# No more Ricco



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

They got him for one of the newer forms of EPO. I guess his naturally high hematocrit was not so natural afterall.


----------



## 80z28s6 (Feb 10, 2005)

Lets see what he has to say since he loves running his mouth!!!!


----------



## moabbiker (Sep 11, 2002)

Not surprising -- this guy was making everyone else look like they were standing still on that mountain stage the other day.


----------



## the_dude (Jun 25, 2004)

dopers should be subject to public flogging. and if you're going to dope, for dog's sake, don't win the damned stage. 

after seeing him win his second stage, i knew he wasn't clean. he's scrawnier than me, and he was generating unbelievable amounts of power up that mountain.


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

the_dude said:


> dopers should be subject to public flogging. and if you're going to dope, for dog's sake, don't win the damned stage.


Well, they're being put in "garde a vue" by the French police which means being locked in a cell with hardly anywhere to sit, no food, water, sleep impossible, and incessant accusatory questioning and threatening harassment by the police, all this without having the right to a lawyer for the first 72 hours. Flogging might be preferable, at least that way everyone can observe the injustice.

-ilan


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

The whole Saunier-Duval team has pulled out.

EDIT: New reports say that the Saunier-Duval team may fold.


----------



## bauerb (Jan 18, 2006)

and what about the Giro? ricco was a PIA there as well, and likely just as dirty then


----------



## Iwannapodiumgirl (Jun 26, 2002)

Easier to withdraw and maintain some dignity within the remaining "clean" riders... who's next?


----------



## bauerb (Jan 18, 2006)

now I'm pissed off. that mouthy little F***. the balls on that guy to be such a PIA mean while he is juicing in the back room. he is such a cocky pr** that I'm not surprised he thought he could pull it off. I hope at least that the core teams make it unscathed: us teams, csc, lotto, etc


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

wholly predictable.......


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 10, 2008)

Too bad... he was fun to watch. I guess because he had such rich blood


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

philippec said:


> wholly predictable.......


Yes, if the test they're using has just a couple of percent chance of a false positive, then it is quite likely that a false positive will occur in the 5 or so tests Ricco has had since the start of the race.

-ilan


----------



## bauerb (Jan 18, 2006)

if there was any chance of an FP, thea team would not have withdrawn. the team dir knew about it, and bailed out. no doubt in my mind. if he is dq'd does everyone shift of a place if the races that he won?


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

bauerb said:


> if he is dq'd does everyone shift of a place if the races that he won?


Yes, maybe that's why there aren't any time bonuses this year, so as to make this process less complicated.

-ilan


----------



## moabbiker (Sep 11, 2002)

the_dude said:


> dopers should be subject to public flogging. and if you're going to dope, for dog's sake, don't win the damned stage.
> .


They should be forced to complete a stage with their jersey replaced with a "I'm a cheater and love it!" on front and back. If they start going slow to try to abandon, have the race director's car follow from behind, giving a whipping when necessary.


----------



## Raceoftruth (Oct 6, 2007)

A little bit dissapointed but it was always going to happen. At least he made it exciting. Anyone think the rest of the peloton had an idea? Remember Efimkin putting in the big effort for 2nd on Stage 9? I think he knew something...


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

*hasta la vista Saunier Duval*

It looks like some Spanish corporations will have to go back to putting their sponsorship money into football. From what I understand, the stars of that sport are beyond reproach.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

... because a false positive allows you to drop the peleton on the Aspin like nobody's business. .. and causes your whole team to pull out an try to run back to Spain to destroy the evidence. News from the south is that more arrests are on the way and the buses/cars are being searched. Obviously, the most plausible, no ... the only way to explain all of this is the tried and true "false positive". Good set of blinders there partner! :thumbsup:


----------



## kiroskka (Mar 9, 2008)

No more usage of that dumbass self-nickname by Phil or Paul anymore? Hurrah!


----------



## Slow Eddie (Jun 28, 2004)

He really wasn't kidding when he said he idolized _Il Elefantino_.


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

philippec said:


> ... because a false positive allows you to drop the peleton on the Aspin like nobody's business. .. and causes your whole team to pull out an try to run back to Spain to destroy the evidence. News from the south is that more arrests are on the way and the buses/cars are being searched. Obviously, the most plausible, no ... the only way to explain all of this is the tried and true "false positive". Good set of blinders there partner! :thumbsup:


But au contraire, the Mayo case showed that they will keep testing until they get the positive they need. I am willing to bet that Ricco's B sample comes back inconclusive or negative at every lab except the LNDD.

-ilan


----------



## fleck (Mar 25, 2005)

i hope the arogant punk gets black listed in any attempt to return. To talk that much trash and to be dirty. Good riddance, now wash my car punk.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Andrea138 said:


> Too bad... he was fun to watch. I guess because he had such rich blood


Ditto....Watching him fly up mountains-I had flashbacks of some of the last time people suddenly found their legs in the mountains


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Well, seeing as how the *only* lab to test those results is likely to be the LNDD, I'd say the odds are good on that bet - unless the Dynepo and EPO v.3 tests are being farmed out to Switzerland ... in which case I'd say you would lose that bet roundly!

But more to the point. You seem to have much more faith in Ricco's performance and his team's behaviour than in the LNDD - I find that curious and somewhat naive, but perhaps you have more of a background in cycling and/or dope testing than I do. It seems that the same test unmasked two other riders on this Tour and at the police searches have already turned up the blood-bags, syringes, masking agents, etc... associated with the positive. 

Perhaps you are right -- but I doubt it. I also believe Ricco and the others will not use a Tyler/Floyd line of defence but will ultimately cop up to their dope use. Lets talk again when they do!


----------



## bikerboy337 (Jan 28, 2004)

just woke up to this news.. not surprising, but man, so sad that this is happening all over again, think of stage 10, and how the two SD riders affected the race with Schleck.. they pulled him for quite a while on that stage, and ended up taking the stage victory.. how much better a story would that have been if he rode alone solo to a stage victory and into 2nd place overall... just so sad for the sport and i'm getting so sick of it... wish there was harsher punishment for these guys... 

wonder if Italy will go after him... i know their doping laws are crazy... and with his Giro this year...


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

fleck said:


> i hope the arogant punk gets black listed in any attempt to return. To talk that much trash and to be dirty. Good riddance, now wash my car punk.


He will ber sportin a Rock Racing jersey at the giro in 2011


----------



## weltyed (Feb 6, 2004)

when riders get caught like this, it always makes me think how tactics within the stage effect the tour strategy as a whole. especially with no time bonuses this year. 

by the way, do we now have to shuffle the points in the RBR tour stage challenge? should we wait a week after the tour finishes to dish out the winnings for the second half?


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> They got him for one of the newer forms of EPO. I guess his naturally high hematocrit was not so natural afterall.



HA! Didn't like the guy anyway.
Damn, maybe they are busting for Dynepo after all...and not saying that it is.

RG


----------



## Sprocket - Matt (Sep 13, 2005)

At least the Saunier Duval Team was respectful (or scared) enough to pull themselves from the competition right??? Why didn't Barloworld? or Liquigas??? 

I do like that idea of MAKING their team ride an entire stage, with no chance for the win, while wearing the DOPERS SUCK jerseys...


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

I happen to like Ricco. It sucks that he would try to get away with such a thing. I want to believe that the ASO/AFLD has come up with a false positive. I read there is no approved test for what he got busted for...but I still believe he is probably guilty. Maybe the whole team...hasn't Piepoli been suspected before? The team seems to be acting odd too.

Oh well, maybe another big name going down will scare some folks straight.

Wonder if "Valv" has had a change of heart? Might explain his declining performance as the Tour goes on.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Realgains said:


> HA! Didn't like the guy anyway.
> Damn, maybe they are busting for Dynepo after all...and not saying that it is.
> 
> RG


No, official has stated all 3 positives have been for CERA, which only went on the market a couple of months ago. It's not clear the riders miscalculated as there is apparently no WADA-approved test for it. Could set up an interesting legal battle.


----------



## sheldon (Aug 2, 2007)

*I'm done!*

That's it, I'm done watching...of course I said that last year after Rasmussen got booted and I was glued to VS this year, silly me, thinking maybe they got the message and we were really watching a doper-free Tour. I was willing to put up with the Saab commercials/cagefighting promos while trying to shield my 6 yr. old/trying to explain to her why the riders were going backwards in the "take back the tour" promos/ but now I really am done with this garbage...until the organizers automatically kick out any team with a rider caught doping instead of leaving it up to the teams themselves, and until there are real consequences to the dopers (like maybe jail time!!!), I am done watching.........I think...


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Sprocket - Matt said:


> At least the Saunier Duval Team was respectful (or scared) enough to pull themselves from the competition right???


Seems they were high-tailing it for the Spanish border, but didn't make it


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

Einstruzende said:


> I happen to like Ricco. It sucks that he would try to get away with such a thing. I want to believe that the ASO/AFLD has come up with a false positive. I read there is no approved test for what he got busted for...but I still believe he is probably guilty. Maybe the whole team...hasn't Piepoli been suspected before? The team seems to be acting odd too.



When the whole team hops into the cars and buses then makes a run for the border as fast as they can go then you know it isn't a false positive.

Mircera/CERA stays in the system for a long time. If several SD riders are taking it then they are all at risk of being caught. They know it, and they want out of France.


----------



## innergel (Jun 14, 2002)

It's sad that anytime a guy pops up out of nowhere and has spectacular performances he is automatically suspect. Ricco was climbing like a MF'er and I liked watching him, but the name Raimondas Rumsas kept popping into my head everytime I saw him. 

Good riddance.


----------



## drainyoo (Jul 14, 2007)

Cyclist are really dumb. I don't get it really. Why dope during these times and risk the chance of getting caught? You're going to get caught, plain and simple. Stupid idiot.


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

philippec said:


> Well, seeing as how the *only* lab to test those results is likely to be the LNDD, I'd say the odds are good on that bet - unless the Dynepo and EPO v.3 tests are being farmed out to Switzerland ... in which case I'd say you would lose that bet roundly!
> 
> But more to the point. You seem to have much more faith in Ricco's performance and his team's behaviour than in the LNDD - I find that curious and somewhat naive, but perhaps you have more of a background in cycling and/or dope testing than I do. It seems that the same test unmasked two other riders on this Tour and at the police searches have already turned up the blood-bags, syringes, masking agents, etc... associated with the positive.
> 
> Perhaps you are right -- but I doubt it. I also believe Ricco and the others will not use a Tyler/Floyd line of defence but will ultimately cop up to their dope use. Lets talk again when they do!


I had no doubt that Ricco, Piepoli, etc. were doping since Hautacam, as they were the reincarnation of Festina 1997. However, that and all the other circumstancial evidence you cite has nothing to do with the scientific and legal validity of the tests used on Ricco. 

The LNDD was already chastised by the IOC and the UCI for its role in the spurious 2005 L'Equipe articles on Armstrong. The Mayo case where his B sample was shown non-positive in two other labs is also evidence that they are not reliable.

-ilan


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2008)

Freaking selfish bozos (and I'm sure SD aren't the only ones). These teams/riders are wrecking the sport for everyone. I hope the owner/DS gets bagged.


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2008)

ilan said:


> Well, they're being put in "garde a vue" by the French police which means being locked in a cell with hardly anywhere to sit, no food, water, sleep impossible, and incessant accusatory questioning and threatening harassment by the police, all this without having the right to a lawyer for the first 72 hours. Flogging might be preferable, at least that way everyone can observe the injustice.
> 
> -ilan


It's times like this when you're glad he didn't get caught in the US and have the same rights we have. For once the screwed up French judicial system works in our favor. Hopefully he'll meet a nice chap named Ben Dover who'll make him his b*tch.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

ilan said:


> The LNDD was already chastised by the IOC and the UCI for its role in the spurious 2005 L'Equipe articles on Armstrong. The Mayo case where his B sample was shown non-positive in two other labs is also evidence that they are not reliable.


The belgian lab did not find Mayo's B sample non-positive. They found it inconclusive. They sent the labwork to an australian lab, and that lab agreed that it was inconclusive. The exact reason why it was inconclusive has not been revealed.

I love how dopers being exposed enrages these doping apologists. The conspiracy stories and ranting is great comedy. For a real laugh, read TBV sometime. It is a tinfoil hat zone.


----------



## Spongedog (Aug 6, 2005)

Whoever thinks that watching Ricco tear the field apart was "exciting" is nuts. As he pulled away from the field without even breathing hard, it was obvious that the guy was a bold-faced liar and a cheat. Clearly everyone in the peleton thought the same thing since no one even gave him a second look. 

Unlike many of you, I think that the Versus commentators have made it clear what they think about the dopers who have been caught. I only wish that we could get better coverage of the "perp walk" of shame with the French police. I don't know what the legal penalty is for doping, but I hope it is significant enough to actually put them behind bars for some amount of time.


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

I just saw the news. Oh well, it will free up my DVR for something real, like maybe Dancing with the Stars, or World Wrestling or NASCAR racing..I'm not going to waste any more time watching juicers..I can just check Google to see who was busted each morning when I get up..Yech! How sad. I used to admire pro cyclists and while I am sure there are a few clean ones, how can we tell how can you watch without saying to yourself "Wonder when HE'LL get a positive test result?"
Don Hanson


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Let us see what the *courts* and *arbitration panels* say rather than just basing this on the aspersions of internet "true believers".... oh but wait, they have already upheld LNDD's findings. Perhaps they will find differently in this case but I doubt it ...... highly!


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> The belgian lab did not find Mayo's B sample non-positive. They found it inconclusive. They sent the labwork to an australian lab, and that lab agreed that it was inconclusive. The exact reason why it was inconclusive has not been revealed.
> 
> I love how dopers being exposed enrages these doping apologists. The conspiracy stories and ranting is great comedy. For a real laugh, read TBV sometime. It is a tinfoil hat zone.


Geting two inconclusive results from two different labs shows that either the test is unreliable, or the sample was non-positive. What other options are there? I'd love to see Mayo get nailed as much as the next guy, but not by rigging the system. I mean, if you are going to rig it to get the results you want, you might as well save some money and time and start spiking samples. It's not that much different.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

mohair_chair said:


> Geting two inconclusive results from two different labs shows that either the test is unreliable, or the sample was non-positive. What other options are there?



There is also a possibility there was something wrong with the sample.


----------



## sevencycle (Apr 23, 2006)

Sad thing is he didnt need the stuff. He just needed a year or two experience and he would be a superstar. Maybe "a year or two experience" as a cellmates boyfriend can help. He might need a softer saddle after that!!!


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

I view this whole thing as a positive. When you compare the climbing stages from this year to previous years, it's obvious the majority of the riders are NOT artificially enhanced, mainly because they all have about the same maximum output and stick together. When a doper goes flying off the front, he sticks out like a sore thumb and is easily identified as a likely suspect.

Is the average speed lower too? Anyone have the stats?


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

philippec said:


> Let us see what the *courts* and *arbitration panels* say rather than just basing this on the aspersions of internet "true believers".... oh but wait, they have already upheld LNDD's findings. Perhaps they will find differently in this case but I doubt it ...... highly!


But perhaps Ricco, Beltran, and/or Duenas will own up to doping and hope to get back into the sport in 2 yrs (well, maybe not Beltran). *That* should be interesting!


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

philippec said:


> But perhaps Ricco, Beltran, and/or Duenas will own up to doping and hope to get back into the sport in 2 yrs. *That* should be interesting!


Philippe, do you know what French law is regarding the use of these substances in sport? Cyclingnews says for posession of doping substances the penalty can be a max of 5 years in prison and a 75K Euro fine, depending on the substance.


----------



## quintessence (Jul 12, 2008)

If they did actually catch Ricco on a drug that only came out a few months ago, it is pretty damn good news - for how long have the dopers been years ahead of the testers, taking drugs the testers didn't even know existed, let alone had tests for?

Maybe we are seeing the testers beginning to catch up to the dopers...


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> The belgian lab did not find Mayo's B sample non-positive. They found it inconclusive. They sent the labwork to an australian lab, and that lab agreed that it was inconclusive. The exact reason why it was inconclusive has not been revealed.
> 
> I love how dopers being exposed enrages these doping apologists. The conspiracy stories and ranting is great comedy. For a real laugh, read TBV sometime. It is a tinfoil hat zone.


Inconclusive is non-positive. You are also incorrect, the Australian lab found it negative. There is no apology just adherence to the rules.

-ilan


----------



## weltyed (Feb 6, 2004)

i would think the avg speed would be the same. maybe even higher. a group together will be faster than an individual. with everyone staying together longer, the speed may be up. 

but again, not by much, and the wind would have more to do with it than anything. maybe the solo hill climbs would be lower, but we havent seen any like that this year that arent now tainted.



DrSmile said:


> Is the average speed lower too? Anyone have the stats?


----------



## jspharmd (May 24, 2006)

It sucks that Ricco likely doped (not conclusive yet, but highly likely), but just a couple of thoughts after reading posts here.

1. How many of you who "knew" he was doping posted it here BEFORE the positive test?

2. For those stating how stupid Ricco is, how many are elite young riders who have the chance of making millions in endorsements and contracts following a stellar performance in the tour? Not to mention having the chance to go down in history as one of the world’s best riders if not caught.

I think these guys are under extreme pressure to perform (likely coming from peers, people they respect, and their team). It is extremely difficult to say what you would do if placed in the same position.

I competed in amateur bodybuilding when younger, and I can't tell you how much pressure was put on me to take steroids. One of the hardest things to do was watch some new guy make huge gains in a very short period, while I'm struggling to improve after long periods. This pressure didn't even include the potential to make money. 

My bet, nearly every one of you would dope if you had the opportunity to be the best cyclist in the world, not to mention a millionaire who wouldn't have to work following your cycling career.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> Geting two inconclusive results from two different labs shows that either the test is unreliable, or the sample was non-positive. What other options are there? I'd love to see Mayo get nailed as much as the next guy, but not by rigging the system. I mean, if you are going to rig it to get the results you want, you might as well save some money and time and start spiking samples. It's not that much different.


Only the Begian lab was inconclusive. The DATA was then sent to Australia (where the test was developed) and confirmed as inconclusive. - TF


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

http://www.afld.fr/docs/actu57_loitrafic.pdf

1 yr of prison and €3750 fine for possession and/or use.
5 yrs of prison and €75 000 for prescribing, delivering producing, etc....
7 yrs of prison and €150 000 for doing the above to a minor or acting in an organised and concerted manner


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

ilan said:


> But au contraire, the Mayo case showed that they will keep testing until they get the positive they need. I am willing to bet that Ricco's B sample comes back inconclusive or negative at every lab except the LNDD.
> 
> -ilan



yeah, I'd take that bet.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

I guess that silly flyer that Vladimir Efimkin took at the end of stage 9 to finish second is going to pay off! It didn't make a lot of sense at the time. Maybe he knew something.

Also, give Valverde another stage win for finishing second on stage 6. He's having a good tour!


----------



## sokudo (Dec 22, 2007)

So they were targeting and testing Ricco since the start of TdF, and found a trace of "undetectable" long term stuff in his blood only now? 

Did he replenish it after failing to drop Evans, etc to follow Piepoli on Hautacam? Either that, or the previous tests should have caught him.

And - where does that put Sella, Pozzovivo and other CSF folks that dominated Giro?


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

quintessence said:


> If they did actually catch Ricco on a drug that only came out a few months ago, it is pretty damn good news - for how long have the dopers been years ahead of the testers, taking drugs the testers didn't even know existed, let alone had tests for?
> 
> Maybe we are seeing the testers beginning to catch up to the dopers...


http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2008/tour08/?id=/features/2008/tour08_micera_st12


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

ilan said:


> But au contraire, the Mayo case showed that they will keep testing until they get the positive they need. I am willing to bet that Ricco's B sample comes back inconclusive or negative at every lab except the LNDD.
> 
> -ilan



This implies a conspiracy. False positives because of a conspiracy do nothing but destroy the sport for everyone. Why would the powerr that be want to such a thing? There is no value to it from any perspective. Are they simply insane?


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Seems they were high-tailing it for the Spanish border, but didn't make it


that's fitting, especially after McQuaid's statement yesterday. If only they'd made it back to the dope friendly confines of dopEspana, all would be well with SDV.


----------



## jspharmd (May 24, 2006)

quintessence said:


> If they did actually catch Ricco on a drug that only came out a few months ago, it is pretty damn good news - for how long have the dopers been years ahead of the testers, taking drugs the testers didn't even know existed, let alone had tests for?
> 
> Maybe we are seeing the testers beginning to catch up to the dopers...


We don't know how long guys have been using this drug. They may have found access to it prior to commercial availability.


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

Tschai said:


> This implies a conspiracy. False positives because of a conspiracy do nothing but destroy the sport for everyone. Why would the powerr that be want to such a thing? There is no value to it from any perspective. Are they simply insane?


It's not a conspiracy it's the sign of the times. As Patrice Clerc, CEO of ASO, stated: "The presumption of innocence is lost" and Dick Pound's continued unsubstantiated accusations as head of WADA certainly set the tone, he even asked athletes to explain why their B sample returned negative (Marion Jones). 

-ilan


----------



## weltyed (Feb 6, 2004)

*takes a while for the tests to come back*

he was pinned after the ITT, so that was a week ago. just took a bit for the tests to come back. chances are they were being veryu careful to follow procedures to NOT contaminate/destroy any samples and finds.



sokudo said:


> So they were targeting and testing Ricco since the start of TdF, and found a trace of "undetectable" long term stuff in his blood only now?
> 
> Did he replenish it after failing to drop Evans, etc to follow Piepoli on Hautacam? Either that, or the previous tests should have caught him.
> 
> And - where does that put Sella, Pozzovivo and other CSF folks that dominated Giro?


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

ilan said:


> It's not a conspiracy it's the sign of the times. As Patrice Clerc, CEO of ASO, stated: "The presumption of innocence is lost" and Dick Pound's continued unsubstantiated accusations as head of WADA certainly set the tone, he even asked athletes to explain why their B sample returned negative (Marion Jones).
> 
> -ilan


you should <i>absoulutely</i> make "the cobra" the new poster boy for the unfairly accused.  best of luck with that.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

www.IbelieveRicco.com
www.LettheCobraRide.com

oh yeah, I am <i>all</i> over that action!!!!


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

Ricco Suave....


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

blackhat said:


> you should <i>absoulutely</i> make "the cobra" the new poster boy for the unfairly accused.  best of luck with that.


The reason I believe it's a problem with the test is that, apparently, the substance is ingested once before the race, yet he comes up negative 3 times and positive once. In other words, a reliable test would have him come up positive all 4 times. Once again, all suspicious behavior has absolutely no bearing on the scientific validity of the testing method. 

-ilan


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

ilan said:


> The reason I believe it's a problem with the test is that, apparently, the substance is ingested once before the race, yet he comes up negative 3 times and positive once. In other words, a reliable test would have him come up positive all 4 times.


unless he's using some sort of masking agent, a fairly common practice.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

ilan said:


> It's not a conspiracy it's the sign of the times. As Patrice Clerc, CEO of ASO, stated: "The presumption of innocence is lost" and Dick Pound's continued unsubstantiated accusations as head of WADA certainly set the tone, he even asked athletes to explain why their B sample returned negative (Marion Jones).
> 
> -ilan


But this does not answer my question. Do you believe LNDD, Tour de France, et al. are in a conspiracy to create false positives or are they just incompetent?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Phillippe, cyclingnews reports that Dueñas could face 5 years imprisonment if convicted of possession. I think tossing a few of these guys in jail for a year or two is what it's going to take to start cleaning things up.


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

philippec said:


> http://www.afld.fr/docs/actu57_loitrafic.pdf
> 
> 1 yr of prison and €3750 fine for possession and/or use.
> 5 yrs of prison and €75 000 for prescribing, delivering producing, etc....
> 7 yrs of prison and €150 000 for doing the above to a minor or acting in an organised and concerted manner


Ouch! Chris Carmichael is certainly lucky he didn't live in France when administering "extract of cortisone" to junior riders!!! 
The specific targeting of suspicious riders is going to continue to nail guys unless we have a spate of "stomach ailments", "strained tendons" and "family emergencies"... I'm betting on Moreau getting pinched or simply retiring from the sport after his mysterious abandon (but that won't support some people's french conspiracy theory!).


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

jspharmd said:


> We don't know how long guys have been using this drug. They may have found access to it prior to commercial availability.


With a little more digging it looks like what I was looking at was about the U.S. Amgen is apparently in a court battle with Roche saying with the CERA they are violating Amgen trademark on the their rEPO, but Roche thinks it is sufficiently different from rEPO that it is not a trademark infringement. Velonews story says CERA has been avialable in Europe longer than just the past couple of months but doesn't say when it became available.

Of course, Velonews are also saying Duenas and Beltran were popped for regular old rEPO, but I've seen a quote from an doping official saying they have all been for CERA. I don't trust Velonews as they are generaly pretty sloppy when it comes to this stuff, time will sort it out. 

There are also reports that Duenas had transfusion equipment in his hotel room, which implies a level of sophistication and help much greater than just using EPO/CERA.


----------



## The Weasel (Jul 20, 2006)

jspharmd said:


> 1. How many of you who "knew" he was doping posted it here BEFORE the positive test?


My thoughts too.



jspharmd said:


> My bet, nearly every one of you would dope if you had the opportunity to be the best cyclist in the world,


Hell, I'm thinking about it right now, and my company sells Epogen (I was shocked when I first read Epogen was EPO - I never put 2 and 2 together, I am not in sales). As an amateur of amateurs, I could go all the way to full amateur.


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

Gnarly 928 said:


> I just saw the news. Oh well, it will free up my DVR for something real, like maybe Dancing with the Stars, or World Wrestling or NASCAR racing..I'm not going to waste any more time watching juicers..I can just check Google to see who was busted each morning when I get up..Yech! How sad. I used to admire pro cyclists and while I am sure there are a few clean ones, how can we tell how can you watch without saying to yourself "Wonder when HE'LL get a positive test result?"
> Don Hanson


There is no way they compete clean on "Dancing with The Stars". There is little or no testing on that show and when Marie Osmond passed out it was likely due to a botched blood transfusion (remember Manzano from Kelme?). Ian Ziering? C'mon, that guy was way too pumped and used Propecia... Dirty sport, dirty show!


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

ilan said:


> The reason I believe it's a problem with the test is that, apparently, the substance is ingested once before the race, yet he comes up negative 3 times and positive once. In other words, a reliable test would have him come up positive all 4 times. Once again, all suspicious behavior has absolutely no bearing on the scientific validity of the testing method.
> 
> -ilan


Unless this was a booster shot to get him thru the end of the Tour and the previous dose had dropped below detectable levels before the Tour started.


----------



## The Weasel (Jul 20, 2006)

serbski said:


> There is no way they compete clean on "Dancing with The Stars". There is little or no testing on that show and when Marie Osmond passed out it was likely due to a botched blood transfusion (remember Manzano from Kelme?). Ian Ziering? C'mon, that guy was way too pumped and used Propecia... Dirty sport, dirty show!


Yeah, don't tell me Mario Lopez got jacked from 'natural ability'.


----------



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

It's too bad I liked watching Ricco and it was entertaining to watch him run his mouth.
Was he maybe avoiding being a GC because he was dping?
Luckily for him he's young so if he trains for the next two years he can come back and tear up clean.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

As I understand it and as the Candian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health states, in a clinical environment Mircera (CERA) is administered either every two weeks or every month depending on the desired target (Anemia vs Hb levels). It could be that Ricco just got his two-week shot or that he was microdosing CERA in order to skirt under his elavated and allowed Hct level. Further, from what I understand, CERA <i>can be</i> detected but as it is (nearly?) indistinguishable from "natural" EPO, no determination can be made as to how much CERA is in the blood and thus, technically, if the CERA found constitutes a doping agent.

But I can see where all this is leading -- fight the lab, fight the test, fight it all but trust that the rider had a good reason for having CERA in his body (come to think of it Ricco did look anemic) -- somewhat the same line we saw with Landis fighting tooth and nail re the exact level of exogenous testosterone he had in his body and whether or not LNDD screwed up the tests for determining that level -- but skirting the fact that he <i>did</i> have exogenous testosterone in all 7 samples.

:: Yawn :: Occam's razor comes to mind.

But I grant you, LNDD screwing everyone and everything (except the French riders) does get more play with the tin foil hat crowd!


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

Dwayne Barry said:


> No, official has stated all 3 positives have been for CERA, which only went on the market a couple of months ago. It's not clear the riders miscalculated as there is apparently no WADA-approved test for it. Could set up an interesting legal battle.



Damn....then they are ALL on Dynepo.

RG


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

See the link in my post above - the french law is clear that if it is the rider alone who is doping, they will face a maximum of 1 yr in prison - his doctor, preparatore, dealer, mule, etc... can face up to 5 years -- but that would likely mean extraditing him from Spain which is something that I will not be holding my breath for!


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

Tschai said:


> But this does not answer my question. Do you believe LNDD, Tour de France, et al. are in a conspiracy to create false positives or are they just incompetent?


No, I don't believe there is a conspiracy. On the other hand, I have been convinced that LNDD is acting in bad faith ever since their director wrote an article about the validity of his EPO test even after the samples were frozen for years in the issue of L'Equipe which fraudulently used LNDD data which was given by the riders with the lab's assurance of secrecy. In other words, he approved the fraudulent abuse of this data in order to gain more publicity for his EPO test. Note that the IOC and the UCI publicly chastised the lab for the Armstrong incident and even threatened to withdraw its official accreditation. The continued illegal leaking of LNDD results to L'Equipe is another example of how LNDD has no respect for riders right to privacy and for the legal protocol. 

The Landis defense gave a number of examples where LNDD staff were incompetent, and as a scientist who has refereed numerous papers and has his refereed, I believe that their procedure is not up to normal scientific standards. However, that went out the window with the Landis CAS report which stated that LNDD was WADA accredited and therefore all "good faith" incompetence had no bearing on the results. 

-ilan


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

LNDD doesn't help themselves by publicly failing (as revealed in the Landis trial) and not giving any assurances that changes will be made. It's more business as usual. If the director of LNDD came out and said something like, "We stand by our work, but we can do better, so we are instituting new procedures to ensure that our credibility will never be in doubt," that would be a huge positive step in restoring faith in LNDD. I won't hold my breath waiting to hear that. To acknowledge nothing and change nothing makes LNDD an easy target for anyone caught doping. And who can blame them?


----------



## Chili Fries (Jul 4, 2008)

mohair_chair said:


> LNDD doesn't help themselves by publicly failing (as revealed in the Landis trial) and not giving any assurances that changes will be made. It's more business as usual. If the director of LNDD came out and said something like, "We stand by our work, but we can do better, so we are instituting new procedures to ensure that our credibility will never be in doubt," that would be a huge positive step in restoring faith in LNDD. I won't hold my breath waiting to hear that. To acknowledge nothing and change nothing makes LNDD an easy target for anyone caught doping. And who can blame them?


5 to 1 is easy math.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Chili Fries said:


> 5 to 1 is easy math.


Not sure what that means, but I'm sure you missed my point, which is that credibility, once lost, is a tough thing to get back. You don't get it back by doing nothing and hoping everyone will forget. You get it back by acknowledging problems, making positive changes, and not repeating mistakes.


----------



## Chili Fries (Jul 4, 2008)

mohair_chair said:


> Not sure what that means, but I'm sure you missed my point, which is that credibility, once lost, is a tough thing to get back. You don't get it back by doing nothing and hoping everyone will forget. You get it back by acknowledging problems, making positive changes, and not repeating mistakes.


No I didn't miss your point. Floyd was found guilty by a count of 5 to 1. The tests worked. The lab is credible.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

ilan said:


> No, I don't believe there is a conspiracy. ...... therefore all "good faith" incompetence had no bearing on the results.
> 
> -ilan


This has all been discussed ad infinitum and although there are some factual errors in your recounting of LNDD's role in various recent doping cases (e.g. the director did <i>not </i>allow fraudulent use of the samples, the lab did <i>not</i> leak test results in the Armstrong 1999 or Landis cases -- but perhaps you were referring to other cases?), there is no doubt that our respective views on this labaratory would change -- even in the hypothesis of a Landis/Armstrong/Ricco confession....

So I will continue to trust what the courts and arbitration panels have decided and you will continue to trust your instincts as a refereed and refereeing scientist (but <i>not</i> as a blood chemist if I am not mistaken....) that something is rotten at the LNDD. Sadly, not all sciences can stack up to the best of them all :thumbsup:


----------



## Spongedog (Aug 6, 2005)

TheDon said:


> Luckily for him he's young so if he trains for the next two years he can come back and tear up clean.


I think the time of 2-year suspensions should end. These guys have ruined this years tour (again) and its time that they lose the opportunity to compete permenantly. Last year was somewhat of an amnesty year, and for those who continue to flout the laws and crap all over their racing colleagues deserve nothing less than a total ban from professional cycling.


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

philippec said:


> This has all been discussed ad infinitum and although there are some factual errors in your recounting of LNDD's role in various recent doping cases (e.g. the director did <i>not </i>allow fraudulent use of the samples, the lab did <i>not</i> leak test results in the Armstrong 1999 or Landis cases -- but perhaps you were referring to other cases?), there is no doubt that our respective views on this labaratory would change -- even in the hypothesis of a Landis/Armstrong/Ricco confession....
> 
> So I will continue to trust what the courts and arbitration panels have decided and you will continue to trust your instincts as a refereed and refereeing scientist (but <i>not</i> as a blood chemist if I am not mistaken....) that something is rotten at the LNDD. Sadly, not all sciences can stack up to the best of them all :thumbsup:


I don't believe I made an error regarding the LNDD director signing his name to an article right next to the L'Equipe report which effectively stole secret research data from his laboratory. Compare this with the head doctor of the UCI who did the honorable thing and resigned because he believed the L'Equipe reporters lies. 

The procedural errors of the LNDD found by the Landis defence are comparable to those which defense attorney Barry Scheck found in the OJ Simpson DNA sampling by the LA police. It was essentially as if a Nobel prize winning scientist were to review a High School teacher's class. As a result of that trial US prosecution handling of DNA evidence improved markedly very often by having Scheck himself as a special consultant. As has been pointed out in this discussion, LNDD has done absolutely nothing to improve its tainted image and the Landis CAS decision seems to let them off the hook. 

Though it is true that biochemistry is not as rigorous as mathematics, it seems even more so with all the political pressure that is presently being heaped on these laboratories to get positive results. 

-ilan


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Chili Fries said:


> No I didn't miss your point. Floyd was found guilty by a count of 5 to 1. The tests worked. The lab is credible.


Just because the tests "worked" doesn't make the lab credible. Standard lab procedures were clearly not followed, which was put on record by a count of 6 to 0. (Those where the same six who made up your 5 to 1 count, by the way.)


----------



## Chili Fries (Jul 4, 2008)

mohair_chair said:


> Just because the tests "worked" doesn't make the lab credible. Standard lab procedures were clearly not followed, which was put on record by a count of 6 to 0. (Those where the same six who made up your 5 to 1 count, by the way.)


That is incorrect. The CAS panel had no problem with the test. But more importantly the tests worked. They showed he doped. The same lab showed Moreni doped. He admitted. The same lab showed Vinokourov doped. The authorities found blood bags in his hotel. The same lab showed Duenas Nevado doped. The authorities found doping substances in his hotel. The same lab showed Beltran doped. He is on video trying to evade testers. The lab is credible.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

ilan said:


> I don't believe I made an error regarding the LNDD director signing his name to an article right next to the L'Equipe report which effectively stole secret research data from his laboratory. ....


"Effectively stole" is not the same as "stealing". Having an article appear in the Equipe, and even on the same page, does not constitute condonement of every other article in the paper nor even of the disimulation used by the Equipe reporter in the Armstrong case. But these are points of detail. Perhaps the reporter tampered the vials while in the custody of LNDD to introduce the EPO. I don't know but that surely seems to be the <i>least</i> plausible scenario.



ilan said:


> The procedural errors of the LNDD found by the Landis defence are comparable to those which defense attorney Barry Scheck found in the OJ Simpson DNA sampling by the LA police. It was essentially as if a Nobel prize winning scientist were to review a High School teacher's class.


You say they are "comparable". Many things are "comparable" but are not the same ... or even close. This is one case... 



ilan said:


> LNDD has done absolutely nothing to improve its tainted image and the Landis CAS decision seems to let them off the hook.


I will trust the US Panel and the CAS on this one.....

And with that, I am off to attend to other things in my life away from this thread.... lest this turn into a case of:


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*Dirty in the Giro*

The expert said that this CERA was being used in the Giro, and if the passports were already in place Ricco would not have started the Tour.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Chili Fries said:


> That is incorrect. The CAS panel had no problem with the test.


Again, whether or not the test works is not the issue. In your zeal to regurgitate your mantra, you are completely missing my point. The issue is that LNDD did not follow standard laboratory procedures. This was established through testimony in the Landis case, and it is undisputed, even by the CAS. The CAS, nevertheless, gave LNDD a free pass, saying that even if the lab didn't follow standard laboratory procedures, it didn't affect their findings. Any scientist will tell you that is BS, because following standard laboratory procedures is the foundation of a lab's credibility. It's like in a hard math problem, you can guess the right answer, but if you don't show your work, you can't prove you know how to solve the problem.

The point many seem to miss here is that if a lab does sloppy work in a positive test, how many negative tests does it screw up? Nobody ever contests those, so we never hear about them, and we have no idea if dopers who should have been caught, have gone free as a result. So, does this stuff matter to you? If you really care about catching dopers, it should.


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

One positive = instaban for life + internal controls like Chipotle. It's the only way the next generation MIGHT feel afraid enough to go down that road.


----------



## culdeus (May 5, 2005)

chuckice said:


> One positive = instaban for life + internal controls like Chipotle. It's the only way the next generation MIGHT feel afraid enough to go down that road.


Are these internal controls enough to prevent year round doping? What if your baseline consists of a year round stream of drugs or blood for a 2 year contract then you sit out for a bit and establish a new one with another team. Does your baseline follow you? 

How confident are we that CVV is not doping. He certainly falls into the "Performing well above expectations" category. That's an internal control team right?


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2008)

I heard that instead of jail time or a 2 year ban, the UCI is going to make Ricco sit and read this thread in its entirety. Especially the wannabe M.D.'s going back and forth on testing procedures and protocol. 

Poor [email protected]


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

culdeus said:


> That's an internal control team right?


To me, none of this stuff matters too much and is expected business as usual stuff. If one of these internal control teams turns out to be running doping than I will be a bit disillusioned. They talk a real good game, I hope they are backing it up.

You still can't discount any given rider is up to no good, but if the internal controls can't catch or check it, then it seems like doping is nearly impossible to stop.

FWIW, rumours are both F. Schleck and Cancellera are two of the "suspect" riders since they have apparently been tested a whole bunch of times. Also last time CSC released their data, it was widely speculated that the one suspicious rider in the lot was Cancellera, but I can't remember why people thought it was him.


----------



## Spongedog (Aug 6, 2005)

jspharmd said:


> My bet, nearly every one of you would dope if you had the opportunity to be the best cyclist in the world, not to mention a millionaire who wouldn't have to work following your cycling career.


That's the most pathetic thing I have read on RBR. And it is not true.


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

philippec said:


> "Effectively stole" is not the same as "stealing". Having an article appear in the Equipe, and even on the same page, does not constitute condonement of every other article in the paper nor even of the disimulation used by the Equipe reporter in the Armstrong case. But these are points of detail. Perhaps the reporter tampered the vials while in the custody of LNDD to introduce the EPO. I don't know but that surely seems to be the <i>least</i> plausible scenario.


The LNDD data was secret and could only be used for research, so any conclusions taken from those samples has no validity except for its original purpose as an anonymous statistical study. It was the duty of the director of the laboratory to condemn the illegal use of its data in the L'Equipe article and to find the person in his laboratory responsible for the leaked information, probably not too difficult since it is likely that that person was him. Instead he used the opportunity to publicize his EPO test. There may be scientific establishments with more tainted ethical records, but hopefully not too many.

-ilan


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

Spongedog said:


> That's the most pathetic thing I have read on RBR. And it is not true.


Of course it's false, I was doping for years and had a hard time just making it to Cat III.

-ilan


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

I just hope that Ricco didn't go see Dr. Fuentes because that would make it the Puerto Ricco affair.

-ilan


----------



## nfosterma (Jan 24, 2007)

*What's a "PIA"?*



bauerb said:


> and what about the Giro? ricco was a PIA there as well, and likely just as dirty then


Not to sound to naive, but what is a "PIA"? Two people use this in their posts, but I can't figure it out.


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

nfosterma said:


> Not to sound to naive, but what is a "PIA"? Two people use this in their posts, but I can't figure it out.


This is the closest cycling related PIA that I could find:










Looks clean to me, especially in that bubble bath.

-ilan


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

*To Keep The Festina...*

...idea alive am I correct in recalling that en masse confessions have only come about as the direct result of police pressure? Most of Festina confessed immediately (well, after some time in jail and nevermind Virenque) and the Cofidis boys eventually did the same. I would have to imagine that Ricco, facing criminal charges and potential jail time, will not be willing to stay quiet. Accepting a two-year ban and possibly returning to the sport (a la Basso) is a far different thing than going to prison. I really hope that the higher-ups do not skate on this one and chuck the rider(s) to the lions. I am real tired of this "they acted alone" bs.


----------



## slowrider (Mar 12, 2004)

Watching the Tour is like watching a Pro Bodybuilding Contest. You admire the work those guys put in to get onstage, but you know that it is not humanly possible to reach that level of condition naturally.


----------



## Asiago (Jan 28, 2004)

*that would not be good*



Dwayne Barry said:


> FWIW, rumours are both F. Schleck and Cancellera are two of the "suspect" riders since they have apparently been tested a whole bunch of times. Also last time CSC released their data, it was widely speculated that the one suspicious rider in the lot was Cancellera, but I can't remember why people thought it was him.


That would be very bad. Isn't CSC on the same internal program as Garmin?

Asiago


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

TheDon said:


> It's too bad I liked watching Ricco and it was entertaining to watch him run his mouth.
> Was he maybe avoiding being a GC because he was dping?
> Luckily for him he's young so if he trains for the next two years he can come back and tear up clean.


Nahhh, it doesn't work like that with a doper's mentality. He's mentally weak so he thinks he needs the drugs.

I doubt this guy will be back.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

mohair_chair said:


> Geting two inconclusive results from two different labs shows that either the test is unreliable, or the sample was non-positive. What other options are there? I'd love to see Mayo get nailed as much as the next guy, but not by rigging the system. I mean, if you are going to rig it to get the results you want, you might as well save some money and time and start spiking samples. It's not that much different.


Two labs did not test the sample and get inconclusive results. One lab tested the sample. It could not interpret the results. They sent the labwork to another lab, and that lab also could not interpret the results. The Belgian lab may have screwed up; there may be something like masking that is preventing it from getting a result. Maybe Mayo does deserve to get off because of it, but we don't yet know why the results could not be interpreted.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

ilan said:


> No, I don't believe there is a conspiracy. On the other hand, I have been convinced that LNDD is acting in bad faith ever since their director wrote an article about the validity of his EPO test even after the samples were frozen for years in the issue of L'Equipe which fraudulently used LNDD data which was given by the riders with the lab's assurance of secrecy. In other words, he approved the fraudulent abuse of this data in order to gain more publicity for his EPO test. Note that the IOC and the UCI publicly chastised the lab for the Armstrong incident and even threatened to withdraw its official accreditation. The continued illegal leaking of LNDD results to L'Equipe is another example of how LNDD has no respect for riders right to privacy and for the legal protocol.
> 
> The Landis defense gave a number of examples where LNDD staff were incompetent, and as a scientist who has refereed numerous papers and has his refereed, I believe that their procedure is not up to normal scientific standards. However, that went out the window with the Landis CAS report which stated that LNDD was WADA accredited and therefore all "good faith" incompetence had no bearing on the results.
> 
> -ilan



LOL. There it is. All doping cases are to be distrusted because the LNDD and a reporter showed that Armstrong used EPO.

One wonders just what it would take for you to agree that any rider was doping.


----------



## allison (Apr 19, 2006)

gnauss said:


> I heard that instead of jail time or a 2 year ban, the UCI is going to make Ricco sit and read this thread in its entirety. Especially the wannabe M.D.'s going back and forth on testing procedures and protocol.
> 
> Poor [email protected]


Hilarious.


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> Two labs did not test the sample and get inconclusive results. One lab tested the sample. It could not interpret the results. They sent the labwork to another lab, and that lab also could not interpret the results. The Belgian lab may have screwed up; there may be something like masking that is preventing it from getting a result. Maybe Mayo does deserve to get off because of it, but we don't yet know why the results could not be interpreted.


Masking agent/detergent or whatever they use to foul urine samples certainly does not seem out of the realm of possibility. Why doesn't/didn't WADA (or the UCI or ASO) target a guy like Mayo and collect a number of positives? If he started getting nervous after numerous "random" tests he would likely back off his "program" and one would effectively prevent a doping rider from winning events while under investigation. If he brazenly carried on (like Ricco likely believed was possible) then the rider could be presented with a number of positive controls. Building a massive case against a rider (when one is attempting to ban them/end their career) does not seem excessive in the least. Tyler eeked out of the Olympic positive but the Vuelta test remained and led to his ban. We need some Columbo-style patience on the part of the testing bodies... Ah, to see Columbo pester Rasmussen about his whereabouts last year would've been priceless.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

serbski said:


> Masking agent/detergent or whatever they use to foul urine samples certainly does not seem out of the realm of possibility.


The only question that needs to be answered here is: Why doesn't Mayo's A sample match his B sample? It's a really simple question. You can theorize all you want about masking agents and whatever else, but anything in the B sample should also be in the A sample. If they don't test the same, then either something is wrong with the test, or the samples are not identical. Either way, someone has some 'splaining to do, and sadly, it's not Mayo. Trying to wish it all away doesn't work.


----------



## snowman3 (Jul 20, 2002)

the_dude said:


> dopers should be subject to public flogging.
> 
> .


I'd be happy with a plain 'ol perp walk. Approach him at the team bus, put him in 'cuffs, and walk to the "conveniently" located police car parked 100 meters away. Awesome photo op... full racing kit and handcuffs.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

snowman3 said:


> I'd be happy with a plain 'ol perp walk. Approach him at the team bus, put him in 'cuffs, and walk to the "conveniently" located police car parked 100 meters away. Awesome photo op... full racing kit and handcuffs.


Bring back the stockade. At the beginning of the Tour, a few stockades could be set up in Paris. When a rider is caught, he is brought to Paris, locked in a stockade, and stays there for the duration of the TdF. Street vendors could make a killing by selling rotten fruit and dog crap for people to throw.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> Street vendors could make a killing by selling rotten fruit and dog crap for people to throw.


Never been to Paris, eh? Not so much money in selling dog crap.

Like the sentiment, tho.


----------

