# Leipheimer accused



## eyebob (Feb 3, 2004)

This from CN today.

_*Hans-Michael Holczer accuses Leipheimer of blood manipulation
By: Cycling NewsPublished: August 4, 14:04, Updated: August 4, 16:54
Gerolsteiner general manager Hans Michael Holczer

view thumbnail gallery
Former Gerolsteiner team manager reveals details from 2005 Tour in new book

Former Gerolsteiner team manager Hans-Michael Holczer has claimed that Levi Leipheimer's blood values during the 2005 Tour de France “showed a very high probability of manipulation,” the German press agency SID has reported.

Holczer made the accusation during the presentation of his book called “Garantiert Positiv” (“Guaranteed Positive”) in Germany on Wednesday.

He claimed that the UCI informed him on the first rest day of the 2005 Tour de France in Grenoble that Leipheimer's blood values had an off-score co-efficient of 132.8. That is just 0.2 under the limit of 133. A normal score is 85-95 and scores over 133 can be considered evidence of doping.

“It was clear to me: Leipheimer had manipulated,” Holczer told SID and other media during the book presentation.

With Leipheimer’s values just under the limit, Holczer said the UCI advised him to try and find another reason to remove Leipheimer from the race, something he felt unable to do. “I was caught between a moral obligation and a legal threat,” Holczer said.

He knew that if there had been a scandal about Leipheimer’s blood values during the Tour de France it would have been the end of the team. The Gerolsteiner sponsorship agreement specified that if there were two doping cases in the team, the contract would end immediately. The team had already had its first case earlier that same year when Danilo Hondo tested positive. “Ever since then we’d been sat on an economic powder keg. I would have gone totally bankrupt,” Holczer said.

Leipheimer went on to finish sixth overall in the 2005 Tour de France, 11:21 behind winner Lance Armstrong. a few weeks later he won the Deutschland Tour, beating Jan Ullrich. Leipheimer finished 13th in this year’s Tour de France, while riding with Lance Armstrong in the RadioShack team.

Gerolsteiner announced in September 2007 that it would end its sponsorship of the team at the end of the 2008 season. At the 2008 Tour de France, Bernhard Kohl and Stefan Schumacher tested positive for the new blood-boosting drug CERA. Schumacher and Davide Rebellin also tested positive for CERA at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing a few weeks later. The team was broken up and the infrastructure sold off at the end of the 2008 season.*_


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

Hope he doesn't go "_Postal'!_
________
Wellbutrin Lawsuit


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

So he was under the limit on a team loaded over the years with tons of outright dopers? Wondering if Holczer has an excuse for the oodles of obvious dopers on his team? Was he complict? _Especially_ Kohl and Schumacher.


----------



## eyebob (Feb 3, 2004)

My problem is that he was "sure" that he doped, but did nothing about it...because of money (they would pull sponsorship). 

So how's he better than the doper? 

He's not.

FWIW, this article doesn't say that he's pontificating, so he may be remorseful about his lack of action, but we don't know. We only know that he didn't do anything about it.....and it doesn't sound like anyone has called him out to account for this.


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

Who in the Pro Tour is currently NOT doping? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

cyclesport45 said:


> Who in the Pro Tour is currently NOT doping? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?


Yeah, Bueller didn't dope, but probably only because he was too busy trying to skip school and must have forgotten about the tour.


----------



## EBrider (Aug 9, 2009)

I guess its news now when a rider tests below the allowable limit.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Leipheimer tested positive on a drug test 10-15 years ago. Is it really surprising that a guy doping while trying to make it as a pro would still be doping?

Nevermind, he's American and a nice guy, they never dope.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

EBrider said:


> I guess its news now when a rider tests below the allowable limit.


Well...you have to consider the fact that these "allowable limits" are often _several_ standard deviations away from the mean. They're not 95% confidence intervals, more like 99.9%


----------



## fast ferd (Jan 30, 2009)

Holczer claims this and that, plus the UCI "advised" him to find a way to dump Levi from the tour. All this five years ago. He might as well claim he witnessed entire squads snorting coke.

What's the guy doing, anyway, writing a book or sumpting? lol


----------



## thesmokingman (Dec 27, 2008)

spade2you said:


> Yeah, Bueller didn't dope, but probably only because he was too busy trying to skip school and must have forgotten about the tour.


Dude, Bueller wasn't taking the dope, he was smoking it! Pass the dutchie on the right hand side...


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Coolhand said:


> So he was under the limit on a team loaded over the years with tons of outright dopers? Wondering if Holczer has an excuse for the oodles of obvious dopers on his team? Was he complict? _Especially_ Kohl and Schumacher.


I agree...

"Leipheimer's blood values had an off-score co-efficient of 132.8. That is just 0.2 under the limit of 133."

End of it. Done. Who cares..


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> I agree...
> 
> "Leipheimer's blood values had an off-score co-efficient of 132.8. That is just 0.2 under the limit of 133."
> 
> End of it. Done. Who cares..


It's a rather strong indication Levi wasn't clean. Who cares? Not me, I think all top 20 riders were/are doping, and I am not passing judgement. But it's interesting to see some evidence come out 5 years later. What else will come out?


----------



## JohnHenry (Aug 9, 2006)

fast ferd said:


> He might as well claim he witnessed entire squads snorting coke.


Boonen rode for Gerolsteiner?


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

55x11 said:


> It's a rather strong indication Levi wasn't clean. Who cares? Not me, I think all top 20 riders were/are doping, and I am not passing judgement. But it's interesting to see some evidence come out 5 years later. What else will come out?



At this point, it really just boils down to "who gets caught" and "who does not". Like you said, all top contenders are dopers. I would go as far as saying that the guys at the back of the peloton are doped to the gills too. It is funny how we focus only on the top names in the sport. Occasionally a random will get popped for doping, but it seems like they go for the big names first..


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

rydbyk said:


> At this point, it really just boils down to "who gets caught" and "who does not". Like you said, all top contenders are dopers. I would go as far as saying that the guys at the back of the peloton are doped to the gills too. It is funny how we focus only on the top names in the sport. Occasionally a random will get popped for doping, but it seems like they go for the big names first..


Leipheimer isn't even a top contender, it seems the leprechaun has been caught in his shenanigans though. Why didn't the Shack ride for Levi at the Tour? Because he can't even dope to win, he's just a dope.:thumbsup:


----------



## cheddarlove (Oct 17, 2005)

I remember some press about Leipheimer at the Tour years ago. They said he was hiding behind the curtain of the bus like the Wizard of Oz and he was not talking to the press about suspicious blood values.
Then the next day he had the worst TT of his whole darn life and didn't know why. Had no explanation. Anyone remember what year that was?  
Then it all just sort of got swept away.


----------



## Lumbergh (Aug 19, 2005)

cyclesport45 said:


> Who in the Pro Tour is currently NOT doping? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?


I would guess the many Tour riders finishing 2 and 3 hours back of the winner are probably riding clean


----------



## ph0enix (Aug 12, 2009)

So the guy waited 5 years before saying anything and now decides to do so because his book was just published *eyeroll*. I don't doubt that most or all of the pros dope but picking on one cyclist or a few even isn't going to change the sport.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Lumbergh said:


> I would guess the many Tour riders finishing 2 and 3 hours back of the winner are probably riding clean


Unless they are wearing the Green jersey. . . .


----------



## bazww (Dec 6, 2005)

Who cares is right.
It's all entertainment. Fans just want to see guys go fast on bikes. There never was and never will be level playing fields as long as we are genetically different so get over your moral superiority. Amateurs and pros, young or masters it's there in all fields of sport and it's never going away.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

bazww said:


> Who cares is right.
> It's all entertainment. Fans just want to see guys go fast on bikes. There never was and never will be level playing fields as long as we are genetically different so get over your moral superiority. Amateurs and pros, young or masters it's there in all fields of sport and it's never going away.


I actually miss the days of EPO. Five, 10 years ago, the GC guys would be attacking on a HC summit finish with 5 or even 7 klicks to go. Now they're all gruppo compatto with 1 km to go and then attack to maybe get 10 seconds on their rivals. How exciting!


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

meh. doping, schmoping...most boring subject ever.

the only way to solve the issue is to require every rider to dope, then it's a level field.

until then, it's still entertaining to watch pro riders. they're animals on a bike whether they're clean or not.


----------



## tricycletalent (Apr 2, 2005)

So, what is Holczers motivation. Is it retribution? Is it getting another job? Is he one of the deluded religious German puritan prudes, boasting high moral values, while taking a shot at a former employee?

What an *******.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Lumbergh said:


> I would guess the many Tour riders finishing 2 and 3 hours back of the winner are probably riding clean



Hmm....I disagree. Who is to say that a rider finishing 2 to 3 hours back would not have finished WAY farther back if it weren't for PEDs?

I think that many of the riders would not be "qualified" to ride at that level if it weren't with a little help in the form of PEDs.

PEDs do not in any way equalize talent 100%. One rider taking EPO vs. another rider taking EPO does NOT produce the same result.

It would be like assuming that ALL bodybuilders taking steroids will have the same result. Training, diet, genetics etc etc etc STILL play a HUGE roll.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Lumbergh said:


> I would guess the many Tour riders finishing 2 and 3 hours back of the winner are probably riding clean


That's not a very logical conclusion. Looking at the guys finishing 2 and 3 hours back in 2010, I see multiple stage winners, guys who wore the yellow jersey, guys who wore other jerseys, and plenty of guys with top 10 results on stages. Finishing 2 and 3 hours back just means you have other goals or duties than going for GC.

Plus, there are roughly 25 guys on a cycling team and only nine get to ride the Tour. Riding the Tour is very prestigious, and even for a team that has no results, there is bonus money for the riders. If you or your team does well, there's even more bonus money. Guys like Armstrong, Contador, Schleck, etc. are guaranteed a slot, but everyone else has to fight pretty hard to get one. Those guys are going to do what it takes to make the Tour team.

In short, you can draw no conclusions about guys who finish 2 and 3 hours back and riding clean.


----------



## godot (Feb 3, 2004)

tricycletalent said:


> So, what is Holczers motivation. Is it retribution? Is it getting another job? Is he one of the deluded religious German puritan prudes, boasting high moral values, while taking a shot at a former employee?
> 
> What an *******.


Perhaps he's PO'd that the reason his team almost collapsed around him once (courtesy of Levi and others) and then finally did collapse (courtesy of Kohl and others) was a direct result of riders doping, and he wants to see the sport clean itself up?

The more interesting and telling question would how complicit Holczer was in the system.

Why do people only get upset and start the name calling directed at whistle blowers when they go after American cyclists? It's been proven that the Euro's haven't cornered the market on doping


----------



## PJay (May 28, 2004)

*that's only 3 std deviations.*



jorgy said:


> Well...you have to consider the fact that these "allowable limits" are often _several_ standard deviations away from the mean. They're not 95% confidence intervals, more like 99.9%


just sayin.'

Good point, though. It takes a lot of work to get to the real info represented by these numbers. Each is calculated in its own unique ways, and can give false readings either way by its own unique properties. Landis pointed out that a shot of whiskey could boost the testosterone reading, and he tried to hide behind that detail. I got suspicious when he started throwing out a few of these details to explain the testosterone deal.

As noted, a rider can be just below the bad-news limit, but those are usually fairly high levels, to avoind too many false positives.

Like with Landis, and others, a better way to measure would be to make multiple readings publically available - then if someone goes up abnormally shortly before a race, from baseline, but stays below some threshold, you can still be pretty sure that something artificial has happened. I think they may have reported some of this info for Rasmussen - readings across time.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Subverting the profanity fillter is against the rules, someone needs a posting vacation! :thumbsup:


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

If Levi was juiced up, why were his results not better?
________
Easy Vape Safety


----------



## ph0enix (Aug 12, 2009)

rubbersoul said:


> If Levi was juiced up, why were his results not better?


Juicing up doesn't mean winning - not for everyone at least. You still need talent, hard work, good genes and all the other stuff that's already been mentioned in this thread.


----------



## RRRoubaix (Aug 27, 2008)

tricycletalent said:


> So, what is Holczers motivation. Is it retribution? Is it getting another job? Is he one of the deluded religious German puritan prudes, boasting high moral values, while taking a shot at a former employee?
> 
> What an *******.


What is his motivation??
"Holczer made the accusation during the presentation of his book called “Garantiert Positiv” (“Guaranteed Positive”) in Germany on Wednesday."
I think that's all we need to know...


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

ph0enix said:


> Juicing up doesn't mean winning - not for everyone at least. You still need talent, hard work, good genes and all the other stuff that's already been mentioned in this thread.


I would think you need all that to be a pro. To win is a totally different proposition. Postal must have had juice by the case load!


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

RRRoubaix said:


> What is his motivation??
> "Holczer made the accusation during the presentation of his book called “Garantiert Positiv” (“Guaranteed Positive”) in Germany on Wednesday."
> I think that's all we need to know...


let us know when you want to straighten the back a bit and come back out for air....


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

den bakker said:


> let us know when you want to straighten the back a bit and come back out for air....


He was basically run out of the sport after running some of the most dope infested programs ever, wonder if he thinks he can pull a Vaughters.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*



covenant said:


> Subverting the profanity fillter is against the rules, someone needs a posting vacation! :thumbsup:


About _five_ different someones at this point. Consider this everyone's warning- keep it work safe.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Coolhand said:


> About _five_ different someones at this point. Consider this everyone's warning- keep it work safe.


Looked at your sig recently? I find it mildly amusing and it sure is clever but physician.....


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

cheddarlove said:


> I remember some press about Leipheimer at the Tour years ago. They said he was hiding behind the curtain of the bus like the Wizard of Oz and he was not talking to the press about suspicious blood values.
> Then the next day he had the worst TT of his whole darn life and didn't know why. Had no explanation. Anyone remember what year that was?
> Then it all just sort of got swept away.


Yeah I remember him riding the shockingly bad TT but I don't remember the year.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

rubbersoul said:


> If Levi was juiced up, why were his results not better?


In 2005?

Pretty good bet all the other GC protagonists and many others were doped heavily as well.


----------



## aptivaboy (Nov 21, 2009)

So, let me get this straight... Levi's blood values were within acceptable norms? Close to out of bounds, but still within acceptable norms? In other words, he passed the dope test, but that somehow proves that he didn't? 

Wow, what a neat news story - a cyclist passed a dope test! The amazement!


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

aptivaboy said:


> So, let me get this straight... Levi's blood values were within acceptable norms? Close to out of bounds, but still within acceptable norms? In other words, he passed the dope test, but that somehow proves that he didn't?
> 
> Wow, what a neat news story - a cyclist passed a dope test! The amazement!


The norm is 85-95, you are not understanding the physiology of Leipheimer's values. The UCI set the "level" artificially high so that there would be little room for a rider to claim any abnormality leading to the variation thus making it quite clear that the rider was manipulating his blood and returning values that were very far removed from the nom. Hamilton was doing the EXACT same thing in 2004, the UCI and WADA also warned Phonak that they knew what Hamilton was doing and he had better stop. He clearly didn't heed their warnings...


----------



## aptivaboy (Nov 21, 2009)

I ask again, were his levels within UCI-acceptable levels or norms? If the answer is "yes," then by definition he wasn't doping. One can say the high levels indicate the possibility of funny business, but according to the rules, Levi wasn't doping. 

Let me give you an example. I'm an older guy just getting back into cycling after a decade off. I'm also a Red Cross blood donor, platelets to be exact. My platelet and iron and red cell levels are literally off of the charts. They're beyond normal, verging on extraterrestrial, which is why the Red Cross vampires call me every three weeks for platelet donations. Yes, I'm a human pincushion. Why I've been blessed with good genes is beyond me, but I'm willing to bet that if I were a pro rider, that my blood levels would look suspicious. The powers that be would be wondering why my blood was so iron rich, with extra platelets, red cells, and oxygen. Hmmm... EPO, anyone? 

I might pass the test, my levels being within acceptable norms, but I would still be under suspicion? That seems to be what you're saying. The bottom line is that if Levi's test results were within that considered acceptable, than legally he isn't guilty of doping, and they might be the result of simple genetics. Period. Only Levi knows for sure.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

aptivaboy said:


> I ask again, were his levels within UCI-acceptable levels or norms? If the answer is "yes," then by definition he wasn't doping. One can say the high levels indicate the possibility of funny business, but according to the rules, Levi wasn't doping.
> 
> Let me give you an example. I'm an older guy just getting back into cycling after a decade off. I'm also a Red Cross blood donor, platelets to be exact. My platelet and iron and red cell levels are literally off of the charts. They're beyond normal, verging on extraterrestrial, which is why the Red Cross vampires call me every three weeks for platelet donations. Yes, I'm a human pincushion. Why I've been blessed with good genes is beyond me, but I'm willing to bet that if I were a pro rider, that my blood levels would look suspicious. The powers that be would be wondering why my blood was so iron rich, with extra platelets, red cells, and oxygen. Hmmm... EPO, anyone?
> 
> I might pass the test, my levels being within acceptable norms, but I would still be under suspicion? That seems to be what you're saying. The bottom line is that if Levi's test results were within that considered acceptable, than legally he isn't guilty of doping, and they might be the result of simple genetics. Period. Only Levi knows for sure.


You should read how the off score works, there's a brief synopsis here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_doping#Detection_of_blood_doping

Lots of detail here (referring to Tyler Hamilton, but he had almost the exact same off-score as Levi): http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2005/hamilton_appeal

How Hamilton used it in his defense: http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2005/hamilton_defence

Some highlights:



> Robin Parisotto, principal scientist involved in the development of the EPO blood test implemented at the Sydney 2000 Games and the former manager and senior scientist at the Australian Institute of Sport's (AIS) haematology and biochemistry laboratory, said of Hamilton's test results taken at the 2004 Tour de Romandie: "The off-score of 132.9 registered by Hamilton in April 2004 represented one which had a less than 1 in 10,000 probability that it was a chance finding."





> Hamilton's off-score was 132.9 before the start of the 2004 Tour de Romandie. His reticulocyte reading was also 0.22 percent, so not only did he exhibit an atypically high off-score, his reticulocyte levels were well below normal. In haematology circles, the association of normal or high haemoglobin and very low reticulocytes is unknown - unless it is the beginning of a severe medical condition.


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

aptivaboy said:


> I ask again, were his levels within UCI-acceptable levels or norms? If the answer is "yes," then by definition he wasn't doping. One can say the high levels indicate the possibility of funny business, but according to the rules, Levi wasn't doping.
> 
> Let me give you an example. I'm an older guy just getting back into cycling after a decade off. I'm also a Red Cross blood donor, platelets to be exact. My platelet and iron and red cell levels are literally off of the charts. They're beyond normal, verging on extraterrestrial, which is why the Red Cross vampires call me every three weeks for platelet donations. Yes, I'm a human pincushion. Why I've been blessed with good genes is beyond me, but I'm willing to bet that if I were a pro rider, that my blood levels would look suspicious. The powers that be would be wondering why my blood was so iron rich, with extra platelets, red cells, and oxygen. Hmmm... EPO, anyone?
> 
> I might pass the test, my levels being within acceptable norms, but I would still be under suspicion? That seems to be what you're saying. The bottom line is that if Levi's test results were within that considered acceptable, than legally he isn't guilty of doping, and they might be the result of simple genetics. Period. Only Levi knows for sure.


Your questions are exactly the reason the biological program was created, to track these abnormalities more precisely and use it to definitively define blood manipulation by individual athletes.


----------



## identifiler (Dec 24, 2005)

I find funny here how no one knows about Holczer reputation, name and history and just shoot him down cause he mentions Levi. Levi is a dope, everyone knows that. Did he get caught, no, did his values go off the wall, totally and for no good physiological reason. 

In any case, read up on Holczer before you start babbling away, when you are in charge of a team, you have to make bad decisions when one SOB might change the outcome of about 70 employees and young riders... get a hold of yourselves.


----------



## NextTime (Oct 13, 2007)

identifiler said:


> I Levi is a dope, everyone knows that.


Blanket statements like this, without support, call into question your credibility. This comes across more as character assassination than anything else.


----------



## Jokull (Aug 13, 2007)

Mr. Scary said:


> Your questions are exactly the reason the biological program was created, to track these abnormalities more precisely and use it to definitively define blood manipulation by individual athletes.


+1
Leipheimer's blood values taken individually couldn't be used to sanction him. But it is important to understand that the values are set so as to eliminate the chance of a false positive (the rider is given the benefit of doubt). 

If a rider were to consistently have values that were *just* within the limits, it becomes obvious that they are game-playing the system - manipulating their blood, but always within the margin of error, so they don't trigger a positive. I think this is the beauty of the biological passport system - over time, the idea of an value above which a sample is considered positive becomes meaningless, and it becomes increasingly difficult to "play" the system.


----------



## identifiler (Dec 24, 2005)

Give me a break, I have good friends who have raced in Europe for years, my point is that almost all peloton have touched an illegal substance, from a light diet supplement to hardcore cocktails. No one out there runs on water... get your head out of your ass...

BTW Leipheimer doped already and had to give his US Crit national championship title back. Ephedrine. US cycling decision 1996. Cause that's what everyone did and does.


----------



## identifiler (Dec 24, 2005)

BTW, I am not anti dope per say, I couldn't care less what you want to shoot up your ass but I hate naive people.


----------



## NextTime (Oct 13, 2007)

identifiler said:


> I Levi is a dope, everyone knows that.


Blanket statements like this, without support, call into question your credibility. This comes across more as character assassination than anything else.


----------



## NextTime (Oct 13, 2007)

identifiler said:


> Give me a break, I have good friends who have raced in Europe for years, my point is that almost all peloton have touched an illegal substance, from a light diet supplement to hardcore cocktails. No one out there runs on water... get your head out of your ass...


You have friends?


----------

