AFLD - Why not do these tests DURING the TDF?

donrhummy

Was it just to lower the bad-press impact? By announcing these positive results months after the TDF,the Vuelta and the Olympics, during cycling's down time and one at a time, it just seems like they did not do these tests during the TDF simply to avoid bad press. As a fan, that bothers me a lot.

Assuming Kohl really is guilty (we'll see what the B-tests say), that means I had to sit and watch and get excited over his fantastic performance for three weeks when I could have been informed that it was a cheating performance, probably around the time we discovered Ricco's actions.

I get the feeling they did this simply to emphasize that it was the UCI that led to the horrible press and collapse the year before because, "look at how great a race this is and no one is allowed to race who we could have known was cheating a long time ago." But, now they've done exactly that!! They had these CERA tests before the TDF (and just did tests on his TDF sample) and yet, they did not perform the test until THREE months later!

cougie

I dont think its as simple as you make out.

I think their initial simpler tests showed reasons for concern, but not positive proof.

So they had to retest. Its not like a pregnancy test - wee on this and if it turns blue you're preggers ?

donrhummy

cougie wrote:

I dont think its as simple as you make out.

I think their initial simpler tests showed reasons for concern, but not positive proof.

So they had to retest. Its not like a pregnancy test - wee on this and if it turns blue you're preggers ?

No, that's not the case. They actually said that during the TDF, they only did CERA tests on targeted individuals. So it was not that the CERA test didn't work the first time, it's that they never did them on Schumacher or Kohl.

Cumulonimbus

I would have thought that they did do it on Kohl and Schumacher? Anyway, i assume that they did the test on Piepoli and he didnt test positive during the tour? Ricco only tested positive once or twice out of ten tests. This new test is a different one, on blood rather than urine, and is supposed to throw up more positives

Kléber

donrhummy, I think it's madness to suggest the authorities refused to test riders for reasons of politics and spin! They simply kept the samples and with the test perfected, agreed to test them again, something which required authorisation from the UCI and WADA.

stagehopper

These are CERA blood tests - AFLD and WADA hadn't completed validation of this test in time for the Tour.

There was a CERA urine test available which they used during the Tour, but it isn't as definitive as the blood test.

iainf72

Quite right Stagehopper.

The urine tests did show up as suspicous but didn't hit the required thresholds. Blood test is more refined so they retested.

Don - What's the problem? Testing for new substances over and over closes the net on dopers and will do more for the fight for clean cycling than anything else.

Remember, as soon as the blood transfusion test is good to go they're going to revisit the other suspicous samples.

micron

Surely the best way to avert negative press would be not to retest the samples at all (somewhat like the attitude the Giro have taken)? Doesn't retesting show a commitment to catching dopers even if it brings bad publicity to the Tour?

skavanagh.bikeradar

Quite so, they are doing the exact opposite of burying their heads and are in fact prolonging the negative publicity in order to catch these buggers.