Now Schumacher's been caught

petethedrummer

penexpers wrote: »

The Giro is organised under the UCI, so they would have the final say on drug testing (or lack thereof).

Well we can forget about the UCI ever wanting to clean up the sport, they're a joke.
So it's down to the GIRO organisers and they don't want to.
http://www.velonews.com/article/84157/giro-won-t-re-test-samples

The ASO who organise the TDF have to fight with the UCI to get things done.
http://chainringtatt.wordpress.com/2008/07/30/uci-looses-war-with-aso/

Raam

petethedrummer wrote: »

Well we can forget about the UCI ever wanting to clean up the sport, they're a joke.
So it's down to the GIRO organisers and they don't want to.
http://www.velonews.com/article/84157/giro-won-t-re-test-samples

The ASO who organise the TDF have to fight with the UCI to get things done.
http://chainringtatt.wordpress.com/2008/07/30/uci-looses-war-with-aso/

I read something the other day where McQuiad said he's NOT against re-testing samples from the Giro. Can't remember where it was though. It seemed at odds with other quotes from him where he questions what re-testing will achieve.

TinyExplosions

el tonto wrote: »

I don't know, I think the experience of this year has knocked the notion on the head that its only the old hands still doing it. We had Ricco, Schleck and Gusev. All younger riders. And there's still a few more who escaped detection I feel. Definitely the most suspect performance in this year's Tour came from a very young rider.

I think there's still a hard core of riders of all ages who haven't quit it. I think it depends more on the racing cultures they come from and the teams they are in than their age.

I don't think there's an age thing, or any kind of 'new generation' of clean riders -certainly not yet anyway, as most of the guys in the peloton will have grown up admiring dopers (like Ricco with Pantani), so they know all about it.

I think there will always be people who try to cheat, and I suspect that the percentage of cheat will go down, but will probably not dip much below the current rate -but then I think that the level of doping in cycling is proportionally the same as in most, if not all sports -we just pay more attention, and more people get caught!

sy

el tonto wrote: »

... I think it depends more on the racing cultures they come from and the teams they are in than their age.

Hit the nail on the head. The problem lies with the team managers and their so called backup medical teams. Managers are desperate to get their hands on the small amount of money that is rapidly disappearing out of cycling. They are putting young riders under pressure to perform. I don't buy into the fact that they can claim they didn't know their cyclist was taking drugs etc or where they were at a particular time of the year. It is their job to know (and they do know).
I'm sick of hearing the statement that "cycling has turned a corner" ( yes I too have used that statement a number of times)etc as until we get rid of the Bjarne Riis's and Co. the sport will never dig itself out of this mire. Sorry for being so cynical but the Ricco case the Giro's refusal for post testing was the last straw for me.

petethedrummer

Raam wrote: »

I read something the other day where McQuiad said he's NOT against re-testing samples from the Giro. Can't remember where it was though. It seemed at odds with other quotes from him where he questions what re-testing will achieve.

Probably since the GIRO organisers are against the idea, he can say that, safe in the knowledge it won't happen.

petethedrummer

sy wrote: »

Hit the nail on the head. The problem lies with the team managers and their so called backup medical teams. Managers are desperate to get their hands on the small amount of money that is rapidly disappearing out of cycling. They are putting young riders under pressure to perform.

Thats why I think the wrong people are being punished. If the entire team were to be punished by suspension from racing for a number of months, it would force the teams to do proper internal testing. There would be more peer pressure on riders to stay clean. Teams would alsop be very wary of signing riders with dodgy pasts.

Am I right in saying that if rider fails a drug test he gets suspended and team will just fire him at the end of the season and bring in a replacement? Or do the teams receive any sort punishment?

Raam

petethedrummer wrote: »

Thats why I think the wrong people are being punished. If the entire team were to be punished by suspension from racing for a number of months

I don't think that's right. Too open to sabotage.

TinyExplosions

And now Stefan is wanting to sue for libel!

petethedrummer

Raam wrote: »

I don't think that's right. Too open to sabotage.

how? its hard to surepticiously give someone a blood transfusion. But i do see your point. a rider/soigneur could be bought off to sabotage a team. or possible a drink spiked.

But there needs to be some way to punish team managers. I suppose excluding Astana from the tour this year was one way of doing it.

Raam

petethedrummer wrote: »

how? its hard to surepticiously give someone a blood transfusion. But i do see your point. a rider/soigneur could be bought off to sabotage a team. or possible a drink spiked.

But there needs to be some way to punish team managers. I suppose excluding Astana from the tour this year was one way of doing it.

Exactly, someone get's disgruntled and makes everyone pay for it. How likely is it? Who know's?

rob1891

Interesting to note the talk at Cycling Ireland's AGM:

http://womenscycling.ie/blog/2008/11/23/cycling-ireland-agm-2008-report/

2008 Cycling Ireland AGM Report wrote:

Motion 7 proposed an increase in anti-doping tests, with the aim of creating a “cleaner” profile for the sport. This was not passed, as several arguments were convincing. For one thing this would be too costly, also this could have a negative effect on the sport if amateurs racing in regular open races are caught out for slip ups that they are not aware of.

I don't imagine they have the money for testing, fair enough, but why would someone try to justify an absence of testing because of negative effect of an amateur's "slip up" would have. Slip up being they haven't yet worked out the proper timing to their "vitamin" doses!

Give them a chance I say, how will they ever figure it out if they don't fail a few tests.

TinyExplosions

rob1891 wrote: »

Interesting to note Cycling Ireland's attitude to drug testing:

http://womenscycling.ie/blog/2008/11/23/cycling-ireland-agm-2008-report/


I don't imagine they have the money for testing, fair enough, but why make comment of the negative effect of an amateur's "slip up". Slip up being they haven't yet worked out the proper timing to their "vitamin" doses!

Give them a chance I say, how will they ever figure it out if they don't fail a few tests.

To give someone the benefit of the doubt, I think it's fairly easy for an amateur to slip up and test positive... for example, someone gets into cycling, and starts to get short of breath on longer rides -goes to the doctor, and gets told he has sports induced asthma and is prescribed a ventolin inhaler. So, he continues on his merry way, taking puffs whenever he feels the need (ignoring the recommended dose -as many, including me, do), takes a drugs test, comes up positive for Salubutomol and is hauled up in front of the authorities. Ok, maybe if you're racing you should be aware of what's allowed and what isn't (and maybe the inhaler example is bad), but a pro has no excuse for not knowing the minute details of the rules, but an amateur -should they have to know that taking the wrong sort of cough bottle *could* turn up a positive for a banned substance?

I think a positive test could have a detrimental affect on an amateur, and would raise the suspicion around them... would you look at Johnny differently at your next club race if you knew he'd tested positive (regardless of how he got out of it)? Many people would...

ROK ON

TinyExplosions wrote: »

I think there will always be people who try to cheat, and I suspect that the percentage of cheat will go down, but will probably not dip much below the current rate -but then I think that the level of doping in cycling is proportionally the same as in most, if not all sports -we just pay more attention, and more people get caught!

Pro Sport is a serious business, and is getting more serious. IMO doing is prevalent in most if not all pro sports. Cycling doping is simply more high profile. Doping in Irish rugby is swept under the carpet - there have been several players (in the AIL) failing random drug tests, where the name of the player has not been publicly released. Christ, has anyone been at an AIL game, I mean whjy would you dope, other than the fact that we as humans are human, thus we are prone to cheat.
When I was 15, a guy in my school was a judo champ, and he regularly admitted to blood doping, his mother (a nurse) helped im, he claimed.
Society hopes that sport is clean, because for many of us, sport (participating or supporting) is an escape from our humdrum existence. In reality, sport is reflective of us as a species. I actually feel sorry for the likes of Paul Kimmage, society should be fairer, the guy who tries hard, should have a chance of succeeding. However life just ain't like that. For all of us, it is a personal moral choice. Maybe we should accept that cycling is dirty (like many sports). Sure, punish the wrongdoer, but lets get over the persecution complexes about the sport. Rant over.

RobFowl

rob1891 wrote: »

Interesting to note Cycling Ireland's attitude to drug testing:

http://womenscycling.ie/blog/2008/11/23/cycling-ireland-agm-2008-report/


I don't imagine they have the money for testing, fair enough, but why make comment of the negative effect of an amateur's "slip up". Slip up being they haven't yet worked out the proper timing to their "vitamin" doses!

Give them a chance I say, how will they ever figure it out if they don't fail a few tests.

This is a difficult topic. As a CI license holder you consent to being tested in or out of competition , no matter what level you are at. The policy at present is to determine who the high performance or elite cyclists are and test them regularly in and out of competition. Dope testing is very expensive a minimum of 125 per test and can be well over 1k depending on what tests are done.
If for example C/vets/womens or even club races were targerted you would probably catch a few riders who haven't declared their asthma meds. If you need EPO at that level then you are one sorry MF.
Ultimately if testing were increased the money would be diverted form elsewhere.
I would like to see a clean sport and at elite level its very strict, especially with the new whereabouts regulations (you need to tell the testers where you will be every day 3 months in advance and set aside an hour evry day when you will be effectively waiting to see if the testers turn up).
Its about right at the moment IMO and CI are very commited to a clean sport.

Diarmuid

As an aside a very interesting/scary thread here on doping in amateur cycling. I think someone posted a link here (or maybe it was some other forum) to a whole thread with guys discussing the ins and outs of doping EPO. Does anyone have that link?

rob1891

RobFowl wrote: »

This is a difficult topic. As a CI license holder you consent to being tested in or out of competition , no matter what level you are at. The policy at present is to determine who the high performance or elite cyclists are and test them regularly in and out of competition. Dope testing is very expensive a minimum of 125 per test and can be well over 1k depending on what tests are done.
If for example C/vets/womens or even club races were targerted you would probably catch a few riders who haven't declared their asthma meds. If you need EPO at that level then you are one sorry MF.
Ultimately if testing were increased the money would be diverted form elsewhere.
I would like to see a clean sport and at elite level its very strict, especially with the new whereabouts regulations (you need to tell the testers where you will be every day 3 months in advance and set aside an hour evry day when you will be effectively waiting to see if the testers turn up).
Its about right at the moment IMO and CI are very commited to a clean sport.

To be fair, I should probably edit my post. The quote is from the report of an attendee to the AGM, not official minutes. Further, in this case it is probably summarising the comments made against the motion, which would be comments made by CI members, not particularly attributable to CI.

I also agree there is not enough money to test extensively. My point was the second argument against testing ("slip-ups"!), which I is feel plain ridiculous, but as above, it can't be attributed to CI itself, only a portion of its member base.

Chips Lovell

Diarmuid wrote: »

He won't name the doctor but he claimed that he named names
The former pro has also testified before the World Anti-Doping Agency and the German federal police Bundeskrimnalamt, which is investigating the former T-Mobile Team for which Kohl rode from 2005-2006. "And I definitely named names there."

True, he keeps saying he named names, but the investigators aren't that impressed:

In a press release, the agency said that Kohl did not name or testify to "the doctor, from whom by his own admission he received the forbidden substance ..., either the name, the sex, the location of the doctor's office, or any other information as to the person or the place."

Because he did not give any information at all as to this point, the agency's Legal Commission considered Kohl not to be a "cooperating witness" who would be eligible for a reduced suspension.

Sounds to me like he's just doing the bare minimum

Diarmuid wrote: »

Well I'm not sure I agree with you. Why would Kohl say such a thing when it's clear he wants to get back to racing asap? Surely something like "half the peloton is on the stuff" is most definitely spitting in the soup?

To me that sounds more like the guy who's ticked off he's been caught when he knows others are doing it too. If he wanted to spit in the soup, he'd be telling us who's on it.

aidan.offbeat wrote: »

I don't agree that just because riders aren't performing especially well (winning stages etc) doesn't mean they're not dopers.

No, I don't think you've got to do a Ricco to indicate your doping, but I'm more talking about consistancy of performance and the fact that riders we're fairly sure aren't doping aren't suffering in a two speed peloton like the used to. I still think there's a good proportion up to stuff, but I just doubt that it's half.

aidan.offbeat wrote: »

Also, is it the UCI that don't want to retest the giro samples?? I thought it was the race organisers - which is fairly understandable. Obviously the majority of the field were off their tits.

Pat McQuaid is doing a good impression of not wanting to:

After declaring his support for four-year bans for riders found guilty of doping infractions last week, UCI president Pat McQuaid has stated that he opposes re-testing further samples to check for CERA.

In the wake of the scandals surrounding Stefan Schumacher, Leonardo Piepoli, Riccardo Ricco and Bernard Kohl, it was proposed that samples from last year's Tour de France could be re-tested for the presence of this new-generation of the famed blood booster, EPO.

The Irishman told AP that "From the UCI's point of view, we prefer to look forward rather than look backward. To randomly say 'OK, let's take all the samples from 2007 from the Tour de France and put them all through testing processes'... it's futile, it's expensive and it's not going to serve the purpose in the anti-doping fight of today."

Chips Lovell

petethedrummer wrote: »

Thats why I think the wrong people are being punished. If the entire team were to be punished by suspension from racing for a number of months, it would force the teams to do proper internal testing. There would be more peer pressure on riders to stay clean. Teams would alsop be very wary of signing riders with dodgy pasts.

I don't really agree with this. Yes, I think there's a few teams where management is actively complicit in doping and there's more where they adopt a 'see no evil, hear no evil' approach. However, I think there's other teams where you get one or two guys going off the reservation while everyone else is playing it by the book.

Take the Moreni case last year. I'm pretty convinced he did it on his own initiative and that it would have been hugely unfair for his teammates to be suspended. Bradley Wiggins came out and said he wanted to punch him in the face, after all.

petethedrummer wrote: »

Am I right in saying that if rider fails a drug test he gets suspended and team will just fire him at the end of the season and bring in a replacement? Or do the teams receive any sort punishment?

I think there's a provision in the Pro Tour rules which mean a team can't race for a period if it has three or more positives in the space of a year. Astana got done under that last year if I recall.

Hermy

el tonto wrote: »

Look at Jorg Jaksche, the only Puerto rider who really came clean. The guy can't get a team to save his life.

Looks like Jorge might be signed after all.