Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

I know the TDF list!

2»

Posts

  • KléberKléber Posts: 6,842
    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.
  • every believed he was running a clean team
    assuming that's meant to say 'everyone' - then that's certainly not the case! A doper doesn't change his spots...
  • 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.
  • I wonder why racing is beginning to appeal to me less and less...

    If this is true I will be less interested.
  • dealdeal Posts: 857
    Patrick1.0 wrote:
    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
  • leguapeleguape Posts: 986
    knedlicky wrote:
    deal wrote:
    on the CSC forums the names mentioned are Cancellera, O'Grady, Sastre and the Schlecks :cry:
    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.
    Scottish and British...and a bit French
  • Why retest Ricco & Piepoli, unless they're simply there as a "positive control" sample?
    Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.
  • 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.

    Logical?
  • guv001guv001 Posts: 688
    Doobz wrote:
    lol - this is more exiting then the tour itself :)

    I agree...
  • ms_treems_tree Posts: 1,405
    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.
  • hopper1hopper1 Posts: 4,389
    dulldave wrote:
    I would also add Evans but he's been left out of this beause he's in a Belgian team I presume.
    Or, maybe because he was censored !!!! :shock:
    Surely, you wouldn't want to be caught doping, having lost the race! :oops: :wink:
    Start with a budget, finish with a mortgage!
  • donrhummydonrhummy Posts: 2,329
    NapoleonD wrote:
    donrhummy wrote:
    Why not Silence Lotto with Evans?

    I think they took samples from people who put in decent performances ;)

    Says the fat boy in the office chair...

    2nd place in the TDF isn't a decent performance?
  • 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.
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,667
    donrhummy wrote:
    NapoleonD wrote:
    donrhummy wrote:
    Why not Silence Lotto with Evans?

    I think they took samples from people who put in decent performances ;)

    Says the fat boy in the office chair...

    2nd place in the TDF isn't a decent performance?

    It was just a cheeky dig at perrennial bridesmaid Evans...
  • bigdawgbigdawg Posts: 672
    so whats supposed to behappening this morning are they just releasing details of the retests or the results of the retests?
    dont knock on death\'s door.....

    Ring the bell and leg it...that really pi**es him off....
Sign In or Register to comment.