Internal Anti-Doping controls

iainf72

So I was watching CNN yesterday and they had a bit on about the Tour and it's problems. As part of it, they spoke to some of the teams forging a new way - Specifically Garmin and (gasp) Astana.

Made me wonder - Do these programs actually have any bearing on whether you think a team is clean or not? People seem to accept Garmin / Columbia are clean but will still raise eyebrows at Astana or CSC. They're all monitored and all of them provide almost no data on the tests.

All the teams have riders with suspect pasts too so it can't be that.

Is it a case of seeing what you want to see?

flattythehurdler

Probably

LangerDan

iainf72 wrote:

Made me wonder - Do these programs actually have any bearing on whether you think a team is clean or not? People seem to accept Garmin / Columbia are clean but will still raise eyebrows at Astana or CSC. They're all monitored and all of them provide almost no data on the tests.

Damsgaards latest CSC results are up:

http://www.teamcsc-saxobank.com/upload/ ... report.pdf

iainf72

LangerDan wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

http://www.teamcsc-saxobank.com/upload/ ... report.pdf

WebWasher has decided teamcsc-saxobank is a phishing site. Will have to look at home.

Kléber

Garmin are doing it all right. Columbia test a lot too but not in the same way. CSC are now publishing their results.

Astana: can someone show me any data?

iainf72

Kléber wrote:

Garmin are doing it all right. Columbia test a lot too but not in the same way. CSC are now publishing their results.

Astana: can someone show me any data?

This is a good example - What are Garmin doing "all right" exactly?

If Astana did publish the data, then what?

feersumendjinn

iainf72 wrote:

If Astana did publish the data, then what?

Wouldn't make a blind bit of difference, some one would claim the results are boggus for another reason Astana is an easy target for the rumour mills of the cycling world, they had Vino & Kash, they now have Bruyneel, & some folks will never forgive him his success with LA
Despite other riders & teams bad behaviour non seem to generate the same anti opinions of USPS/Discovery/Astana

Kléber

iainf72 wrote:

What are Garmin doing "all right" exactly?

You can have their data if you ask for it and agree to review the results in conjunction with a certified haematologist. The data shows each rider, so more info than the anonymous CSC methods

iainf72 wrote:

If Astana did publish the data, then what?

Given they're in ASO's bad books, you'd think they'd be uber-transparent, that Contador's haematocrit would be published online every day. Instead, we've seen nothing, only words. Saying they're working with Daamsgard isn't enough, it's like saying "we don't dope", it's much better to let the facts try to speak/spin for themselves with published data.

flattythehurdler

I would like to see theindividual cyclist's curves compared to that of the epo one. There seem to be some suspicious oscillation buried in the mass results.

takethehighroad

So exactly which riders at CSC are under suspicion? 'Cos as far as I can remember none of there riders have been seen anywhere near a doping story in at least the last year or so. Last I remember was Basso.

iainf72

Kléber wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

What are Garmin doing "all right" exactly?

You can have their data if you ask for it and agree to review the results in conjunction with a certified haematologist. The data shows each rider, so more info than the anonymous CSC methods

Well, that's what they say. But JV still keeps a tight leash on what is released etc. ACE don't inspire much confidence when you look at the Paul Scott situation and how that was dealt with.

I think this articleis interesting.

Kléber

I was reading an account by this Belgian guy who rode the Tour de France last year, not the race itself, but he rode one day ahead of the race. He wanted to see how it affected the human body, he got himself tested every day by support staff. His haematocrit count varied, trending down during the 3 weeks but there were spikes along the way. So to come to the point, a spike here or there might look very suspicious if the data is just given to some average journalist.

Of course, the data could all be made up, JV could be hooking his riders up to industrial blood drips and he just invents the data, dropping numbers into a spreadsheet that gets emailed to people. What's needed is some independent official to certify the process.

But for the time being, if I had to trust anyone to ride clean, it would be Garmin. If they get busted this July, well at least I can eat my hat with Chipotle sauce but I really doubt this will happen...

flattythehurdler

I agree.

iainf72

Kléber wrote:

But for the time being, if I had to trust anyone to ride clean, it would be Garmin. If they get busted this July, well at least I can eat my hat with Chipotle sauce but I really doubt this will happen...

Well, they've left their 2 most suspect riders at home so you'll be ok :P

Anyway, no one is getting busted this July so relax.

Keith Oates

iainf72 wrote:

Kléber wrote:

But for the time being, if I had to trust anyone to ride clean, it would be Garmin. If they get busted this July, well at least I can eat my hat with Chipotle sauce but I really doubt this will happen...

Well, they've left their 2 most suspect riders at home so you'll be ok :P

Anyway, no one is getting busted this July so relax.

That is without doubt, ASO control everything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dave_1

there is no harm in taking an outspoken stance against doping as Garmin has, as High rd has, as Astana appear to with yates' comments recently... their internal anti-doping is a 3rd line of defence against doping...there are anti-doping testing in races, then out of comp testing and then internal team testing...

Why the cynicism IainF? You want them silent on doping and not doing internal testing it seems ? No fence sitting pls

iainf72

Dave_1 wrote:

there is no harm in taking an outspoken stance against doping as Garmin has, as High rd has, as Astana appear to with yates' comments recently... their internal anti-doping is a 3rd line of defence against doping...there are anti-doping testing in races, then out of comp testing and then internal team testing...

My point is more around the internal testing doesn't seem to matter in deciding whether a team is clean or dertie.

People think Astana bad, Garmin good.

And there doesn't seem to be any real evidence that these programs work.

deal

iainf72 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

there is no harm in taking an outspoken stance against doping as Garmin has, as High rd has, as Astana appear to with yates' comments recently... their internal anti-doping is a 3rd line of defence against doping...there are anti-doping testing in races, then out of comp testing and then internal team testing...

My point is more around the internal testing doesn't seem to matter in deciding whether a team is clean or dertie.

People think Astana bad, Garmin good.

And there doesn't seem to be any real evidence that these programs work.

I agree to some extent, im not convinced the programs will stop all doping but hopefully make it harder for doping to go undetected. As for the difference between Garmin and Astana - I think people believe there is a big difference in the motive behind the programs. I believe Garmins program is a genuine attempt to ensure a clean team and the main reason for the Astana program is to convince race organizers they are clean, if they also wish to ensure the riders are clean who knows...

dave_1

iainf72 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

there is no harm in taking an outspoken stance against doping as Garmin has, as High rd has, as Astana appear to with yates' comments recently... their internal anti-doping is a 3rd line of defence against doping...there are anti-doping testing in races, then out of comp testing and then internal team testing...

My point is more around the internal testing doesn't seem to matter in deciding whether a team is clean or dertie.

People think Astana bad, Garmin good.

And there doesn't seem to be any real evidence that these programs work.

if you are a blood doper and EPO micro doser, manipulating testosterone levels and HGH use selectively, would you want more controls or less? Of course they work...it puts more pressure on the doper as he will worry it won't be 10 days till his next test and therefore he may get picked up in 3 days time...from all that I read it is the lack of frequency of testing that is the problem, hence the whereabouts system .

You want high rd, garmin to shut it about doping like the other teams do..

iainf72

Dave_1 wrote:

if you are a blood doper and EPO micro doser, manipulating testosterone levels and HGH use selectively, would you want more controls or less? Of course they work...it puts more pressure on the doper as he will worry it won't be 10 days till his next test and therefore he may get picked up in 3 days time...from all that I read it is the lack of frequency of testing that is the problem, hence the whereabouts system .

You want high rd, garmin to shut it about doping like the other teams do..

All I'm saying Dave_1 is I don't believe there has been a double blind control of the techniques they're using. It sounds good on paper but can they tell if someone is doping? Look at the recent results of the study of the EPO test.

I'd like to see a study where they use 20-30 people, use a variety of doping techniques on them and see if they can tell who's doing something.

Garmin and Columbia are welcome to talk about doping all they like. But GH, TD, DZ and MR must feel a bit odd being critical of others.

dave_1

iainf72 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

if you are a blood doper and EPO micro doser, manipulating testosterone levels and HGH use selectively, would you want more controls or less? Of course they work...it puts more pressure on the doper as he will worry it won't be 10 days till his next test and therefore he may get picked up in 3 days time...from all that I read it is the lack of frequency of testing that is the problem, hence the whereabouts system .

You want high rd, garmin to shut it about doping like the other teams do..

All I'm saying Dave_1 is I don't believe there has been a double blind control of the techniques they're using. It sounds good on paper but can they tell if someone is doping? Look at the recent results of the study of the EPO test.

I'd like to see a study where they use 20-30 people, use a variety of doping techniques on them and see if they can tell who's doing something.

Garmin and Columbia are welcome to talk about doping all they like. But GH, TD, DZ and MR must feel a bit odd being critical of others.

The slight theoretical possibility you mention that a + is not is not so credible really... attempts by the likes of Tyler or Landis to query the validity of the testing has cost them millions of dollars and they've been proven as dopers via CAS . I can't see what you get out of taking a dopers view of it...you know fine well from Operation Puerto and Festina before it, what the scale of the doping is. Do you really think WADA and UCI would leave themselves open to litigation from very wealthy athletes? You're doing a good imitation of a lawyer on here...one working for some doper rather than someone who cares for the sport. As I say, you want the High Rds, the Garmins to keep quiet about doping, the logic of your arguement anyway.

iainf72

Dave_1 wrote:

[You're doing a good imitation of a lawyer on here...one working for some doper rather than someone who cares for the sport. As I say, you want the High Rds, the Garmins to keep quiet about doping, the logic of your arguement anyway.

I can't see how you're drawing that conclusion.

Have ACE or Damsgaard programs been proven to detect doping? No. They sound good on paper and in theory should work, but do they?

http://www.thepulse2007.org/?p=74

The EPO test study was carried out by the Danish anti-doping authority and it didn't look positive for the test. So are these things like ACE or Damsgaard worth anything?

Don't you find it a bit of a double standard for those teams to talk the talk but still employ riders who've definately been dodgy in the past and haven't been punished? In that respect you could argue they're worse than Basso - They continue to decieve the public but haven't even been punished for their past crimes.