Bordry has another rant

iainf72
iainf72 Posts: 15,784
edited June 2010 in Pro race
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/sport ... ug-testing?

'They (the tests) are organized in such a way that the riders know about them beforehand,'
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.

Comments

  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    There are persistent tales of teams/riders being notified in advance.
  • bipedal
    bipedal Posts: 466
    But not just Bordry... now the Germans are complaining too:
    Baumert called on the UCI to let independent agencies carry out drug tests, but UCI boss Pat McQuaid told ZDF that this was not possible under UCi rules

    The selective use of UCI "rules" is getting embarrassing...
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    From that article, the rather obvious reasons for the UCI's stance...

    While several prominent riders were caught doping at the 2008 Tour when the ADFL carried out the tests, there were no positive tests at the 2009 edition when the UCI was in charge of testing.

    And Bordry is not alone in his views...

    German anti-doping agency boss Armin Baumert also criticised the UCI in the ZDF programme, saying that 'A lot must happen to be more credible than now.'

    Baumert called on the UCI to let independent agencies carry out drug tests...

    I think we can be sure that the 'cosy' relationship that existed at the Tour last year between the UCI and Astana will be repeated this year, only this time with the Radioshack team. That the UCI will do almost anything to continue to protect Armstrong is just about the only thing that is transparent about the way the UCI operates...
  • dulldave
    dulldave Posts: 949
    bipedal wrote:
    But not just Bordry... now the Germans are complaining too:
    Baumert called on the UCI to let independent agencies carry out drug tests, but UCI boss Pat McQuaid told ZDF that this was not possible under UCi rules

    The selective use of UCI "rules" is getting embarrassing...

    They're the UCI so can't they just change the rules? If there isn't a single positive this Tour I think it'll be pretty clear that there has been a whitewash. I wonder who they'll sacrifice?
    Scottish and British...and a bit French
  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    The UCI is caught in a bind here, it is charged with promoting the sport and boosting its image but at the same time it is meant to police anti-doping rules. It is incentivised not to catch cheats.

    In case you think this is just a technical points, look at the following:
    - when asked about retro-testing samples from the 2008 Giro d'Italia, McQuaid said it would be unhelpful to rake over the past. In other words catching cheats is not worth it.
    - Valverde gets nailed for a DNA match with a single blood bag; Armstrong had a single sample come up positive for EPO but everything was done to bury this, Vrijman Report etc.
  • dave_1
    dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    what is happening with the investigation into Astana? 6 months already..lol
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKBacb2V ... ata_player
  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    French investigations take years. They've just ruled on the Concorde air crash, today rogue trader Jerome Kerviel goes to court and other events that happened years ago are still waiting for a day in court.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    BikingBernie wrote:
    From that article, the rather obvious reasons for the UCI's stance...

    While several prominent riders were caught doping at the 2008 Tour when the ADFL carried out the tests, there were no positive tests at the 2009 edition when the UCI was in charge of testing.

    That argument only works if you zero your clock at July 2008. But if we go back to 2006 we see the UCI managed to nab significantly bigger names than the AFLD did.

    The AFLD lucked out with the CERA test. That is all. They don't have any special magic powers.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    iainf72 wrote:
    ... if we go back to 2006 we see the UCI managed to nab significantly bigger names than the AFLD did.
    Whilst at the same time doing everything possible to protect the biggest name of them all - and at the end of the day that is what the current refusal by the UCI to let anyone else other then themselves to run dope tests at the Tour is all about.
  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    iainf72 wrote:
    The AFLD lucked out with the CERA test. That is all. They don't have any special magic powers.
    That's true but you get the sense that the UCI might have tipped off people about the CERA test before using it, whereas AFLD wanted the theatre of catching some riders.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    BikingBernie wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    ... if we go back to 2006 we see the UCI managed to nab significantly bigger names than the AFLD did.
    Whilst at the same time doing everything possible to protect the biggest name of them all - and at the end of the day that is what the current refusal by the UCI to let anyone else other then themselves to run dope tests at the Tour is all about.

    Is it? Or is it because of Bordry and his continual public showboating? They've had their budget cut so he's making a lot of noise to try and get more cash.

    The AFLD can do some good work and I'm not doubting that. But they do themselves no favours at times.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,725
    Last year's Tour we had several farcical test situations. Astana more or less turned up when the felt like it. So, between knowing and stalling, there ain't much that can go wrong.

    The UCI can only gain credibilty through working with another agency, but they are probably more terrified of a situation they cannot control.

    Top up tip offs to remain the order of the day.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    I'm surprised given the widespread hostility to doping that there are enough people happy to give teams a heads up before a test, to the extent to which no-one blows the whistle.

    I find it even more surprising if those people are indeed the testers. Who goes into the business of anti-doping thinking "yeah, let's make it easy for people to dope!"?
    _
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    He's also not a fan of the passport

    http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=ap ... oping-feud
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Longer article and I got a good source for y'all this time

    http://www.ldnews.com/sports/ci_15267731
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    iainf72 wrote:
    Longer article and I got a good source for y'all this time

    http://www.ldnews.com/sports/ci_15267731

    The third most viewed story on there is "Roundabout nearing construction".
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Dgh
    Dgh Posts: 180
    iainf72 wrote:
    BikingBernie wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    ... if we go back to 2006 we see the UCI managed to nab significantly bigger names than the AFLD did.
    Whilst at the same time doing everything possible to protect the biggest name of them all - and at the end of the day that is what the current refusal by the UCI to let anyone else other then themselves to run dope tests at the Tour is all about.

    Is it? Or is it because of Bordry and his continual public showboating? They've had their budget cut so he's making a lot of noise to try and get more cash.

    The AFLD can do some good work and I'm not doubting that. But they do themselves no favours at times.

    Simple fact is, the UCI lacks credibility in anti-doping.

    With Landis' allegations, why not say, "We say he's lying, but to be seen to be kosher, we'll let AFLD do the Tour tests"? What's there to lose?

    Has anyone eer accused the AFLD of tipping off riders? Is there any question about the scientific soundness of their tests?

    I do like the passport, though. Seems to me that blood-monitoring together with tests much more likely to catch people than tests alone, no matter how many tests are done.

Categories