Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Tour de France, Giro d'Italia, Vuelta a España, Tour Down Under and more

Postby sogood » Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:14 pm

RICHARDH wrote:A common argument is made that urine samples that are nine years old arent accurate. The point i would make is that you could leave the samples there for a hundred years they wouldnt miraclously get EPO in it naturally...

Well, the issue may not be the presence or absence of EPO within the sample but whether there would be other chemical reactions within the plastic vial over time that would trigger a positive test result. This is part of the reason why developing a good test is so hard in that the test has to be sensitive but also specific at the same time. So your point is a point that has to be scientifically proven and validated. Until then, it's a possibility that the lay people can't deny.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 16796
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

by BNA » Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:22 pm

BNA
 

Postby toolonglegs » Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:22 pm

Cough cough
Last edited by toolonglegs on Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
toolonglegs
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Postby sittingbison » Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:45 pm

my issue is that Lance comes out and says "the French Lab has mishandled and thus ruined the samples". sigh.

Or "they are nine years old (actually six years old in 2005) and thus ruined". double sigh.

The samples haven't tested positive to plastic or any other strange products, they haven't tested positive to coke et al, they haven't tested positive to any known human affliction such as diabetes or narcolepsy. What they have tested positive to is EPO, which was undetectable when the samples were taken but not in 2005 when the tests were re-run.

Hey Floyd, try and explain away the SYNTHETIC testosterone in your sample, irregardless of the proportions.

Hey Lance, try and explain away EPO in your sample.

Oh, a French lab technician did it to discredit you.

Hold it, no one at the lab knew they were yours. No one at UCI knew they were yours. It took some investigative journalism to piece together disparate information and put two and two together.
I have a cunning plan, as cunning as a fox who's just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University
User avatar
sittingbison
 
Posts: 609
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 4:44 pm
Location: Subi, WA

Postby toolonglegs » Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:04 pm

sittingbison wrote:my issue is that Lance comes out and says "the French Lab has mishandled and thus ruined the samples". sigh.

Or "they are nine years old (actually six years old in 2005) and thus ruined". double sigh.

The samples haven't tested positive to plastic or any other strange products, they haven't tested positive to coke et al, they haven't tested positive to any known human affliction such as diabetes or narcolepsy. What they have tested positive to is EPO, which was undetectable when the samples were taken but not in 2005 when the tests were re-run.

Hey Floyd, try and explain away the SYNTHETIC testosterone in your sample, irregardless of the proportions.

Hey Lance, try and explain away EPO in your sample.

Oh, a French lab technician did it to discredit you.

Hold it, no one at the lab knew they were yours. No one at UCI knew they were yours. It took some investigative journalism to piece together disparate information and put two and two together.


I am not for or against LA on this one...but I will side with the guy that after 9 years I wouldn't trust anyone.I am very against a system that lets Equipe know the results for a supposedly anoymonous (terrible spelling I know!) blood test before even the athlete knows.
User avatar
toolonglegs
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Postby sogood » Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:23 pm

I am not against or for LA either, but I would not form an opinion whether the 9 year sample can be relied on or not. This is a strictly scientific issue for the experts rather than the mass media or internet forumites.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 16796
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Postby Dial » Thu Oct 02, 2008 11:40 pm

Watching Andy climb in the tour was one of the highlights. It’s hard to believe Frank was on the juice and Andy wasn’t.
Dial
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 8:19 pm
Location: St Ives

Postby JustinS007 » Fri Oct 03, 2008 7:22 am

Chuck wrote:
RICHARDH wrote:Don't think Cadel is ever going to explode up a hill ala Sastre or Contador (or Ricco :roll: ).

He grinds it out really well (he's a tough mother) but those who can sprint on the climbs will always have the edge in the mountains (IMHO) on Cadel, strong team or not.

+1 to that. Which is partly my point. Cadel spent so much marking the Schlecks that I think he had nothing left for Sastre. He knew that Sastre was always the threat but at the same time could risk letting Frank off the front. Or at least the rest of the world was thinking Sastre the real threat even with Schleck holding yellow.

And yes, if Cadel had a decent climber around him he might have been able to settle into his own tempo which would have had him climb in an aggregate faster time. The continual attacks probably cost 2 minutes.

Will Bernhard Kohl help him next year in the hills? God knows Popovych proved useless.

J.
I'm a runner, but I sure love to ride!
JustinS007
 
Posts: 244
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Wangaratta

Postby RICHARDH » Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:26 am

Firstly Schleck hasnt been charged for anything, having said that its weird that his cars, apartments keep getting raided and money has been transferred to accounts of known Doping Dr.'s. If he did dope it was probably CERA and the retesting there doing will hopefully pick him up. If his guilty which im not convinced he is. As far as LA letting them retest the urine samples it wasnt ever going to happen so its really not a big issue, but im really sckeptical about the plastic tubes causing false positives. I agree though that if the sport is to move forward a solid protocol for testing needs to be applied and the Labs need to have the highest standards.
We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works (Douglas Adams)
User avatar
RICHARDH
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:46 pm
Location: adelaide

Postby RICHARDH » Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:07 am

Schlecks admits transferring money but says it was a one time thing and stopped after receiving money from his Farther and friends. Will give DNA to prove his innocent. Question is do you believe him.
We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works (Douglas Adams)
User avatar
RICHARDH
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:46 pm
Location: adelaide

Postby Chuck » Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:12 pm

RICHARDH wrote:Schlecks admits transferring money but says it was a one time thing and stopped after receiving money


and what was to be given in return for the money :? :x
Image
FPR Ragamuffin
User avatar
Chuck
 
Posts: 4200
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:19 pm
Location: Hiding in the bunch

Postby Chuck » Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:17 pm

RICHARDH wrote:Will give DNA to prove his innocent.


How long after the event is it :roll: .

Hard to look upon all of this without suspicion, but then if you act suspiciously............
Image
FPR Ragamuffin
User avatar
Chuck
 
Posts: 4200
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:19 pm
Location: Hiding in the bunch

Postby sogood » Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:38 pm

Chuck wrote:
RICHARDH wrote:Schlecks admits transferring money but says it was a one time thing and stopped after receiving money


and what was to be given in return for the money :? :x

A very expensive first consultation to check Schleck's HR, BP, heart sound, breath sound and VO2max. :lol: :lol: :lol: :wink:
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 16796
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Postby Chuck » Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:03 pm

sogood wrote:A very expensive first consultation to check Schleck's HR, BP, heart sound, breath sound and VO2max. :lol: :lol: :lol: :wink:


:lol: Thanks for clearing that up :lol:
Image
FPR Ragamuffin
User avatar
Chuck
 
Posts: 4200
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:19 pm
Location: Hiding in the bunch

Postby Bnej » Sun Oct 05, 2008 6:27 pm

If doping is ever allowed openly in a sport it will kill it as a participation sport. Without it, anyone can say, all that stands between me and them is training, talent and dedication.

If doping is allowed, then you say, even if I have more talent, train harder, work harder, I still then have to take drugs to win. That makes the competition not worth participation for me at least.

They need to get the doctors and coaches etc who supply out, Scott/AB are a doping scandal in waiting because of their team staff.
User avatar
Bnej
 
Posts: 2880
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:43 pm
Location: Katoomba, NSW

Postby boyracer » Thu Feb 12, 2009 3:35 pm

Chuck wrote:
der Ungar wrote:How will the sport be able to attract sponsors if all the riders are openly taking drugs ?


maybe pfizer,etc might get in on the act.
top fuel drag racing in USA is all drug brand sponsors since you cant advertise smokes or booze anymore and none of the car companies can even fully fund their pension plans without a hand out. how long will/can the banks/money managers keep up their sponsorship of pro teams in this current financial enviroment?

veterinary supplies r us pro team?
User avatar
boyracer
 
Posts: 604
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:29 pm

Postby Mulger bill » Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:26 pm

Very cynical Boy, MB like :D

Shaun
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 25275
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Postby toolonglegs » Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:16 am

Very glad Schumi got the shaft!!!...very sad Valv is in the mix but also this has been waiting to come to the boil for a long time!!!.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... /feb20news
Image
User avatar
toolonglegs
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Postby RICHARDH » Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:47 am

Still protesting his inoccent though isnt he? have to start calling him Flloyd from now on. Valverde is going to get busted big time. Just hope they do it so that there is now legal reason that they cant ban him. My guess is we will see Contador in Caisse colours next year, as they wont have a GC guy after this. That is if Caisse doesnt pull out and they cant find a sponsor.
We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works (Douglas Adams)
User avatar
RICHARDH
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:46 pm
Location: adelaide

Postby toolonglegs » Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:56 pm

:D
Last edited by toolonglegs on Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
toolonglegs
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Postby misterpms » Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:12 pm

I haven't followed cycling much at all, but doping is an issue in a wide range of sports. I think that as an adult you are ultimately responsible for what you put into your body. I don't like the fact that people take performance enhancing drugs and definitely don't condone it, but I don't believe blanket bans will ever work. I suggest legalising and letting them take what they want, the only condition is that they disclose what they have taken. Having a policy of legalization and disclosure serves two purposes:
1. It might allow for doping to occur in a controlled and probably safe environment;
2. It evens out the playing field i.e. it is available. It is a moral choice that an athlete has to make; and
3. Disclosure might take away the joy from a victory. This might, in some twisted way, work against the athlete and encourage them to partake without said performance enhancing drugs.

I used to assume that as an elite athlete, knowing that you won just because you took cocktail XYZ and not necessarily because of any physical and/or mental ability would be torturous. But then in this day and age where athletes are super stars with lucrative sponsorship deals winning must be the bottom line.

This reminds me of an interview that Andrew Denton did with Dr. Julian Savulescu. Transcript is http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s2374638.htm

A similar thing happened in cricket, not doping, but match-fixing. I used to be a dedicated fan, but knowing that players had decided the outcome of an innings/game far in advance made my devotion meaningless.
User avatar
misterpms
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 2:57 pm
Location: Sydney

Postby toolonglegs » Sun Feb 22, 2009 2:32 am

:wink:
Last edited by toolonglegs on Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
toolonglegs
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Postby misterpms » Sun Feb 22, 2009 6:30 am

toolonglegs wrote:...no one can compete clean against a talented cyclist with a hemocrit of 55-60,because the doped rider can train harder,recover quicker and race harder and longer...and then possibly die on the side of the road.


Assume that x riders are doping in races. By following the logic in your statement, the top x riders must be the x that have doped, assuming that no-one died on the side of the road. Like I said earlier I hardly follow cycling, but is that the case ? Are all of the top ranked riders positive and are all of the bottom placed riders negative ? What I'm trying to say is that it must be possible to compete against a dope (pun intended).

Doping technology will always be ahead of the curve when compared to detection technology. I think that blanket bans and 4 year bans will only push doping further underground and towards new, and potentially even more dangerous avenues. Now don't get me wrong, I want cheats to be outed and shamed too, but I think that it's high time to think of some other avenues to combat this scourge. Doping is here to stay.

Edit: Disclaimer: I mean no disrespect to clean cyclists or the sport of cycling. I don't have all of the answers and I definitely haven't thought of all of the details. I'm just offering another viewpoint.
User avatar
misterpms
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 2:57 pm
Location: Sydney

Postby toolonglegs » Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:47 pm

:oops:
Last edited by toolonglegs on Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
toolonglegs
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Re: Crapola!!!....

Postby JV911 » Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:56 am

Italian prosecutor seeking two-year ban for Spanish cyclist Valverde

ROME — Spanish cyclist Alejandro Valverde should receive a two-year ban for his alleged involvement in Operation Puerto, an anti-doping prosecutor for the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI) recommended Wednesday.

The case will now head to CONI's in-house anti-doping court, with a hearing likely in May. In February, CONI prosecutor Ettore Torri confronted Valverde with DNA evidence and documents that allegedly show he was in contact with a doctor at the centre of the blood doping case in Spain.

The Caisse d'Epargne rider maintained his innocence during questioning by Torri.

CONI's case against Valverde is based on an alleged DNA match between samples taken during an Italian leg of last year's Tour de France and a blood bag seized in a 2006 raid on the doctor's blood doping clinic in Madrid.

CONI contends that documents found in the raid also link Valverde to the doctor, Eufemiano Fuentes. The documents indicate the amounts the rider paid and what substances were used in the blood doping process, Torri said after questioning Valverde.

Valverde has argued that Italian sports authorities have no jurisdiction on the case, and Spanish authorities have also questioned the use of blood found in the raid as evidence by the Italian committee.

The Italians counter that they are within their rights to prosecute Valverde and that evidence had been collected according to the rules.

More than 50 cyclists were originally linked to the Puerto doping ring, including top riders like Ivan Basso of Italy - who served a two-year ban.

After initially being implicated in the investigation, Valverde was banned by the International Cycling Union from competing in the 2007 World Road Racing Championships.

The UCI had called on the Spanish cycling federation to open proceedings against him, but it declined to do so, and eventually Valverde was cleared by the Court of Arbitration for Sport to compete at the championships.

In 2008, the 28-year-old Valverde won the UCI ProTour and the opening stage of the Tour de France. Last week, he won two stages in the Vuelta of Castilla and Leon.
<---LACC--->
<---BMC SLR01--->

User avatar
JV911
 
Posts: 5451
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:22 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Crapola!!!....

Postby toolonglegs » Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:51 pm

Whether the UCI enforces it or not is another matter...either way Valv won't be riding the TDF this year...as one of the stages is in Italy.
Image
User avatar
toolonglegs
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

PreviousNext

Return to International and National Tours and Events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Support BNA
Click for online shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Cycling Express Cycling Express
Ebay Ebay AU
ProBikeKit ProBikeKit UK
Evans Cycles Evans Cycles UK
JensonUSA Jenson USA
JensonUSA Competitive Cyclist