# What Happened to TREK in the 08 Tour De France?



## ProEdgeBiker (Jul 8, 2008)

Not that i care cause im a Specialized Man but it looks like George Hincapie is on a Giant for team Columbia & Team Slipstream is on a Felt. This will cost TREK now that Lance is not around to promote in the biggest race in the cycling world.

:idea:


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2008)

Astana is riding Trek.





ProEdgeBiker said:


> Not that i care cause im a Specialized Man but it looks like George Hincapie is on a Giant for team Columbia & Team Slipstream is on a Felt. This will cost TREK now that Lance is not around to promote in the biggest race in the cycling world.
> 
> :idea:


----------



## Flat Out (Aug 9, 2007)

jjspike said:


> Astana is riding Trek.


And they are out of the tour this year.


----------



## ProEdgeBiker (Jul 8, 2008)

anyone know why they werent invited?


----------



## nathanm (Mar 21, 2007)

Astana wasn't invited because the team allegedly has had too many doping issues. One theory is that they were banned because johan Bruyneel the, team manager, is an American, and he managed for Lance as well. The tour doesn't like Americans, and is banning Astana for political reasons.


----------



## ProEdgeBiker (Jul 8, 2008)

ProEdgeBiker said:


> anyone know why they werent invited?


Well, I Found it. Looks like another classic case of DOPING!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/feedarticle/7633638
:mad2:


----------



## krisdrum (Oct 29, 2007)

ProEdgeBiker said:


> Well, I Found it. Looks like another classic case of DOPING!
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/feedarticle/7633638
> :mad2:


Let's be clear, doping by former riders under the same team name. The team this year has new management and almost an entirely new roster. However, the ASO felt they needed to make an example based on the sponsorship of the team.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

nathanm said:


> One theory is that they were banned because johan Bruyneel the, team manager, is an American, and he managed for Lance as well. The tour doesn't like Americans, and is banning Astana for political reasons.


Doesn't hold a lot of water—Bruyneel is a Belgian, not an American.


----------



## mark4501 (Jul 27, 2007)

Yes....Krisdrum is exactly correct. although they still have the Astana name - there is virtually nothing of Astana from the past when they had a doping issues with Vino, etc. 

mgmt, rosters, policies, testing procedures have all changed in the past year. because of the past, they are serving a punishment of sorts.


----------



## ProEdgeBiker (Jul 8, 2008)

sad, very sad.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Not really*



ProEdgeBiker said:


> sad, very sad.


Johan Bruyneel's riders, and LA got away with being doped to the gills.

Tom Danielson singled out Bruyneel as being one of the biggest offenders in cycling regarding doping..

Trek deserved everything they got and more in regard to Astana being excluded from the Tour. They got off light....


----------



## solorider (Aug 16, 2004)

Its been said before, but I'll say it again. 
Lance Armstrong was the most tested cyclist in history! 

Lance Armstrong never tested positive!

You've got to be an a$$ to accuse someone without any proof!


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

*What?*



lookrider said:


> Tom Danielson singled out Bruyneel as being one of the biggest offenders in cycling regarding doping..


I missed this, link please.


----------



## Chris Oz (Oct 8, 2005)

Lance did test positive to EPO use in 1999. There is also a lot of other strong evidence to suggest that he did lots of other stuff. 

Just get over it LA and a lot of the other riders did dope.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

solorider said:


> Lance Armstrong never tested positive!



And neither did scores of other guys from the same era who we now know were doping. Educate yourself. Being tested relatively a lot and never testing positive only means something if it is absolutely a large number of times and the tests are effective for detecting the drugs of choice.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

He also has a TUE for cortico-steroids -- I think because of the one testicle thing.

They all doped...Lance was just the best of them.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

iliveonnitro said:


> He also has a TUE for cortico-steroids -- I think because of the one testicle thing.



the cortisone TUE was for a saddle sore. and it was post dated, and allegedly forged.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

BikinCO said:


> I missed this, link please.


I don't know if there is a link. A friend who is a pro, told me this after speaking with Danielson at Inter Bike....


----------



## cocoboots (Apr 13, 2006)

lookrider said:


> Tom Danielson singled out Bruyneel as being one of the biggest offenders in cycling regarding doping..



where did you hear that? see it in print?


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

*Got it*



lookrider said:


> I don't know if there is a link. A friend who is a pro, told me this after speaking with Danielson at Inter Bike....


It has to be true if your friend told you. :idea:


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

BikinCO said:


> It has to be true if your friend told you. :idea:



his friend aside, bikinco, Johan did not get the nickname "the hog" by accident. I don't imagine that he suddenly developed a sense of moderation after meeting LA.


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

blackhat said:


> his friend aside, bikinco, Johan did not get the nickname "the hog" by accident. I don't imagine that he suddenly developed a sense of moderation after meeting LA.


I am not defending anyone. I am just calling bullshit on "Tom Danielson singled out Bruyneel as being one of the biggest offenders in cycling regarding doping" because my friend said so.

We all know what your stance is on professional cycling, so give it a rest.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

BikinCO said:


> I am not defending anyone. I am just calling bullshit on "Tom Danielson singled out Bruyneel as being one of the biggest offenders in cycling regarding doping" because my friend said so.
> 
> We all know what your stance is on professional cycling, so give it a rest.


how do you have any idea whether it's bullshit if you weren't there? and why would you possibly doubt that one who earned that nickname might also be "one of the biggest offenders in cycling regarding doping"? 
I'll leave the last sentence alone but to say that I don't think you've read me as well as you think you have.


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

blackhat said:


> how do you have any idea whether it's bullshit if you weren't there? and why would you possibly doubt that one who earned that nickname might also be "one of the biggest offenders in cycling regarding doping"?
> I'll leave the last sentence alone but to say that I don't think you've read me as well as you think you have.


I am not defending Johan. I just question Lookrider's story and source.


----------



## ProEdgeBiker (Jul 8, 2008)

*I like the comercial on Vs with all the dopers going backwards and Floyd taking off the yellow, like he should off a long time ago...LOL!*


----------



## PegLeg (Jun 28, 2008)

Chris Oz said:


> Lance did test positive to EPO use in 1999. There is also a lot of other strong evidence to suggest that he did lots of other stuff.
> 
> Just get over it LA and a lot of the other riders did dope.


There has been a lot of press lately on EPO tests and how unreliable they are.

The test you mention above was performed in 2005 on a frozen sample taken from LA in 1999. If you believe there were no politics involved in this test then I don't know what to say. I would not put my trust or faith in the French lab that performed the test and neither did the UCI who went so far as to issue a statement condemning the lab.

Me, I believe LA was doped up but I don't think the 2005 test was valid and the results were never accepted as an "official" positive test by anyone. Instead of just making the blanket statement that Lance tested positive in 1999, which he DID NOT, you should really state that he tested positive in 2005 on a 6 year old frozen sample and the lab performing the test failed to produce any data, evidence to back up their claims.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong_accused_of_EPO_doping


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

PegLeg said:


> Instead of just making the blanket statement that Lance tested positive in 1999, which he DID NOT, you should really state that he tested positive in 2005 on a 6 year old frozen sample and the lab performing the test failed to produce any data, evidence to back up their claims.



or one could ignore the EPO +'s entirely and focus on the cortisone + he also had in '99. 

and the press you've been reading about the unreliability of the EPO tests was apparently <a href="http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=136925">incorrect</a>.


----------



## Chris Oz (Oct 8, 2005)

The reason the LA wasn't done for EPO after the 2005 tests is that they were done on the B samples. The testing protocols require an A and B sample to both be positive before it is a official. In this case they needed a C because the A samples were gone. 

So LA was saved by the protocols you were trashing. The really interesting thing about the whole episode was the way the UCI white washed it. The UCI's historic lack of action is the on doping in general has let doping fester. 

By the way that discredited EPO study wasn't saying that they get false positives, it was actually suggesting that the tests were too insensitive to pick up dopers. So if you still want to believe that story then you will have to believe that LA was actually a massive doper or else he wouldn't have got caught. 

Ignoring all that blackhat is right why worry about the EPO tests when there is the cortisone problem.


----------



## Lumbergh (Aug 19, 2005)

Let's Review:

- Floyd Landis
- Tyler Hamilton
- Roberto Heras
- Manuel Beltran
- Others I may have thought of

All busted for doping after they left Bruneel - seems unlikely that so many riders who were successful under Bruneel suddenly felt the need to start doping after leaving his teams. 

My guess? The teams they went to did not have the resources USPS did to run a doping program that beat all the tests.

Let's not forget where Bruneel learned this craft - he was a rider on one of the dirtiest teams out there - Once. Remember Saiz and his Liberty Seguros/Astana Team?

I very much doubt that it's a totally clean break for the "new" Astana


----------



## Racer C (Jul 18, 2002)

lookrider said:


> Trek deserved everything they got and more in regard to Astana being excluded from the Tour. They got off light....



I'm confused, why should Trek be punished for somebody doping while riding their bike? By that logic the bike companies that should be excluded from the Tour include: Cannondale, BMC, Specialized, Giant, Colnago, Pinarello, Cervelo, Look, Orbea, Scott, Ridley, Bianchi, and Time. Each one of these companies has had someone dope while riding their bikes. Bikes don't dope, riders do.


----------



## PA Bike Racer (Jun 10, 2008)

Well, that would explain why Tom Danielson sucks. I guess he didn't dope. Wait, he just finished 88th at stage one of Cascade. For a guy who was pumped up to be the next Lance, he is quite the disapointment.


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

PA Bike Racer said:


> Well, that would explain why Tom Danielson sucks. I guess he didn't dope. Wait, he just finished 88th at stage one of Cascade. For a guy who was pumped up to be the next Lance, he is quite the disapointment.


I would say TD wasn't as much a disappointment as those who prognosticated his LA'ness.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

PegLeg said:


> Me, I believe LA was doped up but I don't think the 2005 test was valid and the results were never accepted as an "official" positive test by anyone. Instead of just making the blanket statement that Lance tested positive in 1999, which he DID NOT, you should really state that he tested positive in 2005 on a 6 year old frozen sample and the lab performing the test failed to produce any data, evidence to back up their claims.


I love how these guys like to say that they think LA doped so they don't appear to be hopelessly clueless but then spend their time discounting any evidence that he doped. It appears they believe in immaculate doping. Yes, he doped, but no, you cannot point to anything that proves it without them bringing out the french plots and shadow men out to get Armstrong.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

PegLeg said:


> There has been a lot of press lately on EPO tests and how unreliable they are.
> ]


Actually not. What has been found is that there is a new method called microdosing that can help a rider escape detection by using EPO in small does. There is nothing been found that the test could lead to false postives, only that the bar for detection was artificially high and microdosing could help a rider slip under that bar.

Since there was no test in 99 microdosing was not needed, hence the large number of samples that tested positive for EPO.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*oh one of my faves!!!!*



Lumbergh said:


> Let's Review:
> 
> - Floyd Landis
> - Tyler Hamilton
> ...


yes USPS had super secret superior doping technology

and somehow NONE of the riders whom this technology was being administered upon 
was able to take that knowledge to their next team

that even though these riders have personal trainers and physicians the techniques were somehow lost when they transferred to a different team 
Disco must have stripped them oftheir memory with some special device

I know, it was Lance's connection to the Pharma industry
cause they were making him special products that cost millions of dollars in R and D
that they could never recover through marketing/sales

oh yeah CSC didn't have the $$$ to compete with USPS 
Telekom sure did and their doping was exposed,where was their secret science???

gawd, I hope none of you are planning careers as lawyers

maybe, just maybe, with the additional pressure and paychecks that go from going from Super Dom to Team Honch these riders felt the need to up their game?

maybe just maybe these other teams had MORE doping? afterall CSC had 2 major busts of Captains? Tyler and Basso, and their DS was a known doper.
Gee Heras and LS, no doping issues with that squad ever.

Phonak, yeah that was a squeaky clean outfit. 

if you did an honest search that say equated
more doping busts= more doping (sounds strangely logical)
you would have a better starting point

or say blame the Team under whose watch the rider was busted not their former or future employer.

no, it is a far more realistic scenario to think that somehow, someway USPS was just better at it than everyother team in the peloton or that they somehow had better drugs

not exonerating USPS/ Disco, not defending them. Not saying they were clean

just saying these 'theories' defy any form of critical thought


----------



## cyclesoflife (May 8, 2005)

*Just because something is repeated over and over does not make it a fact.*

Lance Armstrong did in fact test positive for cortisone, I believe in the 1999 Tour and provided a TUE after the fact to explain it's usage.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

BikinCO said:


> I am not defending Johan..


No, of course you're not.



BikinCO said:


> I just question Lookrider's story and source.


I love these meaningless points/distinctions.

Underacrooked sky said it best, everybody knows these guys doped but it was _immaculate doping._

Look, the intel is solid.and from an insider. That kind of info from Danielson fits right in with the rest of his story/bio. If you doubt it, that's your prerogative. If you want to nitpik, go right on..


----------

