhsical observation. Additionally, I don't have the luxury of time to research this - compiling numbers, performing regression analysis, etc. (Incidentally, I've been working on a winter project compiling historical Mt Washington v. Whiteface Mtn bike results. That's much simpler in scope and a major investment of time)

I'm sure with a little bit of rigor, the racing stat numbers would tell the same story as the high hemocrit readings, the correlation of erythropoietin and enhanced race results of the pro peloton.

Without such rigor, I only make such assertions after the fact with Pantani and his high hemocrit reading. (Likewise the same with Bonds)

One or two others allude to other (or all) racers being cheats. Perhaps they are, but since they have not tested positive, I assume they are not. Honestly, I don't care much and don't give it much thought whether or not they are.

Let's assume for the sake of argument, everyone is a cheat, meaning they take illegal performance enhancing drugs. I think a good metaphor would be while the rest of the peloton is driving 55-60 mph on a highway with a 55 mph speed limit. Pantani got busted driving 75 mph. It's much like hitting the ball out of the park, literally.

There’s a current best selling book entitled, Freakonomics. One of the coauthors is a Univ. of Chicago economics professor. Within this book, there’s a chapter illustrating how Chicago public school teachers and professional sumo wrestlers both cheat. It did so not by catching the school teachers filling out the students’ answers for the standardized test on video tape, but rather through statistical analysis. (The incentive for them to cheat was to get more federal money for school funding). Likewise the same was done for sumo wrestling – no wire tapping, but rather statistical analysis.

Incidentally, the evidence was conclusive enough to have school teachers fired over the research work he and others had done. As for sumo wrestling, two industry insiders in Japan blew the whistle on cheating and somehow mysteriously disappeared (yakuza, anyone?)

In the book he mentioned how an American pro cyclist had asked him to research if pro cyclists in Europe cheat. Unfortunately that was all that was written in the book. I reckon if he did such research (maybe he did) and published it, he would become the next Salman Rushdie or be in financial ruin with libel lawsuits occuring in perpetuity.

I just saw Stephen Baldwin denouncing porn and strip clubs on Good Morning America. He was being interviewed at the Runcible Spoon. Reminded me of Derek sitting at the Spoon and attacking his lunch in true Vino style.