Pierre Bordry interview
Comments
-
My targeted testing is better than Pat's passport. Given that it actually catches people, it's hard to disagree.
+ the usual dig at Armstrong. Pierre's certainly good value.0 -
He has to be running the controls for the Tour de France and other races. We saw what good the UCI has done this year. The Giro was a joke and if the CERA test only came out after the Italian tour, the UCI didn't want to check, it just says "guys, if we can't test for it, you can get away with it". Bordry is saying, "if it's in your blood, urine or hair, I've got eight years to nail you". I know who is actually doing something.
A bit harsh on the schemes run by Garmin and others, but I see where he's coming from, they are not 100% independent, don't test for everything and the rider doesn't get punished by the doping authorities if he fails a test, they are cosmetic things but at the same time I support them as what else can a team do?0 -
I'd rather him set the headlines than that Twitter guy. :roll:
Certainly gets one up on Mr Clean: 'I believe you, and of course there's a simple way for you to prove it - have the 99 samples retested'.
In the current climate, the storage defence won't wash anymore. 8 years are a lot of sleepless nights.
He certainly is trying to unpick the Omerta locked door."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
What was the point of Bordry giving the interview? He says he's written to McQuaid to arrange a discussion of how to improve the controls next year, but then he gives an interview calling the UCI a bit cr*p. Doesn't seem like the best way to get McQuaid to listen.
Is the point to threaten to withdraw AFLD's support for the UCI's controls?What worries me is to have effective controls. If I see that the checks carried out by the UCI are effective, I can do the job. If I have the impression that the UCI does not move compared to 2007, I will not. I say this clearly. We need guarantees very serious anti-doping.
What would that actually mean?0 -
Kléber wrote:A bit harsh on the schemes run by Garmin and others, but I see where he's coming from, they are not 100% independent, don't test for everything and the rider doesn't get punished by the doping authorities if he fails a test, they are cosmetic things but at the same time I support them as what else can a team do?
I think you just need to look at these programmes as ways of securing sponsors and invitations to races. If you took the 4 big teams running these schemes they're sinking €2m per year into it. I wonder what Pierre could do with that money?
We need a well funded, intelligently run anti-doping organisation which is not aligned to sports governing bodies. An operational part of WADA (AFAIK, WADA are a policy body) if you like. I think that's what he's suggesting too.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
mwo wrote:What was the point of Bordry giving the interview? He says he's written to McQuaid to arrange a discussion of how to improve the controls next year, but then he gives an interview calling the UCI a bit cr*p. Doesn't seem like the best way to get McQuaid to listen.
Is the point to threaten to withdraw AFLD's support for the UCI's controls?What worries me is to have effective controls. If I see that the checks carried out by the UCI are effective, I can do the job. If I have the impression that the UCI does not move compared to 2007, I will not. I say this clearly. We need guarantees very serious anti-doping.
What would that actually mean?
Well, it is hard to argue against the fact that the AFLD's controls at the Tour caught a handful, whilst the UCI at the Giro, Vuelta and World's caught none.
Sounds to me as if if the AFLD are threatening to run independent tests, carrying bans in France, if the UCI continue to side-step the successful methods and ignore retrospective testing introduced by PB's lot, last edition.
Agree with Iain. We need a "justice for all", well funded, impartial organisation to take over the lot. Trouble is, money has always been an issue and will certainly remain a stumbling block in the current, eco climate."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
I agree Iain. The UCI is the sports governing body and so charged with the role of overseeing the sport and protecting rider health. But at the same time it has big conflicts of interest, it derives money from professional cycling and its status is boosted by the glamour linked to the big races. This means it has (subconcious) needs to suppress bad news and ensure "the show must go on", no matter what the risks are to the long term viability of the sport or the health of individual riders.
This conflict means we see a schizophrenic UCI, one minute employing the "tough" Anne Gripper and hounding the well known cheats, the next the "wet" McQuaid says he won't retro-test samples that are practically still warm from the Giro.0 -
Kléber wrote:He has to be running the controls for the Tour de France and other races. We saw what good the UCI has done this year. The Giro was a joke and if the CERA test only came out after the Italian tour, the UCI didn't want to check, it just says "guys, if we can't test for it, you can get away with it". Bordry is saying, "if it's in your blood, urine or hair, I've got eight years to nail you". I know who is actually doing something.
A bit harsh on the schemes run by Garmin and others, but I see where he's coming from, they are not 100% independent, don't test for everything and the rider doesn't get punished by the doping authorities if he fails a test, they are cosmetic things but at the same time I support them as what else can a team do?
In reality Kleber, Garmin and Columbia, CSC, Astana deserve some credit as they are now being open about what they did covertly before...it's a change in culture I think-perhaps a sign of hope, no?0
