Slipstream

Jez mon

As much as i admire slipstream's attitude, I can't help but think that they can now use the cleanliness as an excuse for poor conditioning. Of course, there is a possibility that slipstream are a really good team, train harder than anyone else, but just lack the EPO which you need to win. However, this paints such a dark picture that I don't really want to consider it...

I know Slipstream have not got the most talented riders, but every time I've seen a big race this season, they seem to have always been on the wrong end of the sort out, furthermore even if the survive the big sort out, they do not seem to spend much time on the front.

freddymerckx

so what?

they are making a great effort towards clean cycling and surely they will win a couple of races, but they are leading the way for other teams, barring maybe CSC and High road.

this can only be good for the sport.

GO SLIPSTREAM!

iainf72

freddymerckx wrote:

so what?

they are making a great effort towards clean cycling and surely they will win a couple of races, but they are leading the way for other teams, barring maybe CSC and High road.

this can only be good for the sport.

GO SLIPSTREAM!

Remind me, how are they leading the way?

If I can dope and win races with very little chance of getting caught, why would I stop?

These individual efforts are all nice and everything but don't really change anything.

I like Slipstream - I like the riders from what I've seen of them as human beings. Vaughters comes across really well (despite being rude to me at the prologue in London)
It would've been better for them to get less invitiations to races until they got some results.

dave_1

iainf72 wrote:

freddymerckx wrote:

so what?

they are making a great effort towards clean cycling and surely they will win a couple of races, but they are leading the way for other teams, barring maybe CSC and High road.

this can only be good for the sport.

GO SLIPSTREAM!

Remind me, how are they leading the way?

If I can dope and win races with very little chance of getting caught, why would I stop?

These individual efforts are all nice and everything but don't really change anything.

I like Slipstream - I like the riders from what I've seen of them as human beings. Vaughters comes across really well (despite being rude to me at the prologue in London)
It would've been better for them to get less invitiations to races until they got some results.

On their website they seem fairly serious about detecting HGH , a test not used by other team and totally rife in the peleton currently

http://www.slipstreamsports.com/science-of-testing/

I agree with slipstream being in the TDF.

Kléber

They lead the way because they're trying to end the omerta, they are saying loudly that cycling has a problem and that they're bringing an answer.

Cynically you can say they're doing well. Very few results but publicity a plenty! Besides they don't have a roster of big riders. Millar is aiming for the Tour, Zabriskie for the Giro and both just want stage wins. Backstedt was well prepared a few years ago and had the result of his life in Paris-Roubaix. Beyond these guys there is some talent but nothing big.

dave_1

Kléber wrote:

They lead the way because they're trying to end the omerta, they are saying loudly that cycling has a problem and that they're bringing an answer.

Cynically you can say they're doing well. Very few results but publicity a plenty! Besides they don't have a roster of big riders. Millar is aiming for the Tour, Zabriskie for the Giro and both just want stage wins. Backstedt was well prepared a few years ago and had the result of his life in Paris-Roubaix. Beyond these guys there is some talent but nothing big.

indeed, they lead the way , see link above, they will bench riders if ACE see a reasonable possibility of HGH use...that is key. They are ground breaking...how many pro tour teams are doing this? Lefevre? Mussuew is like a dirty word to say in many people's view and Lefevre propsers, Ricco coached by Pantani's medical support, loads of ex pros who are former dopers running the sport and the teams that speak up are mocked..best keep quiet is what is implied from some of the criticism of slipsteram in this thread...don't mention doping or making beating it part of the message

Jez mon

freddymerckx wrote:

so what?

they are making a great effort towards clean cycling and surely they will win a couple of races, but they are leading the way for other teams, barring maybe CSC and High road.

But CSC and High Road do not seem to have an attidue of "If we perform poorly, then it's OK caus' we're not on drugs"

I know that the win at all costs to impress our sponsors has caused a lot of harm, but feel High Road and CSC have found a way of racing clean without being dull.

I know I'm being harsh on slipstream, they are doing a lot for cycling, and wish other teams would have such stringent anti-doping regimes. However, I feel their constant talk on anti doping is depressing and is not actually helping the sport. There is a difference between sweeping it all under the carpet and constantly referring to how clean you are

timoid.

Jez mon wrote:

freddymerckx wrote:

so what?

they are making a great effort towards clean cycling and surely they will win a couple of races, but they are leading the way for other teams, barring maybe CSC and High road.

But CSC and High Road do not seem to have an attidue of "If we perform poorly, then it's OK caus' we're not on drugs"

I know that the win at all costs to impress our sponsors has caused a lot of harm, but feel High Road and CSC have found a way of racing clean without being dull.

I know I'm being harsh on slipstream, they are doing a lot for cycling, and wish other teams would have such stringent anti-doping regimes. However, I feel their constant talk on anti doping is depressing and is not actually helping the sport. There is a difference between sweeping it all under the carpet and constantly referring to how clean you are

Do you really think CSC is clean?

dave_1

Jez mon wrote:

freddymerckx wrote:

so what?

they are making a great effort towards clean cycling and surely they will win a couple of races, but they are leading the way for other teams, barring maybe CSC and High road.

But CSC and High Road do not seem to have an attidue of "If we perform poorly, then it's OK caus' we're not on drugs"

I know that the win at all costs to impress our sponsors has caused a lot of harm, but feel High Road and CSC have found a way of racing clean without being dull.

I know I'm being harsh on slipstream, they are doing a lot for cycling, and wish other teams would have such stringent anti-doping regimes. However, I feel their constant talk on anti doping is depressing and is not actually helping the sport. There is a difference between sweeping it all under the carpet and constantly referring to how clean you are

but the sport is plagued by large scale doping...teams must show they have nothing to fear. High Rd got trashed for keeping some dodgy ex pro dopers and Stapleton got trashed when he is not part of that era..they attempt to get to grips with blood doping and making it known and they get trashed. Well, the problem is you want silence about doping when you fault slipstream and High rd for making the point that they are clean

dave_1

Timoid. wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

freddymerckx wrote:

so what?

they are making a great effort towards clean cycling and surely they will win a couple of races, but they are leading the way for other teams, barring maybe CSC and High road.

But CSC and High Road do not seem to have an attidue of "If we perform poorly, then it's OK caus' we're not on drugs"

I know that the win at all costs to impress our sponsors has caused a lot of harm, but feel High Road and CSC have found a way of racing clean without being dull.

I know I'm being harsh on slipstream, they are doing a lot for cycling, and wish other teams would have such stringent anti-doping regimes. However, I feel their constant talk on anti doping is depressing and is not actually helping the sport. There is a difference between sweeping it all under the carpet and constantly referring to how clean you are

Do you really think CSC is clean?

I struggle to believe it...but since Basso , they have had no problems..usually someone gets caught out. Cancellera had an ok Flanders, a poor Tour of Cali TT against Millar and Leiphemer...he needs super strong days to win...not so dominant week in week out?

iainf72

Dave_1 wrote:

On their website they seem fairly serious about detecting HGH , a test not used by other team and totally rife in the peleton currently

http://www.slipstreamsports.com/science-of-testing/

There is a proper WADA approved test for HGH now.

http://www.serioussportsnewsnetwork.com ... mpics.html

At the end of the day, all this testing and monitoring of riders is largely unproven. Have ACE done some double blind testing which they can show us their techniques work?

DaveyL

Do you mean double blind testing of their HGH test? I assume that's what you mean, as I would assume they are using the venerable tests developed over the years for other substances.

This thread has had several examples of the "If you say something enough times it becomes fact" tactic. Slipstream do not use riding clean as an excuse when they don't perform. If they have done at some point, show me the quotes. Vaughters is dead against trumpeting the "We're on the moral high ground" stance. He has sat down and tried to work out how best he can help the sport get out of the hole it's in, and this is his solution. I'm sure he'd be open to suggestions if anyone has a better idea. Go listen to his interiew I posted earlier.

iainf72

DaveyL wrote:

Do you mean double blind testing of their HGH test? I assume that's what you mean, as I would assume they are using the venerable tests developed over the years for other substances.

No, I mean the ACE testing / monitoring technique.

DaveyL wrote:

This thread has had several examples of the "If you say something enough times it becomes fact" tactic. Slipstream do not use riding clean as an excuse when they don't perform. If they have done at some point, show me the quotes. Vaughters is dead against trumpeting the "We're on the moral high ground" stance. He has sat down and tried to work out how best he can help the sport get out of the hole it's in, and this is his solution. I'm sure he'd be open to suggestions if anyone has a better idea. Go listen to his interiew I posted earlier.

Speaking for myself, that's not my point. My point is they're being given race berths on the basis of a) their anti-doping thing b) being american. If you take Flanders as an example, they only time they got a mention was when Harmon said they were not there or only seen when the cameras went to the back of the race.

I've not had a chance to listen to the Vaughters thing but does he address what happens if it's 2010 and Slipstream win very little? What happens if they never perform in the "big" races?

skavanagh.bikeradar

If they haven't won much or done much by 2010 they will have shown themselves to be weak. The weak shall be shot in order that the strong survive. Shoot them. Shoot them! SHOOT Them!! SHOOT THEM!!!

Erm, I think I got a little carried away....

DaveyL

He does address that. If it doesn't work out, he'll hold his hands up and say "yeah, OK, it was a good idea but it didn't work out" and that'll be that....

dave_1

iainf72 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

On their website they seem fairly serious about detecting HGH , a test not used by other team and totally rife in the peleton currently

http://www.slipstreamsports.com/science-of-testing/

There is a proper WADA approved test for HGH now.

http://www.serioussportsnewsnetwork.com ... mpics.html

At the end of the day, all this testing and monitoring of riders is largely unproven. Have ACE done some double blind testing which they can show us their techniques work?

Slipstream as policy on HGH use will fire riders when they see "probability", that is good enough for me. Were festina and Operation Puerto (Basso and Ullrich) largely unproven too?

LangerDan

Dave_1 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

On their website they seem fairly serious about detecting HGH , a test not used by other team and totally rife in the peleton currently

http://www.slipstreamsports.com/science-of-testing/

There is a proper WADA approved test for HGH now.

http://www.serioussportsnewsnetwork.com ... mpics.html

At the end of the day, all this testing and monitoring of riders is largely unproven. Have ACE done some double blind testing which they can show us their techniques work?

Slipstream as policy on HGH use will fire riders when they see "probability", that is good enough for me. Were festina and Operation Puerto (Basso and Ullrich) largely unproven too?

Slipstreams response to irregularities is as follows:

"What happens when ACE has a concern about the test results of one of your riders?
This process starts with ACE contacting Slipstream’s team doctor. The situation is discussed and reviewed by Slipstream’s team doctor and the team’s executives and the involved rider. Once everyone involved has had the opportunity to provide input, ACE scientists in collaboration with the Slipstream Sports team doctor arrive at a decision concerning the abnormality. This decision will range from further testing without suspension, to further testing with suspension, to possible termination from the team.

Now you could argue that the disciplinary procedure is no different from that stated for most other teams. Its certainly the line that T-Mobile used last year.

I'd be interested to see a copy of a Slipstream rider contract and how they address the issue of termination in the event of a suspected infraction. While frequent testing (and probably lower alarm thresholds) are certainly the way to help identify HGH, it could be very difficult to use them as the basis of dismissal. Notwithstanding the recent announcement of the anitbody-based diagnostic test approved by WADA, a rider who is suspected of HGH abuse only has to point to the fact that the test, as it stood up until recently, was not regarded by the authorities as sufficiently robust to sanction individuals. If WADA or the UCI punished a rider using the same criteria, they'd be up before CAS.
The only way out I can see is that riders have to contractually accept a lower burden of proof for certain allegations.

dave_1

LangerDan wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

On their website they seem fairly serious about detecting HGH , a test not used by other team and totally rife in the peleton currently

http://www.slipstreamsports.com/science-of-testing/

There is a proper WADA approved test for HGH now.

http://www.serioussportsnewsnetwork.com ... mpics.html

At the end of the day, all this testing and monitoring of riders is largely unproven. Have ACE done some double blind testing which they can show us their techniques work?

Slipstream as policy on HGH use will fire riders when they see "probability", that is good enough for me. Were festina and Operation Puerto (Basso and Ullrich) largely unproven too?

Slipstreams response to irregularities is as follows:

"What happens when ACE has a concern about the test results of one of your riders?
This process starts with ACE contacting Slipstream’s team doctor. The situation is discussed and reviewed by Slipstream’s team doctor and the team’s executives and the involved rider. Once everyone involved has had the opportunity to provide input, ACE scientists in collaboration with the Slipstream Sports team doctor arrive at a decision concerning the abnormality. This decision will range from further testing without suspension, to further testing with suspension, to possible termination from the team.

Now you could argue that the disciplinary procedure is no different from that stated for most other teams. Its certainly the line that T-Mobile used last year.

I'd be interested to see a copy of a Slipstream rider contract and how they address the issue of termination in the event of a suspected infraction. While frequent testing (and probably lower alarm thresholds) are certainly the way to help identify HGH, it could be very difficult to use them as the basis of dismissal. Notwithstanding the recent announcement of the anitbody-based diagnostic test approved by WADA, a rider who is suspected of HGH abuse only has to point to the fact that the test, as it stood up until recently, was not regarded by the authorities as sufficiently robust to sanction individuals. If WADA or the UCI punished a rider using the same criteria, they'd be up before CAS.
The only way out I can see is that riders have to contractually accept a lower burden of proof for certain allegations.

I would imagine it is written into their contracts as you say. e.g. T Mobile got rid of honchar without much difficulty...it was not clear cut at all that he was positive, certainly...he was never declared positive

Kléber

The contractual point is interesting. It's easy to write something that if a rider tests positive (ie approved independent lab, A and B samples, plus a right to appeal) but how many safeguards are there here? One positive test from an unverified test is a lot to end your career on.

Just a point, but when you want to reply to someone's posting, just press the reply button. There's no need to quote half the thread in the post if you just want to add 2 lines of comment It makes the page much harder to read!

dave_1

Kléber wrote:

The contractual point is interesting. It's easy to write something that if a rider tests positive (ie approved independent lab, A and B samples, plus a right to appeal) but how many safeguards are there here? One positive test from an unverified test is a lot to end your career on.

Just a point, but when you want to reply to someone's posting, just press the reply button. There's no need to quote half the thread in the post if you just want to add 2 lines of comment It makes the page much harder to read!

Ok,

Kléber

Christian Vandevelde won today in the TT of the Circuit de la Sarthe, so some good news for the Argyll boys. But with the best cyclists doing Gent-Wevelgem or the Basque Tour, it's not exactly a major win.

On a plus point, I see they've cut a deal with Next to sell team merchandise:
http://www.next.co.uk/shot.asp?b=G33&p= ... 05-693-G33