And now Max Iglinskiy done for EPO

Jez mon

Joelsim wrote:

The fact (still) remains that EPO is still very difficult to detect when taken in small doses, and any doctor worth his salt can play with blood values to minimise the risk from this.

And yet there have been a sizable number of positive EPO tests this year...So out of the following, which is it

1) Riders aren't taking it in small doses and are therefore testing positive
2) 99% of riders are taking small doses, and 1% are getting caught
3) It's not as hard to detect as you are making out

joelsim

Jez mon wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

The fact (still) remains that EPO is still very difficult to detect when taken in small doses, and any doctor worth his salt can play with blood values to minimise the risk from this.

And yet there have been a sizable number of positive EPO tests this year...So out of the following, which is it

1) Riders aren't taking it in small doses and are therefore testing positive
2) 99% of riders are taking small doses, and 1% are getting caught
3) It's not as hard to detect as you are making out

IMO number 2 without a doubt. Probably not 99% of riders though, maybe 97% :shock:

That's not completely what I think, but my head says it will be a fair percentage, one that is the case in all endurance sports.

RichN95.

Joelsim wrote:

IMO number 2 without a doubt. Probably not 99% of riders though, maybe 97% :shock:

Why would 97% dope?

adr82

Joelsim wrote:

That's not completely what I think, but my head says it will be a fair percentage, one that is the case in all endurance sports.

That's a lot of words to say you're wildly guessing.

joelsim

adr82 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

That's not completely what I think, but my head says it will be a fair percentage, one that is the case in all endurance sports.

That's a lot of words to say you're wildly guessing.

Yes, we are all guessing. Some guess a very small number, some guess the majority. No-one knows except for those involved.

joelsim

RichN95 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

IMO number 2 without a doubt. Probably not 99% of riders though, maybe 97% :shock:

Why would 97% dope?

You forgot to read the next sentence Rich. And we all know that you and I differ completely on this topic. Time will tell one way or the other.

RichN95.

Joelsim wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

IMO number 2 without a doubt. Probably not 99% of riders though, maybe 97% :shock:

Why would 97% dope?

You forgot to read the next sentence Rich. And we all know that you and I differ completely on this topic. Time will tell one way or the other.

But you must have some reason for throwing such a large number out there. In the 90s maybe you would have been right (at least in the big races). But the landscape has shifted considerably over the years.

I think you don't appreciate why riders dope. What drives them to take a serious step into dishonesty. You seem to think that they can, so they will. But it's not that simple. There are many factors and parameters that effect a decision and they have changed greatly.

disgruntledgoat

ThomThom wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

ThomThom wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Why would I? Frank got sidelined for showing the presence of some non-performance enhancing substance. Epo is something else entirely.

If one of the Schlecks got done I would be 95% sure the other was aware.

Frank has been busted twice.

No, he wasn't 'busted' for Puerto.

No, the 7k Euros was just for advice wasn't it.. He had the guy you are calling a mastermind of cycling as mentor, coach, manager and team owner but opted for some good old 7k advice from our good old friend..

Whenever I need training tips, I pay way over the odds for advice from Gynecologists with no track record in sports coaching whatsoever. In his second language.

jimmythecuckoo

...with tenuous links to a number of top Tennis players and Soccer teams.

lostboysaint

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

...with tenuous links to a number of top Tennis players and Soccer teams.

I don't think there was anything tenuous about the links.

RichN95.

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Whenever I need training tips, I pay way over the odds for advice from Gynecologists with no track record in sports coaching whatsoever. In his second language.

That's not quite right. He had a long track record of working in sports medicine and sports science stretching back to the mid 80s (he was a doctor for Delgado's team and work form Spanish Athletics). Before that he had a brief period working in gynecology, but I don't think he's practiced since.

jimmythecuckoo

lostboysaint wrote:

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

...with tenuous links to a number of top Tennis players and Soccer teams.

I don't think there was anything tenuous about the links.

I can't afford to be sued though

joelsim

RichN95 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

IMO number 2 without a doubt. Probably not 99% of riders though, maybe 97% :shock:

Why would 97% dope?

You forgot to read the next sentence Rich. And we all know that you and I differ completely on this topic. Time will tell one way or the other.

But you must have some reason for throwing such a large number out there. In the 90s maybe you would have been right (at least in the big races). But the landscape has shifted considerably over the years.

I think you don't appreciate why riders dope. What drives them to take a serious step into dishonesty. You seem to think that they can, so they will. But it's not that simple. There are many factors and parameters that effect a decision and they have changed greatly.

The 97% was a joke, hence the next line.

And I agree with you that the landscape has changed considerably from the huge doping problems of the past. But this year is still showing me that there is doping going on, and whilst the testing is better it appears to be far from robust for lots of reasons. And for that reason alone there will always be cheats, and if a number are doing it then it becomes more difficult for others to not do it. Can you really, honestly say that you think Nibs, Valverde and Bertie are 100% clean? That puts more pressure on others to keep up, and yes I understand that the testing improvements mean that the benefits of blood doping are not as great as they once were.

RichN95.

Joelsim wrote:

The 97% was a joke, hence the next line.

And I agree with you that the landscape has changed considerably from the huge doping problems of the past. But this year is still showing me that there is doping going on, and whilst the testing is better it appears to be far from robust for lots of reasons. And for that reason alone there will always be cheats, and if a number are doing it then it becomes more difficult for others to not do it. Can you really, honestly say that you think Nibs, Valverde and Bertie are 100% clean? That puts more pressure on others to keep up, and yes I understand that the testing improvements mean that the benefits of blood doping are not as great as they once were.

But you're looking at all wrong. Whether Contador, Valverde or Nibali are clean is irrelevant to grand scheme of things. What is crucial is whether their perfomances are those that you would expect from the top performers in a clean sport. And to my mind they are.

And you say that this puts more pressure on others. But where is the pressure coming from? For teams, money is the primary factor in success theses days. Team budgets are a lot more varied. Europcar know they can't compete with Sky. And their sponsor knows it too. So they set their ambitions accordingly. If a sponsor wants more success then they need to pu tmore money in.

And so it is with individuals. Most people know what their level is or should be in any endeavour. And by and large they are happy be at that level. Some think that greed or glory are the prime motivating factors to doping, but they are not. Behavioural economics has consistently shown than fear of loss is a far more powerful force. And the primary source of that fear has switched from an unhappy DS not renewing a contract to a non-doper, to being caught out by anti-doping or losing a money due to poor perfomances. Many of those caught have been riders trying to maintain what they have, not reaching for more.

FocusZing

Blazing Saddles wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

The thing with EPO is that the tests for it are a lot better and it's a lot more high risk. But it's also inexpensive and easy to get hold of. So it's still tempting for a mid to low level pro working alone, but it's not really something you'd have much in a team approved program (particularly around race time like the Iglinskiy bros).

All true, but in this day and passport age you would hope, if not expect, a top WT team to have measures in place
to make if difficult for old scholar epo doping to go completely undetected.
Depending upon how team bosses view doping and prioritise anti doping, of course.

We've had a raft of epo positives in the last 12 months or so and many have occurred in team clusters.

Maxim Iglinskiy – UCI Provisional Suspension

Astana Pro Team response to UCI confirmation 1.10.14 that Iglinskiy M. cannot participate in competition until adjudication of his case on the merits or the lifting of the provisional suspension by the UCI Anti-Doping Commission or the CAS -

“Astana Pro Team Management announces an adverse analytical finding for EPO has been registered for rider Maxim Iglinskiy – ‘

“In accordance with regulations of the MPCC (Mouvement Pour un Cyclisme Crédible) to which the Astana team first adhered in 2013, the rider is suspended provisionally and shall remain out of competition in anticipation of the results from the B analysis -“

“All Astana Pro Team riders are contractually obliged to respect strict ethical rules and regulations,” said Astana Pro Team General Manager Alexandr Vinokurov -

” We will not tolerate any indulgences by any one entity, person or structure that violates these rules – I am very disappointed and angered that this rider could not have understood the basis of our rules and the importance of our ethics -“

“It is especially unacceptable on the part of a Kazakh rider who stands for the image of our team and the image of our country -“

I'm sorry, but I can't help laughing at the bold bit.

Ha, yes. A bit like Amgen sponsoring the Tour of California, contemptuous.

ianwilliams

Pretty sure it said on inrng that the bio passport was initially to only be used in the open-and-shut cases. If an early case was successfully appealed it would have lost all credibility.

What we might be seeing is not more doping, but the authorities lowering the threshold above which cases are brought.

RichN95.

ianwilliams wrote:

Pretty sure it said on inrng that the bio passport was initially to only be used in the open-and-shut cases. If an early case was successfully appealed it would have lost all credibility.

What we might be seeing is not more doping, but the authorities lowering the threshold above which cases are brought.

They're still only going to action cases they are certain of winning. The nature of the passport is that they should only be actioning certain cases anyway.
What is more likely happening is that the passport is being used to identify probably dopers and when they dope, to improve the testing schedule.
I can imagine they get tip-offs from law enforcement too.

Brailsford Bad

I've some crystal blue meth if they are interested...

tom3

Delete should have read the news and the other thread.

tailwindhome

José Been ‏@TourDeJose · 33m33 minutes ago
Westra on Iglinskiy: "In TDF he surprised me. No results whatsoever before & during TDF he started hurting us on bike http://www.wielerrevue.nl/2014/10/07/we ... an-ploeg/# …

RichN95.

One of Astana's stagiaires has been busted for steroids now - some Kazakh called Davidenok from their development team.

The_Boy

Dev team won't be on BP will they? So presumably he's* failed the intelligence test?

*or his team, obviously.

Edit: intelligence not inelegance. No point getting all frenchie about it.

Paul 8v

This is what I was saying in the rider/team of the year thread. Nibs, Aru and any other respectable riders need to get the hell out of dodge before the whole team comes crashing down around them. How it hasn't done that already I don't know!

blazing_saddles

Vino and Cookson were getting together for a cosy chat:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vinokou ... -positives

But, now, it's become:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-to- ... ur-licence

joelsim

Wonder if Nibs and Aru will perform better away from Astana

blazing_saddles

So, another one in August.
Some mutterings elsewhere about the UCI possibly having another look at Lutsenko's samples from September...

thegreatdivide

Joelsim wrote:

Wonder if Nibs and Aru will perform better away from Astana

I see what you did there ;-)

tailwindhome

Typically considered piece from Inner Ring.....

http://inrng.com/2014/10/astana-licence ... davidenok/

me-109

And now even picked up on by Auntie Beeb:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/29647353

Bo Duke

You have to conclude that the controlling minds (per legal interpretation of those who make the decisions, possibly regardless of whether they own the team or company) have a separate agenda to the UCI and other main teams.

In that light, why would Nibbles and Aru want to stay there and risk being blemished?

Would Froome and Wiggo stay at Sky if it appeared that Big Dave was quietly condoning the use of drugs throughout the team?

Doesn't look good and the UCI have to crack down on this very firmly or risk an Andy Shleck comeback tour.