How Many Professional and Amateur Athletes Are Doping? The Science

In 2024, a Spanish amateur cycling event made headlines for all the wrong reasons. On stage six of the 8-day stage race, riders were made aware that Spanish anti-doping authorities were on site, a fact that the riders did not know before entering the race. The result, 182 riders started the stage and only 52 finished. This means that nearly three-quarters of the field decided that they had somewhere better to be once they heard about the possibility of getting tested. Now, to be fair, this does not prove that all of those riders were doping. This race could have had the most catastrophic outbreak of flat tires, freak mechanicals, stomach bugs, and a sudden loss of any will to continue in the history of cycling. >> [snorts] >> This guy can't go one video without talking about Unbound. If you've ever wondered how many cyclists or other endurance sports athletes, or just athletes in general, are doping both in the professional and amateur ranks, then this video will not answer that question, at least not [clears throat] definitively. But, what it will do is give you a better idea of what the true number is because, as it turns out, there is actually research on this topic. So, today we're going to dive in and see what it has to say about the prevalence of doping. Welcome back to the channel. This video is fueled by The Feed. I want to make one thing clear before I get into the video. I have no agenda here. I am not trying to convince you that doping is rampant, nor that it is not a problem at all in the modern age, and we can just forget about it. I say this because I know that, given cycling's history, this can be a divisive topic. Just look at the comment section of any social media post that has anything to do with Lance Armstrong. I genuinely don't have a preconceived opinion on this topic, and whenever somebody has asked me about it in the past, I usually just say, "I don't know." Because that's the truth. I don't know, and I never will. None of us ever will. But, researchers have done their best to try to get to the bottom of this. So, without further ado, let's jump into it. A good place to start is by talking about how many professional athletes who regularly get tested actually get caught doping every year. And that number is around 1 to 2% annually. Now, this should go without saying, but obviously 1 to 2% is lower than the actual amount of people that dope. That's like trying to count how many people speed by counting speeding tickets. You're not counting how many people speed, you're counting how many people get caught. And I think we all know that there is a big difference between those two numbers. Let's not forget that we are talking about a behavior that people are actively trying to hide. If someone is willing to use banned substances, risk a ban, risk their reputation, lie to other athletes, lie to anti-doping officials, and potentially lie to themselves, it should not surprise anyone that they are also pretty motivated to hide it at all costs. This puts people trying to study the topic in a tough position, because doping is something that researchers refer to as a sensitive behavior, because there are so many negatives to being caught. This means that if you just hand out a questionnaire to athletes asking, "Have you doped? Check yes or no." You're probably not going to come up with any sort of useful data. I know, shocker. So, researchers have to be a bit sneaky with how they get this information out of athletes. This 2014 review article on the prevalence of doping in elite sport looked at the different ways researchers have tried to estimate doping prevalence. Using questions that have a random response technique should give us a more accurate picture of the true number of dopers. Random response technique adds random noise into the survey so that those being surveyed know that their answers cannot be traced back to them. Just as an example, subjects could receive two questions. A harmless question like, "Does a week have 7 days? Yes or no?" And a sensitive question like, "Have you doped before? Yes or no?" They then flip a coin to determine which question they have to answer. Heads, they answer the harmless question and tails, they answer the sensitive question. The subjects don't tell anyone whether they flipped heads or tails, so the researchers will never know if the question an individual answered was harmless or sensitive, but they will see the total number of yeses and nos and they know that the probability of heads or tails is 50/50, so given a large enough sample size, from that they can estimate the percentage of subjects that said they doped even though they will never know which specific individuals those actually were. This isn't exactly how every randomized response technique works, but it gives you a better idea. So, when researchers give these kinds of questionnaires to athletes explaining the process to them and ensuring them that there is no way that their answers can be traced back to them, what do they find? Well, according to this review, when data is gathered in this way, they estimate that the number of current adult elite athletes who intentionally dope is somewhere between 14 and 39%. That is a scary statistic for any athlete or fan, but while it is one of the most cited studies on the topic, it is over 10 years old at this point. A later 2021 WADA working group evidence synthesis looked at 105 studies on doping prevalence in competitive sports. The range they came up with was massive at 0 to 73%. However, most studies fell under 5%. This meta-analysis was published less than 2 months ago, so you can't really get more recent than that, and it puts the percentage more in the 15 to 20% range. That being said, the rate of non-compliance in these studies that were being reviewed was closer to 30%. This could, of course, be because doping subjects were lying, or it could simply be because they didn't fully understand the protocol or some other reason. If these ranges seem like they're all over the place, that's because they are. Keep in mind that these different studies use different methods and are also surveying different sports over different periods of time. It's important to keep in mind that these methods are far from foolproof. For example, with the randomized response technique, it is still totally possible for an athlete to lie, even though they supposedly won't get caught for it. Some athletes may be skeptical that their answers could be traced back to them, and some athletes may be so used to lying about it at this point, even lying about it to themselves, that they are not about to change that just so that a bunch of nerds, aka researchers, can get good data. Some of them may even lie to purposefully skew the data. If research comes out that doping is a massive issue, then there may be an even bigger push to crack down on it, which is bad news for the dopers. And then, of course, the questions that the researchers ask matter, as well. For example, asking, "Have you cheated before?" is very accusatory, while asking, "Do you always comply with the water rules?" is less so, and therefore might change the response that you get. I think the take-home here is not that everyone is doping, but that the prevalence of doping is quite a bit higher than the number of people who get caught would suggest. And also, we have to keep in mind that these studies are not perfect. We should also be aware that it's often the studies with the highest numbers that make headlines and get clicks, but it doesn't necessarily mean that those are representative. And it could also be those particular researchers own interpretation of that data. For example, this review article that revisited some doping prevalence estimates looked at two reports of admitted doping use. One put the prevalence at 43.6% and the other at 57.1%. These were frequently referenced because they are frightening and attention-grabbing. The thought that half of professional athletes are doping stops a lot of people in their tracks. These researchers had a different estimation when looking at the exact same data, however, and came up with a much lower rate of 21.2% and 10.6%. Now, obviously, 10 and 20% is still too high and very concerning, but it is a long way off of half. As somebody who's been entrenched in the sport of cycling for nearly 20 years at this point, man, that is making me sound so old. The general consensus amongst racers when it comes to doping prevalence is that it was much more of an issue in the past and modern testing keeps the sport much cleaner than it used to be. And it certainly is harder to get away with doping these days with the introduction of the biological passport. For those that don't know, the athlete biological passport was created to track biological markers over time. Instead of looking for a specific substance in a single sample, it looks for patterns that suggest manipulation. That being said, it is not the foolproof system that it is often made out to be. In this study on the athlete blood passport, subjects were given microdoses of EPO twice per week for up to 12 weeks. Their hemoglobin mass increased by about 10%, which is a huge deal for endurance sports performance. It's a hemoglobin mass equivalent to approximately two bags of reinfused blood. And here's the kicker. The passport software did not flag any of the subjects while they were receiving EPO. Now, this study was from 2011, and the passport system has improved since then. So, I don't want to pretend that the same vulnerabilities apply in exactly the same way today, but the same basic problem has not disappeared. The passport is trying to detect the biological fingerprint of doping, and microdosing is specifically designed to leave a smaller fingerprint. Microdosing is designed to do two things at once: create a performance benefit by gradually increasing red cell mass, and avoiding big spikes or crashes in blood markers that would look obviously abnormal. So, the right conclusion here is not that the passport is useless. Far from it, actually. The right conclusion would be that it is useful, but it's limited. It can catch blood manipulation, trigger targeted testing, and build a case over time, but it can't guarantee that every athlete using low-dose, well-timed EPO will be caught. Some may say that we simply need to make these tests more sensitive, but there is a very real potential consequence of that, and that is increasing the risk that you get a false positive and ruin a clean rider's career. The trade-off is this: If you make the passport thresholds more sensitive, then you catch more suspicious patterns, but you also increase the risk of a false positive and legally shaky cases. If you make the thresholds more conservative, it protects clean athletes from false accusations, but it also gives dopers more room to operate. I've been talking mostly about doping at the professional level up to this point, but this issue has penetrated the amateur ranks as well. In fact, the example that I gave at the beginning of the video of that Spanish race, that was an amateur race. Many people assume that because amateurs aren't getting paid, they wouldn't bother with the expense and risk of doping just for a gift card to whatever bar and grill sponsored the race, a pair of tires no one wants, and bragging rights amongst the small group of people that care that often doesn't even include their own spouse. But, the reality is that ego exists at every level of the sport. Everyone wants to feel like the big fish of their pond, no matter how small it may be. And the thing about amateurs is that they rarely get tested. If an amateur wants to go down that road, then they can do so almost worry-free about ever getting caught. A USA Cycling Race Clean Report discussed anonymous survey data from Cat 1, Cat 2, and Cat 3 racers and said that the analysis indicated that as much as 10% of respondents admitted to using prohibited substances at some point during their competitive cycling career. On top of this, they found very little difference in the prevalence of doping between category 1, 2, and 3, suggesting that the competitive level does not necessarily dictate the prevalence of doping as some might assume. This study on doping in triathletes surveyed nearly 3,000 recreational triathletes and found a 13% prevalence of physical doping and 15% prevalence of cognitive doping. The uncomfortable point here is that doping is not confined to the Olympics, the Tour de France, or professional sport. It exists whenever performance is tied to identity, status, and reward. And reward doesn't always have to be money. For some people, status is enough. I want to shift gears here a bit and finish up this video by digging a little bit deeper into the psychology of doping. And from this point forward, I'm actually speaking directly to people who either currently dope, are considering doping, or people who find themselves in a sporting arena where doping is a real temptation because I know some of you are watching. Some of you may even be looking at these numbers and using it as a justification for why you need to dope to compete. Looks like everybody else is doing it, so I need to do it, too, just to be successful. To those people, this is what I want to say. I actually don't think that the biggest risk of doping is getting caught. Let me explain. Let's imagine for a second that you decide to start doping and the best outcome happens. You don't get caught, you never fail a drug test, you never get exposed, you win races, you win prize money, and people admire you for it. Would you actually be happier? At first glance, the answer seems obvious. Of course, you would. That's the whole reason why people dope in the first place. They believe that getting a better result will make them happier. But when you look at the psychology literature, things become a lot less obvious. Psychologists often distinguish between two different kinds of well-being. The first is called hedonic well-being. This is probably what most people think of when they think of happiness. This is maximizing pleasure and excitement. The classic example people often use are things like eating highly palatable food or listening to music that you like, playing video games, etc. Because those are so obviously pleasant in the moment. If you're still watching this video at this point, then catching up on the latest Dylan Johnson video is probably a form of hedonic happiness for you. Don't flatter yourself, bro. We're all just here so that we can get some stats about how everyone is doping so that we can use that as an excuse when we get dropped halfway through the Tuesday night group ride next week. Another example of this, winning a bike race. Yes, that moment when you cross the finish line ahead of all of your competitors produces this and doping may even bring you that kind of fleeting happiness. The second kind of happiness though is called eudemonic well-being. This has much less to do with pleasure in the moment and more to do with having meaning and purpose in your life, living in accordance with your values and becoming the person that you want to become. Examples of this include raising a child, working on a demanding but fulfilling project, or in the case of sport, putting in hours on the bike to train for a big race that you have coming up. These are all things that may not be pleasurable in the moment, but upon reflection bring you satisfaction. It's a subtle but important distinction from the feeling that you get in the exact moment when you win the race. As you can see, sports have the opportunity to give us both kinds of well-being. Now imagine two athletes. One is clean and one doped. They both win the same race, they both stand on the same podium, get the same trophy, get the same congratulations, but inside they are living two totally different experiences. One gets to think, I did that, and the other gets to think, would I have done that without the drugs? Maybe the answer is yes, maybe they were talented enough to do it without the drugs, but they'll never actually know. And let's be honest, most of the time the answer is no and deep down they know that. From that point on, every time they get complimented about that race and every time that result is referenced, it comes with a little asterisks. Not publicly, but internally. You don't just cheat your competitors, you cheat yourself out of fully owning your accomplishments. Now maybe you're thinking, who cares? At least I won." And that's where another concept from psychology becomes very interesting. It's called hedonic adaptation, sometimes referred to as the hedonic treadmill. You may recognize that word hedonic, and yes, this is very much related. The basic idea is surprisingly simple. Human beings are incredibly good at adapting to changes in their life. For example, you buy your dream bike, and then months later it just becomes your bike. You get a raise, and eventually that just becomes your normal salary, and then you wish you had even more money. You finally hit your FTP goal, and then a week later you're already thinking about the next one. The finish line keeps moving up. Researchers have observed this pattern over and over and over again across many areas of life. People tend to return surprisingly close to their previous levels of happiness after both positive and negative life events. The excitement fades, and the new normal takes over. Sports are a perfect example of this. If you've raced long enough, then you have probably experienced it yourself. You tell yourself, "I'll be happy when I win my first race, and then I'll be happy when I race professionally, and then I'll be happy when I win nationals, and then I'll be happy when I podium worlds." The destination changes the minute you get there. You may have heard this called the arrival fallacy, the belief that happiness permanently exists on the other side of your next achievement. But when you arrive, you don't stay for very long. You simply create another destination. I think this is exactly the trap that doping promises to solve. You think to yourself, "If I dope and win that race, then I'll finally be happy." But your psychology doesn't change. You still want more. No matter what rung you get to in the hierarchy of athletes, you will always wish that you were one rung higher whether you doped or not. The only difference is that if you get to whatever rung you end up at by doping, you've gotten there in a way that permanently changes your relationship with those results. In a way that won't allow you to look back and be proud of them and compromises your eudemonic well-being. This could be why so many athletes who've been caught doping spend years trying to justify what they did. Everyone else was doing it. I was just leveling the playing field. I had no choice. Those explanations aren't just for us, they're for themselves. In short, the promise of doping isn't really about a higher power output or more oxygen transport, it's about happiness. That if we finally achieve this result, it will make everything feel worthwhile. And I don't think psychology supports that idea. If anything, I think it suggests the exact opposite. If the success wasn't entirely your own, then you'll never fully get to own it. Even if no one ever knows that you did it, you'll know. And no one's opinion of you matters more than the opinion that you have of yourself. Oh, uh sorry, you were getting way too deep there again. Uh what did I miss? Thanks for watching. If you enjoyed this video, be sure to give it a like, subscribe, and share it with your cycling friends. I'll see you on the next one.