'98 retro testing...

nic_77

So l'Equipe are teasing tomorrow's story that Jalabert was indeed positive for EPO in 1998 as identified by retro-testing performed in 2004 (the results of which have now been effectively 'unblinded' as a result of the senate enquiry).

http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-rout ... 998/381138

Interesting exchange between @dimspace and @vaughters discussing the relative prevalence of EPO between 1998 and 1999 tours. To summarise:

It seems as though EPO positives were significantly more prevalent in the re-testing of '98 samples ("almost all", presumably of the samples re-tested rather than riders) versus the '99 samples ("12/100", and 6 of those are known to be Armstrong). @dimspace mused that this was evidence that much of the peloton were scared off EPO for the '99 tour (and therefore that Armstrong didn't have the level playing field he claims). @vaughters chimed in to say that teams weren't scared off at all before the '99 tour, but that they just didn't want to be carrying and using the products during the tour (hence the lack of positives). Vaughters states that "Had I been tested, I would have been + on day 1-3 only"

If you want to read the full conversation, you'll have to figure the timeline out for yourself - there were several conversation threads running simultaneously and I'm not sufficiently tooled up to extract the chronology.

nic_77

'98 start list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_te ... _de_France

and results:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Tour_de_France

Presumably samples would have been taken for stage winners... like Chris Boardman (gulp) and Magus Backstedt?
Here's hoping that the use of the almost all wording is literal:

"Substance indétectable en 1998, l’EPO était présente dans quasiment tous les échantillons d’urine analysés six ans plus tard."

I'm not clear whether that means 'almost all' of Jalabert's samples or 'almost all' of all samples... maybe there will be more information (and names?) tomorrow.

You've got to hand it to l'Equipe they never fail to energise a nice doping story to introduce the tour with... part of the history and tradition I suppose!

nic_77

Does this story also explain Jan's timely confession?
But then didn't he say he only used blood doping and not EPO?

nic_77

I'm going to stop talking to myself now.

shinyhelmut

I gather in their Enviroment supplement they are publishing the shocking revelation that faeces samples collected in a forested area have testes positive for ursine DNA.

FocusZing

nic_77 wrote:

I'm going to stop talking to myself now.

Ha, just don't start arguing with yourself.


https://mobile.twitter.com/Vaughters/st ... 630017?p=v

Link for the conversation.

timoid.

Is anyone surprised?

Would love a full list of riders. Some of them are still knocking about. Is Der Jensie sweating?

blazing_saddles

CN love a bit of gossip.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/jalaber ... -de-france

(well, at least it's in English.............sort of)

iainf72

Timoid. wrote:

Is anyone surprised?

Would love a full list of riders. Some of them are still knocking about. Is Der Jensie sweating?

From digging that hole in the forest?

Turfle

I think that's the last of them.

nic_77

iainf72 wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

Is Der Jensie sweating?

From digging that hole in the forest?

Has Jensie geo-cached his stash?

salsiccia1

Is there any point to this? I mean, come on, how many people think Jalabert or anyone else of that era wasn't off their tits? The only real shock now is when it turns out someone from that era wasn't up to the gills.

nic_77

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Is there any point to this?

The belated naming and shaming has some purpose... namely to show the current and future generations that (eventually) your actions will catch up with you.

napoleond

Praying that my hero and person who inspired me to start cycling is clear. That's you Mr Boardman.

salsiccia1

nic_77 wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Is there any point to this?

The belated naming and shaming has some purpose... namely to show the current and future generations that (eventually) your actions will catch up with you.

The sentiment is fine, but I don't see anyone being overly ashamed at what was going on, and we all knew what was going on even then. He'll still be a demi-god in France with a mountain named after him. Look at Virenque.

knedlicky

nic_77 wrote:

It seems as though EPO positives were significantly more prevalent in the re-testing of '98 samples ("almost all", presumably of the samples re-tested rather than riders) versus the '99 samples ("12/100", and 6 of those are known to be Armstrong). @dimspace mused that this was evidence that much of the peloton were scared off EPO for the '99 tour (and therefore that Armstrong didn't have the level playing field he claims).

I think it’s already (I mean years ago) been documented somewhere, that the ’99 Tour showed a significant drop in suspicious cases compared to the ’98 Tour, so this isn’t new News. Riders got scared after the Festina affair.

I don’t remember the exact figures I’ve seen, but based on suspicious test results and riders’ later revelations, I think I read about 90% of all riders in ’98 took Epo, but only about 50% in ’99. Of riders who finished in the top 20 in ‘99, the suspicious results however only dropped to about 75%.

In 1999, the 4 riders who were identified to have taken steroids, but who provided a doctor’s certificate to justify doing this (Castelblanco, Beltran, Hamburger and Armstrong), were all later identified as having taken EPO.

knedlicky

Timoid. wrote:

Is Der Jensie sweating?

Based on the evidence he collected, the attorney who led the Festina investigation reckoned that Roger Legeay (Manager of Crédit Agricole), Jean-Marie Leblanc (Director of the Tour), Daniel Baal (former President of the French Cycling Association) and/or Verbruggen (President of the UCI at the time) should have been accused of conspiracy, but the French law at the time didn’t allow them to be accused.

At the time, Voigt was with Crédit Agricole.

DeadCalm

nic_77 wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Is there any point to this?

The belated naming and shaming has some purpose... namely to show the current and future generations that (eventually) your actions will catch up with you.

You're forgetting the main point though which is obviously to sell newspapers.

Jalabert's reaction:

http://www.rtl.fr/actualites/sport/cyclisme/article/jalabert-accuse-de-dopage-c-est-ma-reputation-qui-est-entachee-7762588048

which is basically, I don't know what they've got against me so I'm not going to say anything but if they have got something it'll be because I trusted the team doctors.

cougie

Didn't boardman ask the uci to take samples from him for his hour record to keep for later testing ?
He was clean as he always faded in longer races - not like lance and co who got stronger as the races carried on.
If boardman was doping then I'd be amazed.
Jaja ? He rode for dodgy teams.

tailwindhome

nic_77 wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Is there any point to this?

The belated naming and shaming has some purpose... namely to show the current and future generations that (eventually) your actions will catch up with you.

It's also good for Lance's strategy of diluted his personal responsibility for his actions.

Gazzetta67

Shock Horror - Le Tour week negative headlines....never seen that one coming eh :roll:

nic_77

knedlicky wrote:

nic_77 wrote:

It seems as though EPO positives were significantly more prevalent in the re-testing of '98 samples ("almost all", presumably of the samples re-tested rather than riders) versus the '99 samples ("12/100", and 6 of those are known to be Armstrong). @dimspace mused that this was evidence that much of the peloton were scared off EPO for the '99 tour (and therefore that Armstrong didn't have the level playing field he claims).

I think it’s already (I mean years ago) been documented somewhere, that the ’99 Tour showed a significant drop in suspicious cases compared to the ’98 Tour, so this isn’t new News. Riders got scared after the Festina affair.

I think Vaughters' angle is interesting though - he is saying that no-one was scared off actually taking EPO, they just didn't want to carry it. Therefore, it was not taken during the tour itself but plenty was used in the build up (thus implying that more riders would have been positive if they'd been tested in the first few stages).

Dave (Dim) ‏@dimspace 8h
For those that argue level playing field, there is a strong argument that much of the peloton got scared off in 99..

Jonathan Vaughters ‏@Vaughters 7h
@dimspace scared in the sense they only used until start. Scared to have in suitcase. But not scared pre start.

Dave (Dim) ‏@dimspace 7h
@Vaughters right, so doped pre tour, but doping during the tour was much less, hence the lack of positives whereas in 98 they kept going

Jonathan Vaughters ‏@Vaughters 7h
@dimspace exactly.

Dave (Dim) ‏@dimspace 7h
@Vaughters which would imply that those who did use EPO throughout the 99 tour had an advantage over others

Jonathan Vaughters ‏@Vaughters 7h
@dimspace yes, I would agree.

https://twitter.com/Vaughters/status/349218725985128449

Bizarrely Vaughters seems to have deleted his own tweets about this today, however, they do still show in the conversation threads (or I still don't fully understand Twitter).

mike6

Salsiccia1 wrote:

nic_77 wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Is there any point to this?

The belated naming and shaming has some purpose... namely to show the current and future generations that (eventually) your actions will catch up with you.

The sentiment is fine, but I don't see anyone being overly ashamed at what was going on, and we all knew what was going on even then. He'll still be a demi-god in France with a mountain named after him. Look at Virenque.

Yes, Virenque is still being used by Festina to sell there watches, In France at least. I saw a big poster of a grey and grizzled Richard outside a jewelers only last week.
Just shows the old saying, there is no such thing as bad publicity, for some companies anyway, seems to be true. I seem to recall Festina bragging they had sold more watches than ever in the wake of the Festina scandal.

timoid.

NapoleonD wrote:

Praying that my hero and person who inspired me to start cycling is clear. That's you Mr Boardman.

He's one of the few cyclists that it would actually surprise me if it turned out that he juiced.

Jaja on the gear can't be news to anyone.

frenchfighter

Interesting thread. If he really did test positive on those, which is hardly surprising as people have noted, then that he can still now after all that has gone on in the last few years still deny it is unbelievable.

inseine

Jalabert isn't going to be doing the French TV coverage. I guess being an ex doper still has repercussions.

hommelbier

inseine wrote:

Jalabert isn't going to be doing the French TV coverage. I guess being an ex doper still has repercussions.

It will be interesting to see who co-commentates this year's tdf with Thierry Adam (at least he is a journalist). The probable choice is Cédric Vasseur (who was riding for Credit Agricole in 1999 before moving to US Postal in 2000 - no implications intended).

edhornby

frenchfighter wrote:

Interesting thread. If he really did test positive on those, which is hardly surprising as people have noted, then that he can still now after all that has gone on in the last few years still deny it is unbelievable.

can you see a parallel Frenchie - doper gets caught, says 'I didn't do it, I know in my heart that I'm still a winner'? anyone ?

Daz555

Can't see Boardman failing a retro test. I think he was too obsessed about the science of cycling to worry much about the science of cheating. Also - his performances were not suspicious.

jimmythecuckoo

Jalabert doesn't surprise me sadly... With Once and CSC on your cv you are bound to arouse healthy cynicism.

Although, I have promised a fellow cycling fan that I am not going to be negative and assume everyone is a doper as we go into the Tour this year.

So I am sticking with my new positive vibe.

markwb79

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Jalabert doesn't surprise me sadly... With Once and CSC on your cv you are bound to arouse healthy cynicism.

Although, I have promised a fellow cycling fan that I am not going to be negative and assume everyone is a doper as we go into the Tour this year.

So I am sticking with my new positive vibe.

Proud of you!