UCI vs AFLD round 3 *ding ding*

iainf72
iainf72 Posts: 15,784
edited October 2009 in Pro race
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/ ... ting_N.htm
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
«1

Comments

  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Reading things like that makes me think that the French Testing Lab is just trying to justify their existence and get bigger because they claim to be better. Sour grapes?????
    Sounds almost like politicians "you're no good, I'm the best" "no, I'm the one that will get the job done for you". That kind of thing. Opps, almost forgot, someone issued a "strongly
    worded" statement. Must be politicians.
  • micron
    micron Posts: 1,843
    UCI say AFLD are rubbish - what a surprise. And still no rebuttal of the real meat of Bordry's criticisms regarding the handling of samples and their conservation. I suppose it suits the UCI to focus on the Astana accusations, though how they think stating that Astana were heavily tested by AFLD disproves the accusations of testers having coffee with team officials, letting riders know they were going to be subjected to surprise tests and keeping samples in hot car boots is beyond me. I'm surprised they haven't got Vrijman in to do another of their famous whitewashes.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Have the AFLD presented any actual evidence?
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • donrhummy
    donrhummy Posts: 2,329
    Floyd's case looks more and more solid as this goes on. AFLD seems to say/do whatever they want without any evidence.
  • micron
    micron Posts: 1,843
    Interesting that Bordry and Fahey have just had an amicable meeting to discuss complementary methods in the fight against doping - the ones out of step are the UCI, not AFLD
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,711
    donrhummy wrote:
    Floyd's case looks more and more solid as this goes on. AFLD seems to say/do whatever they want without any evidence.

    A soild case? Er...no...he got caught.
    One of the unlucky ones, but that's how it goes.
    Don't be daft.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • micron
    micron Posts: 1,843
    And wasn't Flandis caught by the UCI?

    Iain not sure what you mean? The UCI say Astana were tested X but that's not what the AFLD are alleging - a lot of smoke and mirrors from McQuaid. And are you therefore accusing all the journalists who observed and reported on the irregularities in testing procedures - most infamously the coffee incident - of having no evidence?
  • donrhummy
    donrhummy Posts: 2,329
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    donrhummy wrote:
    Floyd's case looks more and more solid as this goes on. AFLD seems to say/do whatever they want without any evidence.

    A soild case? Er...no...he got caught.
    One of the unlucky ones, but that's how it goes.
    Don't be daft.

    Um, no. There was a ton of evidence showing issues with how AFLD handled everything, didn't calibrate the machine, told the technicians whose blood they were working on, releasing info to other sources, changing numbers on form with whiteout, not following protocol for %error, the list goes on an on. Look, I've never said Floyd was innocent; just that AFLD + UCI never proved he was guilty.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    micron wrote:
    Interesting that Bordry and Fahey have just had an amicable meeting to discuss complementary methods in the fight against doping - the ones out of step are the UCI, not AFLD

    Not impressed with Bodry at all think he a self seeking publicist who shouts his mouth off but to date has not come up with the goods, a lot of this goes back to him being extrememly dissapointed he could not produce positives from last years tour restests after claiming he would.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    micron wrote:
    Interesting that Bordry and Fahey have just had an amicable meeting to discuss complementary methods in the fight against doping - the ones out of step are the UCI, not AFLD

    Not impressed with Bodry at all think he a self seeking publicist who shouts his mouth off but to date has not come up with the goods, a lot of this goes back to him being extrememly dissapointed he could not produce positives from last years tour restests after claiming he would.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    micron wrote:
    And wasn't Flandis caught by the UCI?

    Iain not sure what you mean? The UCI say Astana were tested X but that's not what the AFLD are alleging - a lot of smoke and mirrors from McQuaid. And are you therefore accusing all the journalists who observed and reported on the irregularities in testing procedures - most infamously the coffee incident - of having no evidence?

    Why dont we just do away with testing altogether and just let the journalists pick who is guilty and who is not based on their criteria.............how does that sound ?
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • SpaceJunk
    SpaceJunk Posts: 1,157
    Moray Gub wrote:
    micron wrote:
    And wasn't Flandis caught by the UCI?

    Iain not sure what you mean? The UCI say Astana were tested X but that's not what the AFLD are alleging - a lot of smoke and mirrors from McQuaid. And are you therefore accusing all the journalists who observed and reported on the irregularities in testing procedures - most infamously the coffee incident - of having no evidence?

    Why dont we just do away with testing altogether and just let the journalists pick who is guilty and who is not based on their criteria.............how does that sound ?


    Stuff the journalists - why don't we just allow the fans to pick who is guilty or not based on their criteria.

    Sorry, I forgot: we are already doing it. :wink:
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    donrhummy wrote:
    I've never said Floyd was innocent; just that AFLD + UCI never proved he was guilty.
    Oh yes they did, as was ruled by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. :roll:

    Reading the comments on here, I get the feeling that the basic principle some are applying is 'The AFLD are French, therefore they are by default wrong, irrespective of all the evidence showing the contrary'...

    The real pity here is that the ASO have jumped into bed with the corrupt clowns in the UCI. If only Patrice Clerc was still in control and working with the AFLD there might be a reason the believe in the results of the Tour. As it is I get the feeling that there was collusion in this years event between the UCI and ASO on the one hand, and Astana and Armstrong on the other, and that Armstrong was practically given a green light to blood-dope his way onto the podium. McQuaid and co did this because they thought Armstrong's comeback and a 'positives free' event were was 'good for the sport', and the ASO because it was good for their balance sheets.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    BikingBernie wrote:
    :

    Reading the comments on here, I get the feeling that the basic principle some are applying is 'The AFLD are French, therefore they are by default wrong, irrespective of all the evidence showing the contrary'...

    Incorrect. Your default position is that because they're French they must be correct.

    Do the AFLD do some good work? Yes, probably. Do the UCI, yes, probably. Are either entity perfect? Not even close.

    Bordry seems to be thriving on seeing his name in the papers. If you're so certain people are using AICAR or Hematide, why mention it? Keep it quiet, work on the test and nab 'em.

    What I've said about the Astana situation is lets see some real evidence - And if the AFLD have a great relationship with WADA, why not go direct to WADA with your concerns and not mention things in public?
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    iainf72 wrote:
    BikingBernie wrote:
    : Reading the comments on here, I get the feeling that the basic principle some are applying is 'The AFLD are French, therefore they are by default wrong, irrespective of all the evidence showing the contrary'...
    Incorrect. Your default position is that because they're French they must be correct.
    Your post is rather contradictory and would make rather more sense if the 'Incorrect' bit at the beginning had been omitted.

    That said the ASO are 'French', and my 'default position' there is that they have been in the wrong ever since they got rid of Patrice Clerc. ('Coincidentally' immediately after those meetings they had with McQuaid and Armstrong...)
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    BikingBernie wrote:

    That said the ASO are 'French', and my 'default position' there is that they have been in the wrong ever since they got rid of Patrice Clerc. ('Coincidentally' immediately after those meetings they had with McQuaid and Armstrong...)

    Do you think the AFLD would've done a better job at the Tour this year? They lucked out last year big style with the CERA test. Notice how they did the testing at Paris-Nice last year but didn't get anyone.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    iainf72 wrote:
    Do you think the AFLD would've done a better job at the Tour this year? They lucked out last year big style with the CERA test. Notice how they did the testing at Paris-Nice last year but didn't get anyone.
    The Paris-Nice as run by the ASO? I would have thought that you need the full support of the organisers of an event if you are going to target doping effectively.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    BikingBernie wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Do you think the AFLD would've done a better job at the Tour this year? They lucked out last year big style with the CERA test. Notice how they did the testing at Paris-Nice last year but didn't get anyone.
    The Paris-Nice as run by the ASO? I would have thought that you need the full support of the organisers of an event if you are going to target doping effectively.

    Yes. Which they did have. 2008 Paris Nice.

    Wouldn't you say Bordry is talking to much? After all, the stars of the 08 Tour were supposed to be trembling recently. But as it turned out there was no need to tremble. Constant talking about who's doing what wrong and which drugs are being used.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • mylesrants
    mylesrants Posts: 37
    disgrace!

    untied front facing the dopers.
    this is only playing into their hands


    a mess
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,481
    iainf72 wrote:
    Do the AFLD do some good work? Yes, probably. Do the UCI, yes, probably. Are either entity perfect? Not even close.

    Bordry seems to be thriving on seeing his name in the papers. If you're so certain people are using AICAR or Hematide, why mention it? Keep it quiet, work on the test and nab 'em.

    What I've said about the Astana situation is lets see some real evidence - And if the AFLD have a great relationship with WADA, why not go direct to WADA with your concerns and not mention things in public?
    I have to agree with all of this.

    It's turned into a playground style argument and they are only entertaining to children. The sport needs leadership from those with authority, not squabbling.
  • micron
    micron Posts: 1,843
    But AFLD have gone to WADA to discuss ways of dealing with doping that isn't being tested/can't be tested for - look at Balco, it was the testimony and the circumstantial evidence that was used to prove doping in those cases, rather than a raft of positives. The testing can't compete with doping technology and even suspect blood values which were supposed to catch more sophisticated methods are couched in broad enough parameters that a certain level of charging is allowed (you could almost say encouraged) by the UCI.

    Sure neither side is perfect - I'm sure that some good work is going on somewhere in the UCI :wink: But you can see why Bordry might get frustrated and yes, Biking Bernie, I think there's a clear undercurrent of Francophobia from certain posters here.

    However, am most surprised that the UCI's biggest criticism hasn't been mentioned here: that the AFLD tested 6 French riders and labelled the samples with the riders name thus destroying the principle of anonymity. Mind you, the UCI level a criticism that AFLD only took 13 tests in total (interestingly nearly half being of French riders) as opposed to the 190 taken by the UCI - and silly me thought the UCI were doing the testing at the race, not the AFLD. But this is a serious accusation that I hope M. Bordry will address - though if he does it will be more than Mr McQuaid has done. The smokescreen of Astanagate has served well to obscure the serious criticism of chain of evidence and sample storage that the UCI have never addressed.

    So, yes, neither side is perfect, but I highly suspect that one side is a little more perfect than the other.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    SpaceJunk wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    micron wrote:
    And wasn't Flandis caught by the UCI?

    Iain not sure what you mean? The UCI say Astana were tested X but that's not what the AFLD are alleging - a lot of smoke and mirrors from McQuaid. And are you therefore accusing all the journalists who observed and reported on the irregularities in testing procedures - most infamously the coffee incident - of having no evidence?

    Why dont we just do away with testing altogether and just let the journalists pick who is guilty and who is not based on their criteria.............how does that sound ?


    Stuff the journalists - why don't we just allow the fans to pick who is guilty or not based on their criteria.

    Sorry, I forgot: we are already doing it. :wink:

    Stuff the journalists -why dont we let the well known doping sage BikingBernie to pick who is guilty or not base on his criteria after all he with no evidence he says Lance blood doped at this years Tour.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    micron wrote:
    and yes, Biking Bernie, I think there's a clear undercurrent of Francophobia from certain posters here.

    .


    Not you as well :roll: You have to remember that being critical of AFLD or Bodry is evidence of Francophobia in BikingBernies mind
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,481
    Actions speak louder than words. Last year the AFLD were well respected because they had virtually no media profile yet were catching dopers seemingly at will. This year they've been very vocal through Bordry yet have hardly caught anyone.

    That's not Francophobia, merely a representation of the facts.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    andyp wrote:
    Actions speak louder than words. Last year the AFLD were well respected because they had virtually no media profile yet were catching dopers seemingly at will. This year they've been very vocal through Bordry yet have hardly caught anyone.

    That's not Francophobia, merely a representation of the facts.

    For once you an i agree on something.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • micron
    micron Posts: 1,843
    Agreed andyp, but AFLD haven't been testing the Tour this year - could Bordry being vocal be as a result of his frustration that the UCI have relied on a passport as the cure for all ills when, as is widely known, it's easy to bypass it and still dope (Kohl, new Italian techniques etc etc)? After all, wasn't McQuaid mouthing off earlier this year about all the cyclists that were returning suspicious values and then, suddenly, everyone is clean and doping is over?
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    Moray Gub wrote:
    Stuff the journalists -why dont we let the well known doping sage BikingBernie to pick who is guilty or not base on his criteria after all he with no evidence he says Lance blood doped at this years Tour.
    I wouldn't say that there was 'no' evidence. And hasn't Armstrong now removed his blood data from his website?

    http://tinyurl.com/yfcbn6w

    http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/ ... suspicious

    lancearmstrongblood2009.png
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    BikingBernie wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    Stuff the journalists -why dont we let the well known doping sage BikingBernie to pick who is guilty or not base on his criteria after all he with no evidence he says Lance blood doped at this years Tour.
    I wouldn't say there was 'no' evidence. And hasn't Armstrong now removed his blood data from his website?

    http://tinyurl.com/yfcbn6w

    http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/ ... suspicious

    lancearmstrongblood2009.png

    I'm really surprised that Lance, or any rider, would post this kind of thing on their website.
    Seems sort of a lose / lose thing to me. If you post it how does anyone know it's the real deal? Even if "it" looks great / perfect someone will come along claiming it's too perfect to be true. Just doesn't make sense to me. Then again neither do a great many things. To be honest I've been a skeptic all my life.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    dennisn wrote:
    Even if "it" looks great / perfect someone will come along claiming it's too perfect to be true. Just doesn't make sense to me. Then again neither do a great many things. To be honest I've been a skeptic all my life.

    What you do is get a respected anti-doping expert to provide some analysis with the numbers.

    If you were a skeptic, you'd not just accept what Lance says so blinding Dennis.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    dennisn wrote:
    I'm really surprised that Lance, or any rider, would post this kind of thing on their website... Just doesn't make sense to me.
    Perhaps he did it because he said he was going to when he announced his comeback. Much like he announced that he was going to allow Don Catlin to test him...
    Nearly five months after Lance Armstrong announced with great fanfare that he was returning to cycling and would subject himself to a strict and transparent individual antidoping program, that program has been abandoned without ever beginning.

    Don Catlin, the prominent antidoping scientist who was supposed to run Armstrong’s program, said Wednesday that they had decided earlier in the day to part ways, without Catlin’s analyzing a single blood or urine sample from Armstrong.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/sport ... cling.html

Categories