Roger De Vlaeminck shares hilarious Eddy Merckx doping control anecdote: "Eddy couldn't wee... When the doctor wasn’t looking I quickly poured half of mine into his container"
CyclingThursday, 19 June 2025 at 13:13
Roger De Vlaeminck and Eddy Merckx are two of the most successful cyclists of all time. Sharing many battles during the course of their careers, the two Belgian's were rivals but also had great respect for each other, as shown by the fact De Vlaeminck named his son Eddy.
To celebrate Merckx's 80th birthday this week, the pair were reunited, and one anecdote in particular caught the eye. When detailing their mutual respect as rivals, De Vlaeminck recalled a hilarious if somewhat curious anecdote from when he gave Merckx his wee to help his rival pass a doping control test.
“It was in Switzerland. Here’s what happened: it had been raining all day. Eddy won the sprint, I came in second. So off we went to the doping control," De Vlaeminck's tale begins in comments collected by De Telegraaf. The issue was though, that Merckx was struggling to produce a sample for the doctors to investigate, something that could have raised concerns for doping control.
"Eddy had already peed during the race and couldn’t go again," De Vlaeminck explains, revealing how he swooped in to save the day for his great rival, using some questionable tactics to fool the doping control. "I was still bursting. When the doctor wasn’t looking, I quickly poured half of mine into his container. He’d have done the same for me. Peeing in the rain, it’s quickly done — you don’t always think about it.”
Whilst it's unlikely this kind of thing would pass if used in the modern cycling world, for De Vlaeminck and Merckx the technique was successful, allowing Merckx to pass through doping control without ever giving a sample. “That’s right. It was freezing, and I was absolutely frozen. I also tend to pee easily during races. But I completely trusted Roger,” adds Merckx himself on the subject.
claps 8visitors 6
Just in
Subscribe to our Daily Newsletter today!
May 12, 11:09
0
Popular news
Latest comments
- If you patronise in the wrong way, you are encouraging people to do whatever it takes, yes. If you throw your money at sport so that money becomes the prime driver for performance, it encourages more cheating, yes. It’s unfortunate but it IS part of the consequences. There are ways to follow the sport without money concentrating where it shouldn’t, just like there are ways and choices for consuming any product. It’s of course an extreme argument, nonetheless, if you want to prevent things going wrong, you need to look ahead to see how that might happen. That includes, how to deal with ideas like One Cycling, Enhanced events. I would guess that cycling took doping a bit more serious after Uknowletsnotnamehim is because they saw the whole story (mediaworthy and ironically therefor potentially money-making) as capable of turning away audiences and probably it did, had it not, they might have just swallowed and waited.Mistermaumau20-06-2025
- More like keyboard police, judge and jury. Next he’ll be telling French people to write Putin and not Poutine ;-)Mistermaumau20-06-2025
- Happy you got that out?Mistermaumau20-06-2025
- As a general rule in evolution, every generation says that about new generations, with so e rare exceptions where you may have to skip one generation. What strikes me with oldies is how many of them grow chubby post cycling, none of the old guys I’ve cycled with are ever chubby. Even Merckx who still rides seems heavy.Mistermaumau20-06-2025
- But he would be a wise man if he used the pre=condition "barring any unforseen event" in his prediction?FredMan20-06-2025
- This idiot seems to forget that a lot can happen in a 3 week race. It’s not just form, it’s a lot of luck too. All pog needs is for someone the peloton to take him out by accident and he could be out. Remember pundits declaring Remco was going to win in the giro the other year, only to crash in bad weatherCrashjames19-06-2025
- You're saying that if you patronize the sport of cycling, you are encouraging drug abuse, knowing that doping is prevalent in the sport. In my point of view, I continue to patronize the sport, however possible it may be tainted by doping, because I trust that people are doing their utmost to ensure that it is clean. I take responsibility for giving that trust, because the civilized world will not survive if we do not believe in the goodwill of mankind. If it is proven later that Tadej doped, then so be it. In the meantime, I'll just sit back and enjoy the show.FredMan19-06-2025
- Congrats, João! What a comeback from stage 1!Lobz7719-06-2025
- But Pogocar has never tested positive, unlike Lance.
Front24219-06-2025 - ahahahah I love irony.
maria2024202419-06-2025
how is this funny
while I’m not a Lance Armstrong fan, he was banned for life for this.
The oldies have the humor of a different era. Its along the same lines of "Women belong in the kitchen and sexual harassment is ok" It is not even remotely funny if he was in present tense
I understand their humor was different, but they didn’t write this headline. so the question is directed at the writer of this article and editor of the site. they certainly did not have to use the word hilarious. Roger and Eddy did not use hilarious in their quotes.
The lack of seriousness back then compares so unfavorably to what happens today. I read this and think "well, of course they did that." I also think that about stories my dad tells me about the 50s and 60s. A different era and one that is appropriately past.
the double standard in this sport is galling. it’s CUTE when eddy does it. it’s pure EVIL when others do. that’s just gross.
That’s your interpretation of how people see it. Besides, not sure there are many that got checked as often as Merckx in their career, at some point maybe passing on one test should be acceptable unless it’s a top race?
In any case, it’s the “controller’s” fault for allowing such a lax procedure, not hard to get an unadulterated pee sample even if the rider has problems but obviously the doctor didn’t care much about the job he was paid to do, seen the problems first hand in modern times too when I was randomly asked to help out watching over an athlete, controls are carried out far too amateurishly in many instances.
Tests were very easy to pass while doping back then. They're still easy to pass now...just expensive in many cases.
esay to pass now? do you have proves or are you just another loudmouth who loves to spread rumors/defamations thinking he's the smartest who nobody can trick him?
It's lucky that Roger wasn't doping then!
Maybe Eddy was? Again?
He just knew he was on something they couldn't find.