It's funny, every believed he was running a clean team, that Sastre was clean and Damsgaard was getting it all right. Now there's some revelations from back in 2006 and rumours of restesting samples and Riis is suddenly the arch-doper again!
Personally I've stood back and watched with an eyebrow raised. Every time you see a promise in cycling, you know the rider or DS is crossing his fingers.
I'm only satisfied by the Garmin-Chipotle argylle armada, but even this involves some faith.
I've worked in communications for a pro sport, been involved in the announcing of positive tests and talked to people on the anti-doping movement, so I'm as sceptical as anyone when it comes to drug use in sport.
I wouldn't be that surprised if anyone allegedly involved turned out to be cheating, but I would be more surprised at some than others. It looks to me like they have taken the CERA test one step further now, and that rather than having to spend a lot of time and money on each test - meaning they had to quite specifically target the likes of Ricco - they are now in a position to test whole batches of samples. Nobody should under-estimate the constraints of budgets and time on anti-doping testers!
What we don't know - if I'm wrong please correct me - is whether they are re-testing just the 30 'pre-race suspects', or a selection of other samples from the Tour itself. They can only test pre-existing samples, and as someone alluded to earlier in the thread, the 'list' bears a close resemblance to riders who won stages, jerseys, were involved in the leading teams etc. These of course are the people you'd expect them to have taken samples from during the race, so it might be nothing more sinister than that: they're simply testing what samples they have available.
Of course what would be really interesting is to know on what basis they have selected the samples which will undergo the re-testing; but even then suspicion doesn't equal guilt.
Which view do you take? Do you think this is an excellent result in terms of catching more cheats and making it clear that pro cycling is to be, in large, clean cycling from now on, or do you think it will just worsen the reputation of the sport beyond repair? I mean, if all those guys are caught, I tend to think of it as a real positive - another affirmation of the message that cycling at the top level should be clean.
im a firm believer that things have to get worse before they get better
on the CSC forums the names mentioned are Cancellera, O'Grady, Sastre and the Schlecks
Wasn’t it in the paper this morning – Monday - (from an informed source!) that the likely culprits were F. Schleck, Cancellara, O’Grady and Sastre? Kirchen as outsider.
Or do I just read the ‘cheap’ newspapers?
I wouldn’t trust Riis farther than I can throw him. As for Daamsgard, I find his testing is too simple, much is out of season, and it strikes me he’s anyway part–CSC employee.
I don’t find people who take dope and then get caught, like Moreno, half as bad as those profess they’re clean but aren’t.
Out of season testing is seen to be far more effective in longditudinal testing as that establishes a baseline or, if you listen to Victor Conte, is precisely the time when athletes are off bulking up and boosting that figure so that it looks less odd when they re-enter competition.
Could it also be that AFLD are still operating without the bio passport information from the UCI, so their mileage on "unusual values" may vary in the absence of that data?
This looks like a list of the people that I would retest if I were ASO. I would also add Evans but he's been left out of this beause he's in a Belgian team I presume.
I thought the results wouldn't have been completed yet. So is this not just a list of people they are going to test? If so it seems sensible to me and lazy journalism on th epart of the paper that 'leaked' it.
Why retest Ricco & Piepoli, unless they're simply there as a "positive control" sample?
Piepoli didnt test positive.
Remains to be seen how many people actually test postive because of this. After all the urine test didnt result in many positives despite (apparently) no riders knowing about it
There were 27 different riders who either won a stage or topped one of the four jersey classifications by my count (and would have been required to provide a doping sample on the day) - throw in Beltran, Duenas and Fofonov who all got caught but didn't win a stage/wear a jersey and that gives your 30 re-tests.
Could it also be that AFLD are still operating without the bio passport information from the UCI, so their mileage on "unusual values" may vary in the absence of that data?
But now the UCI and the French Feds are pals again surely they could match this stuff?
'Google can bring back a hundred thousand answers. A librarian can bring you back the right one.'
Neil Gaiman
Couple of names on that list are very strange, Sastre with his brother in law and all that. Also Ogrady ive never heard even a whisper of anything about him. Or have i got selective hearing :?
Take care of the luxuries and the necessites will take care of themselves.
might have won it if sastres caught doping :? Him and Pereiro can have a bit of a laugh about it. But to be honest i dont think anything will come of this list maybe some of them might get caught but most of these guys i think are clean. Might have been a blessing in disguise for Contador being left out of the tour, not saying he dopes but i imagine that he would have been on this list if he was there and then he would have one of those 'ohh he was caught doping but it got covered up' things that LA has so many of. Then again he might have doped and got caught but i bet right now his thinking glad i only have to deal with LA right now.
Take care of the luxuries and the necessites will take care of themselves.
Posts
Personally I've stood back and watched with an eyebrow raised. Every time you see a promise in cycling, you know the rider or DS is crossing his fingers.
I'm only satisfied by the Garmin-Chipotle argylle armada, but even this involves some faith.
I wouldn't be that surprised if anyone allegedly involved turned out to be cheating, but I would be more surprised at some than others. It looks to me like they have taken the CERA test one step further now, and that rather than having to spend a lot of time and money on each test - meaning they had to quite specifically target the likes of Ricco - they are now in a position to test whole batches of samples. Nobody should under-estimate the constraints of budgets and time on anti-doping testers!
What we don't know - if I'm wrong please correct me - is whether they are re-testing just the 30 'pre-race suspects', or a selection of other samples from the Tour itself. They can only test pre-existing samples, and as someone alluded to earlier in the thread, the 'list' bears a close resemblance to riders who won stages, jerseys, were involved in the leading teams etc. These of course are the people you'd expect them to have taken samples from during the race, so it might be nothing more sinister than that: they're simply testing what samples they have available.
Of course what would be really interesting is to know on what basis they have selected the samples which will undergo the re-testing; but even then suspicion doesn't equal guilt.
If this is true I will be less interested.
My blog and pod...
Beers of Belgium Cycling Club UK
im a firm believer that things have to get worse before they get better
Out of season testing is seen to be far more effective in longditudinal testing as that establishes a baseline or, if you listen to Victor Conte, is precisely the time when athletes are off bulking up and boosting that figure so that it looks less odd when they re-enter competition.
Could it also be that AFLD are still operating without the bio passport information from the UCI, so their mileage on "unusual values" may vary in the absence of that data?
http://www.atomicecho.com/cycling
I thought the results wouldn't have been completed yet. So is this not just a list of people they are going to test? If so it seems sensible to me and lazy journalism on th epart of the paper that 'leaked' it.
Piepoli didnt test positive.
Remains to be seen how many people actually test postive because of this. After all the urine test didnt result in many positives despite (apparently) no riders knowing about it
Logical?
I agree...
But now the UCI and the French Feds are pals again surely they could match this stuff?
Neil Gaiman
Surely, you wouldn't want to be caught doping, having lost the race! :oops:
2nd place in the TDF isn't a decent performance?
It was just a cheeky dig at perrennial bridesmaid Evans...
Ring the bell and leg it...that really pi**es him off....