# Black market and doping



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

WADA is warning about using an experimental drug for doping. The dopers seem awfully far ahead if the testers. Fortunately, everyone quit doping in 2006....

WADA issues warning on black market GW501516 | Cycling News


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

A bit old, but related. Expiremental and cutting edge doping products showing up around the 2009 TDF. Stories like this are why I cringe a bit at extraordinary performances. You want them to be true, but have been burned so many times.

Doping: AICAR, Telmisartan and the need for vigilance


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

every extraordinary performance is suspect- period. In my view the burden of proof is on the rider to show he is clean - otherwise, it's world's strongest men or TV wrestling, not an athletic contest. This game of tag between the cheating riders and the anti-doping agencies is backwards. The rider is presumed doped in my mind. It's hard to stay interested in freak shows and 3 card monte. I found a channel that televises F1 racing.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Unfortunately, the rider cannot show he is clean. It is like proving that you don't beat your wife. Passport and OOC testing needs to be stepped up by a factor of at least 5. And the testing and result management MUST be taken out from under the UCI and moved to WADA. It would also be helpful if the test results were public, although there is some controversy over that.
Vaughters has been warning over on the Clinic that right now is a very narrow window to get things correct. He is pushing hard for more funding from the teams, promoters, and the UCI and for the UCI to get out of the testing business. I don't see eye to eye with him on everything he says, but on this he is spot on.

For instance, Ryder had a 8 week, and a 6 week blank period (IIRC), on his ABP testing leading up to the Giro last year. Sky has been complaining that they haven't been tested in months. This cannot continue if the powers that be expect us, the fans, to believe that we are entering a "new, clean era".


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

David Loving said:


> every extraordinary performance is suspect- period. In my view the burden of proof is on the rider to show he is clean - otherwise, it's world's strongest men or TV wrestling, not an athletic contest. This game of tag between the cheating riders and the anti-doping agencies is backwards. The rider is presumed doped in my mind. It's hard to stay interested in freak shows and 3 card monte. I found a channel that televises F1 racing.


 what would you consider proof a rider was clean.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

I think the window is long past. (Or is it passed?) 
Cycling has a horrible reputation. Armstrong had "500 clean tests." 

Increased testing isn't going to repair public preception of what happened from 1990ish to the present.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Well, A. Armstrong didn't have 500 tests. B. He failed tests, the UCI covered them up. So while I agree that cycling has a horrible reputation, I still hold out hope that increased, independent testing will repair perception going forward.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

The Tedinator said:


> Well, A. Armstrong didn't have 500 tests. B. He failed tests, the UCI covered them up. So while I agree that cycling has a horrible reputation, I still hold out hope that increased, independent testing will repair perception going forward.


Yeah, that's why I put it in quotes. But the others - Hincape, etc... Never failed their tests. Or Zabel. Or... 

You get my point.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

There is just no telling how many tests Aigle covered up, but yeah; I get your point.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

The Tedinator said:


> Well, A. Armstrong didn't have 500 tests. B. He failed tests, the UCI covered them up. So while I agree that cycling has a horrible reputation, I still hold out hope that increased, independent testing will repair perception going forward.


It would be nice if things improve, but I'm not holding my breath. Any more, I just view professional cycling as entertainment. 

The OCD in me only gets annoyed that I commit someone to memory and have to change it later. Personally, I don't think Contador should have been allowed to race with the clenbuterol thingy pending.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

spade2you said:


> I don't think Contador should have been allowed to race with the clenbuterol thingy pending.


Contador did not compete from the time his positive was announced until his cased was ruled on by his National Association. Like every other rider, Contador then served his suspension during the appeal.

What better process would you propose?


----------



## billium v2.0 (Oct 22, 2012)

spade2you said:


> Any more, I just view professional cycling as entertainment.


From conversations with other folks who have more than a casual interest in professional cycling, your view is becoming the predominant one. With all the revelations/confessions of late, it's mighty difficult (stupid?) to be romantic about this sport.

And yet, with everything that's come to light, and particularly this time of year (classics season), I still find myself romantic about the sport and some of the individuals involved. My head subtly shakes now when I watch a break that everyone knows won't succeed, when in the past my heart would will the break additional seconds whenever the motorcycle held chalkboard would show the rider(s) their latest time advantage over the chasers. My head knows better. But in some cases, still, my heart overwhelms logic and I'm smitten, a goofy 50 something year old kid in love with a sport that's two/three and four timed me over and over. My head is ashamed.

Taylor Phinney's recent last place finish reminded me that I can still feel as romantic about the sport as I did watching the final stage of the '89 DTF and that 50 second time advantage of Fignon's. 

The sport can clean itself up and do so quickly if it wants to. But IMO it has to be top-down, not bottom-up. What hope is there if the governing body's official stance is "wink-wink, nudge-nudge". Individual riders, teams, directors, medical staff all need to be held accountable, but only after the folks charged with overseeing the integrity of the entirety of the sport are shown that integrity matters. I'm not holding my breath, but in a small corner of my chest that my noggin will not admit to..............

OK, soapbox is creaking, I'm through.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

asgelle said:


> What better process would you propose?


Not racing. Him simply being at the Giro totally changed outcomes. You can simply bump everyone up, but who's to say that Nibali wouldn't have won if Contador weren't there?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

spade2you said:


> Not racing. Him simply being at the Giro totally changed outcomes. You can simply bump everyone up, but who's to say that Nibali wouldn't have won if Contador weren't there?


"yup turned out you were innocent, sorry bout the one year ban". I'm sure would would be ok with that if it were you at your work.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

den bakker said:


> "yup turned out you were innocent, sorry bout the one year ban". I'm sure would would be ok with that if it were you at your work.


Life isn't fair. People in all sorts of professions get suspended without pay, pending a final hearing, at a mere allegation of misconduct.

Getting re-instated with full back pay 6 months to a year later doesn't help you pay the mortgage in the interim.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

mpre53 said:


> Life isn't fair. People in all sorts of professions get suspended without pay, pending a final hearing, at a mere allegation of misconduct.
> 
> Getting re-instated with full back pay 6 months to a year later doesn't help you pay the mortgage in the interim.


how do you get re-instated for lost wins? do tell. 
"life isn't fair" the champion cop-out


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

mpre53 said:


> Life isn't fair. People in all sorts of professions get suspended without pay, pending a final hearing, at a mere allegation of misconduct.


I don't believe you. How many examples can you cite where someone is accused, goes through trial or arbitration, is found innocent or no penalty is imposed, and then remains suspended while there is an appeal? Suspended pending a first hearing, sure, all the time. Remains suspended pending an appeal? Show me the data.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

den bakker said:


> "yup turned out you were innocent, sorry bout the one year ban". I'm sure would would be ok with that if it were you at your work.


Carlos Barredo wasn't allowed to race for about 2 years under suspicion. He was never formally charged and ended up retiring. Hell, Ballan also wasn't allowed to race for a while due to prior suspicion as well. Don't get me wrong. They were both probably guilty.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

spade2you said:


> Carlos Barredo wasn't allowed to race for about 2 years under suspicion. He was never formally charged and ended up retiring. Hell, Ballan also wasn't allowed to race for a while due to prior suspicion as well. Don't get me wrong. They were both probably guilty.


While nice stories, these cases aren't on point. Contador also sat out pending his hearing just as Barredo and Ballan did. What you're proposing is suspending riders after there has been a hearing and they've been cleared to compete on the possibility of an appeal at a later date.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

spade2you said:


> Carlos Barredo wasn't allowed to race for about 2 years under suspicion. He was never formally charged and ended up retiring. Hell, Ballan also wasn't allowed to race for a while due to prior suspicion as well. Don't get me wrong. They were both probably guilty.


What happened after they were cleared and the appeal was being processed? 

(2 years for barredo? try 2 months. )


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

Well, Lance showed he was "clean." I guess the rider really can't. Most are not anyway. Relegates the sport to professional wrestling, and worlds strongest man. Entertainment for those who like contests between 'my doped up rider and your doped up rider.' There is so much money in it that I doubt it will ever get cleaned up. Human nature strikes again.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

asgelle said:


> I don't believe you. How many examples can you cite where someone is accused, goes through trial or arbitration, is found innocent or no penalty is imposed, and then remains suspended while there is an appeal? Suspended pending a first hearing, sure, all the time. Remains suspended pending an appeal? Show me the data.


I didn't say anything about an "appeal" after a fact-finding determination, trial, or administrative hearing. And in criminal cases, where there's an acquittal, the state can't appeal anyway. I do this for a living. Represent people who get accused. Some of them have been cops, other have been teachers. Among other professions. Charges are lodged, and the employer suspends without pay pending a trial. Trials don't happen in a month. Or even sometimes, 6 months. If a person is cleared, they get re-instated, usually with full back pay, but in the interim, they're suspended. They're not drawing a check.

If you're a professional driver, and you get charged with DUI, your license is suspended on the spot if you take a breathalyzer and it's above .08. It's suspended if you refuse the test. No license = no work. If you're found not guilty, then and only then you get your license back. No one is going to order compensation for your lost wages. Whether you can get a temporary, restricted use license in the interim between being charged and trial, depends on the state and often the mood of the judge at the first court appearance. In some cases, you can't get a restricted use license if you refuse the breathalyzer.

You're referring to administrative hearings where a first hearing can take place within a month. Even in those cases, until the hearing, depending on the nature of the work, you are usually suspended without pay. It's rare where an employer decides to appeal the outcome when the employee is cleared at a first hearing, and of course the employee is immediately re-instated.


----------



## Slartibartfast (Jul 22, 2007)

"every extraordinary performance is suspect- period."

Not a new idea, but this is why there needs to be an unlimited class for professional cyclists. Everything is allowed, period. If it makes them grow nine eyes and glow in the dark, so be it. People not wishing to glow in the dark race in a different class. When those return a positive, they are either banned for life or allowed to race unlimited if they so choose. The unlimited guys are never tested.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Slartibartfast said:


> "every extraordinary performance is suspect- period."
> 
> Not a new idea, but this is why there needs to be an unlimited class for professional cyclists. Everything is allowed, period. If it makes them grow nine eyes and glow in the dark, so be it. People not wishing to glow in the dark race in a different class. When those return a positive, they are either banned for life or allowed to race unlimited if they so choose. The unlimited guys are never tested.


And the unlimited 17 year olds? That's ok too? 

I don't want anyone to kill themselves for my entertainment.


----------



## Slartibartfast (Jul 22, 2007)

Good point. Since I'm making up the rules, no juniors allowed in unlimited. Juniors first positive, banned 2 years.

But Bluenote, is it really the riders' health we're concerned about, or is it fairplay? I guess I'm more callous than most, but a pro athlete's health (other than his/her ability to compete for my team) is not even on my radar.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Slartibartfast said:


> Good point. Since I'm making up the rules, no juniors allowed in unlimited. Juniors first positive, banned 2 years.
> 
> But Bluenote, is it really the riders' health we're concerned about, or is it fairplay? I guess I'm more callous than most, but a pro athlete's health (other than his/her ability to compete for my team) is not even on my radar.


I care about riders' health. I've maintained this consistently. 

I care that what pros do in any sport impacts what college athletes and teenagers do. 

Look at East German athletes - all the health problems they have. Or Bernard Thevenet. Or David Strock. Or the crazy stuff Fuentes was doing. Improperly stored blood? Really? 

I think that's wrong and I care.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

mpre53 said:


> I didn't say anything about an "appeal" after a fact-finding determination, trial, or administrative hearing. ...


I think you need to go back and re-read this thread and familiarize yourself with the Contador case timeline. Contador was suspended pending his hearing and no one here has challenged that. The subject under discussion is should he have been allowed to compete during the period between that hearing, where he received no additional penalty, and the conclusion of the appeal brought by WADA.

So as someone who does this for a living, can you cite examples where someone remains suspended following an initial trial/hearing where they are cleared or receive no further punishment until the conclusion of an appeal (which may or may not even be filed)? That is the situation we're talking about.


----------



## Bruce372 (Mar 8, 2009)

bump!

BBC Sport - European champion Valery Kaykov sacked for failing drug test


----------



## turbogrover (Jan 1, 2006)

While I have similar feelings as others do, ie: "it's just entertainment", I still considered pro cycling a legitimate sport until recently.
And now it seems, that corporate sponsors also are feeling the same way. If pro cycling continues to lose big sponsors, the entire sport will degenerate into pro wrestling, and the only sponsors that will be interested, will be the ones that don't care about the image of pro cycling.
It'll just be a matter of time before big sponsors pull away from race sponsorship as well, and that could mean the end of classic races altogether.


----------



## turbogrover (Jan 1, 2006)

The Tedinator said:


> ...the testing and result management MUST be taken out from under the UCI and moved to WADA. It would also be helpful if the test results were public, although there is some controversy over that.
> Vaughters has been warning over on the Clinic that right now is a very narrow window to get things correct. He is pushing hard for more funding from the teams, promoters, and the UCI and for the UCI to get out of the testing business. I don't see eye to eye with him on everything he says, but on this he is spot on...


I agree, and had similar thoughts with this as well. The big problem is the amount of money all this testing generates. If the UCI controls the testing, they get their fingers in the money. They can also manipulate the test results more easily. (I still think they're corrupt, and are not above manipulating results to their own advantage.)
Changing the testing process, and moving it away from UCI control would put a lot of people out of work, and reduce the income of many others, so there will be a huge resistance to doing this. (At least until they can figure out a way to get insiders of the new testing agency to agree to the old-school ways of corruption.)


----------



## turbogrover (Jan 1, 2006)

Slartibartfast said:


> "every extraordinary performance is suspect- period."
> 
> Not a new idea, but this is why there needs to be an unlimited class for professional cyclists. Everything is allowed, period. If it makes them grow nine eyes and glow in the dark, so be it. People not wishing to glow in the dark race in a different class. When those return a positive, they are either banned for life or allowed to race unlimited if they so choose. The unlimited guys are never tested.


This would be similar to amateur vs professional wrestling. One of these is still a sport, while the other is merely entertainment.

They would also most likely have fixed results, dramatic storylines, heroes and villains, and over-the-top personalities. It might be fun for some to watch, and it might also be a real tragedy to see a sport degenerate into a freakshow like that.


----------



## Slartibartfast (Jul 22, 2007)

turbogrover said:


> This would be similar to amateur vs professional wrestling. One of these is still a sport, while the other is merely entertainment.
> 
> They would also most likely have fixed results, dramatic storylines, heroes and villains, and over-the-top personalities. It might be fun for some to watch, and it might also be a real tragedy to see a sport degenerate into a freakshow like that.


I guess this could happen, but I doubt it would. I can't see that cycling would appeal to the same demographic, and thus lend itself to the same shenanigans as pro wrestling. I would consider the "unlimited class" as more comparable to MMA (as opposed to boxing) or Formula 1 (as opposed to NASCAR). Who knows, though, you could be right. I'm actually okay with pro cycling as it is -- just suggesting a way to end the hypocrisy.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

The next step beyond EPO? Tenerife in a pill?

“Oxygen in a pill”: the next big thing in sports doping? | Cycling Tips


----------



## Bruce372 (Mar 8, 2009)

they just signed up for Phase 3 trials so there is a good chance it actually works and will goto market. Since its a small molecule, it will be a lot easier to catch than a biologic such as EPO.

Search of: asp1517 - List Results - ClinicalTrials.gov


----------



## Bruce372 (Mar 8, 2009)

if someone has an allergic reaction during a race....

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/25/b...-allergic-reactions-3-patients-died.html?_r=0


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Bruce372 said:


> they just signed up for Phase 3 trials so there is a good chance it actually works and will goto market. Since its a small molecule, it will be a lot easier to catch than a biologic such as EPO.
> 
> Search of: asp1517 - List Results - ClinicalTrials.gov


Bruce, does that mean it stays in the system longer? If riders are already complaining of going up to 3 months without testing, will what you posted still be true? Obviously, this is an OOC drug (if used), so does "small molecule" mean that the rider will have a longer "glow time"? Help a non chemist out here!


----------



## Bruce372 (Mar 8, 2009)

The Tedinator said:


> Bruce, does that mean it stays in the system longer? If riders are already complaining of going up to 3 months without testing, will what you posted still be true? Obviously, this is an OOC drug (if used), so does "small molecule" mean that the rider will have a longer "glow time"? Help a non chemist out here!


I would expect since its a small molecule, it would be easy to find it (qualitatively) with just a simple blood analysis using mass spectrometry and quantitatively using standard protocols, rather than the more sophisticated tests used for biologics.

One interesting thing i noted in the details about this compound is that they are dosing in the clinic 3x a week. The holy grail for small molecule drugs is once a day dosing, since compliance is a lot more easy than 3x times aday with many medicines- since this compound is every two days it suggests it may have a long half life, or slow absorption rate. Of course there could be other reasons for dosing every other day, but a long half life/slow absorption would be the most obvious to me.

I am speculating, but this suggests the compound or its metabolites would be around in the body for a while and probably isnt a good way to cheat.

Fair play to FibroGen (SP?), it looks like a very nice piece of research that will help people that are sick.


----------



## Bruce372 (Mar 8, 2009)

i just noticed its 3mg twice a week. thats good research right there!!!!!


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Thanks for the info, even if it still flies over my head!! You would think being a child of the 70s, I would be a little sharper re: drugs!


----------

