# What is the possibility of Sabotage?



## jakerson (Jun 15, 2004)

dont know whether to put this in the doping forum or the "pro tour" forum. Then again, I dont know if theres any difference these days between the two.

Between Floyd's great overall year, his miserable stage 16, the beer/jack/whatever response that night, the incredible stage 17, the interesting timing, the water intake on stage 17, the emotional output of stages 16 and 17, and all of the people who would be thrilled to see a TDF winner fail a test... 


Is it possible that someone sabotaged Floyd somehow? 

Could someone have put something in his boudreaux butt paste/saddle cream/whatever? 
Could the tester have handed him a vial to fill that already had something in it?
Could something have been added to his sample after he filled it? 
Could someone have crept into the bus and wiped a little transdermal patch stuff on his saddle?
Could there be some other way that someone sabotaged him?

Is there any remote possibility of something like that - which would explain both his "I didn't do it" and the test results? 

The whole thing just smells fishy to me... How hard would it be to do something like that? Any opinions?


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

jakerson said:


> dont know whether to put this in the doping forum or the "pro tour" forum. Then again, I dont know if theres any difference these days between the two.
> 
> Between Floyd's great overall year, his miserable stage 16, the beer/jack/whatever response that night, the incredible stage 17, the interesting timing, the water intake on stage 17, the emotional output of stages 16 and 17, and all of the people who would be thrilled to see a TDF winner fail a test...
> 
> ...


As someone once said: Many things are possible, few things are probable.

As for someone adding to his sample after he filled it...if it is anything like drug tests I've taken for employment, you pee in the cup and then seal it yourself in the pressence of a witness and mark across the seal. No way for the seal to be broken and not be noticed.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

jakerson said:


> Could someone have put something in his boudreaux butt paste/saddle cream/whatever?
> Could the tester have handed him a vial to fill that already had something in it?
> Could something have been added to his sample after he filled it?
> Could someone have crept into the bus and wiped a little transdermal patch stuff on his saddle?
> Could there be some other way that someone sabotaged him?


If somebody sabotaged him it would almost certainly have to have happened prior to the sample being given. Once that occurs the sample is sealed and a chain of custody maintained.

Assuming all the facts as reported turn out to be true, and they don't screw up his B test, if I were Floyd and didn't want to come clean I'd be looking for some soigneur to take the rap. He'll still lose his TdF title but he might be able to avoid a suspension.


----------



## EasyRider47 (Sep 18, 2005)

Removed


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

EasyRider47 said:


> he can still be your hero and represent the best that cycling has to offer!


How did you get that from what I posted?


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

EasyRider47 said:


> Now that's a brilliant strategy! What a class act! If FL can find someone to take the rap or find some lame excuse for cheating, he can still be your hero and represent the best that cycling has to offer!


Wouldn't it be refreshing if Floyd just came clean, IF he's guilty?


----------



## EasyRider47 (Sep 18, 2005)

Removed


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

Assuming... and it's unfortunately looking like a pretty hopeful assumption at this stage...

I'd say the more likely scenario would be a contamination or miscalibration of equipment, or (if it's an appropriate to these tests) mishandling of the sample such as heat, cold, non-sterile beakers, misapplied protocol, etc. Even those are suitably remote possibilities, but are the reason B samples exist. 

As things happen, the B will go through the same hands and same equipment, so if any of that is to blame, including sabotage after-the-fact, it will likely happen again. They may as well not do the B sample as things are currently set up.

I don't see sabotage, because there is practically speaking no one that would choose this result. Even if we imagine someone who can't stand the thought of yet another American victory (and I don't think that's a commonly held view anyway), they'd be even less interested in sullying the whole Tour and sport with this outcome.


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

EasyRider47 said:


> Dwayne:
> 
> Quote:
> "If I were Floyd and didn't want to come clean I'd be looking for some soigneur to take the rap. He'll still lose his TdF title but he might be able to avoid a suspension."
> ...


EasyRider47 you need to read more of Dwayne's posts on the RBR forums. He in no way condones doping. He has been one of the most vocal critics of the epidemic of doping in pro cycling for a long, long, long time now. Since long before Operation Puerto, and this Landis Affair....

EDIT: I stand corrected regarding Dwayne...he has stated himself that he is ambivilant about doping in cycling. I guess he has always been pretty active discussing doping on the Doping Forum and not shy about talking about Mr. Armstrong.


----------



## ClimbElYunque (Jun 21, 2005)

jakerson said:


> dont know whether to put this in the doping forum or the "pro tour" forum. Then again, I dont know if theres any difference these days between the two.
> 
> Between Floyd's great overall year, his miserable stage 16, the beer/jack/whatever response that night, the incredible stage 17, the interesting timing, the water intake on stage 17, the emotional output of stages 16 and 17, and all of the people who would be thrilled to see a TDF winner fail a test...
> 
> ...



If he (landis) cheated or somebody did something to makes him fail the test,
either way Pro Cycling as a whole is [email protected]#$'d up! and It does not worth my
time to watch it on TV or support them in any way. I'll continue supporting
cycling (charity rides, clubs) but not these "Pro"s and their races.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

The B is being tested in Colorado.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Post facto tampering is extremely difficult simply because the number of molecules involved is quite small in modern testing so adding an amount small enough would be almost impossible on the sly.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Live Steam said:


> The B is being tested in Colorado.


That would be quite odd, as I believe the only WADA accredited lab in the US is at UCLA in California. Also media reports so far seem to indicate it will be at the lab in France.


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

zero85ZEN said:


> Wouldn't it be refreshing if Floyd just came clean, IF he's guilty?


Hi...you must be new to earth...let me show you around!  

I agree with you but it seems modus operandi is to play Clue.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

I thought I read that the lab is in Colorado Springs. Landis requested that a different lab do the test of the B.

I believe that in order for WADA and the UCI to get a handle on this they need to put measures in place that will not allow for questioning of the testing. When the samples are taken, the A and B should be seperated immediately. The A should go to yhe host country lab and the B should be shipped to another lab remote from the host country. I also believe the information should not be released until officially done so. The chain of custody is not just that of the physical sample, it also concerns the custody of the information. If that is violated, then no one can know what other procedures were not followed. If the racers are to adhere to protocol, then the lab and everyone concerned should.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

EasyRider47 said:


> Your comments, since you suggest that you would "be looking for some soigneur to take the rap..." and still keep racing and since you did not infer or comment anything otherwise, by doing so, have tacitly indicated approval of such behaviour.


I don't approve of it but I accept that probably the majority of pro cyclists dope to one extent or another, and that it is largely accepted behavior amongst the pro cyclists themselves. However, I do think pro cycling is cleaner now than it's been in recent times because WADA finally forced the UCI to accept serious testing protocols and the tests are as good as they have ever been.

I'm really ambivalent on Floyd getting caught. Stage 17 was pure panache, doped or not. My previous statement was simply that if Floyd did dope and wants to get out it (somewhat), there is an obvious tactic since testosterone could so easily be introduced by somebody else. What I would really like to see, assuming Floyd did dope, is a frank admission but that is so rare. Ben Berden is about the only guy I can think of who did it after a positive test (in fact I think he may have even waived the B sample test).

Really about the only cycling hero I have is Museeuw and he was almost certainly a doper, but at that time especially, it was simply doing what was necessary to win.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> That would be quite odd, as I believe the only WADA accredited lab in the US is at UCLA in California. Also media reports so far seem to indicate it will be at the lab in France.


As I understand, the UCI rules make clear that A and are to be tested B are tested in the same place. It's one of the most common criticisms WADA has of UCI, as it removes the very purpose of having a B.


----------



## djg714 (Oct 24, 2005)

"On Saturday morning, we should know, that is what the French laboratory told us," International Cycling Union (UCI) spokesman Enrico Capani told Reuters by telephone on Tuesday.

The sample will be tested at the Laboratoire National de Depistage du Dopage (LNDD).

"Yesterday afternoon we have asked them to analyse the B sample because Mr Landis had not asked them to do so," he added.

"The laboratory will communicate the results to the Phonak team and to us."

If the positive test were confirmed, the American would be stripped of his Tour victory and Oscar Pereiro Sio of Spain, who finished second overall in this month's race, would be declared the winner.


----------



## ewitz (Sep 11, 2002)

What is with all of the "what ifs" and "assumings"?

The guy cheated.

He doped.

He got caught.

End of story.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

terzo rene said:


> Post facto tampering is extremely difficult simply because the number of molecules involved is quite small in modern testing so adding an amount small enough would be almost impossible on the sly.


So that kind of tampering might end up with a reading that is way off the scale, such as 11:1 where 1:1 is normal, and way out of line with readings taken before and after? I'm not saying that's what happened, but it seems like it could based on your comment.


----------



## Sintesi (Nov 13, 2001)

Live Steam said:


> I thought I read that the lab is in Colorado Springs. Landis requested that a different lab do the test of the B.
> 
> I believe that in order for WADA and the UCI to get a handle on this they need to put measures in place that will not allow for questioning of the testing. When the samples are taken, the A and B should be seperated immediately. The A should go to yhe host country lab and the B should be shipped to another lab remote from the host country. I also believe the information should not be released until officially done so. The chain of custody is not just that of the physical sample, it also concerns the custody of the information. If that is violated, then no one can know what other procedures were not followed. If the racers are to adhere to protocol, then the lab and everyone concerned should.



On this I agree. The two samples should be tested at two qualified facilities at remote locations.. One lab does the test on the completely anonymous A sample. If it comes back positive/anomylous then they call the B lab to run a test on a same numbered sample and both send their results to a third qualified party for analysis and decision. Again completely anonymous. No one in the entire chain of custody should know who they are testing. Any leaking of a rider's name or results before the final analysis is completed should render the testing procedure invalid. 

As far as I'm concerened WADA, their people and their accredited labs should be on trial. There should be no questions when it comes to the lab work and there should be complete protection of the riders's identity until the samples have been confirmed. The fact that all these details of Floyd's samples have been leaked is a strong argument towards banning the lab and professionals involved from any such testing in the future. People's lives and the credibility of the entire sport is at stake therefore the labs must be beyond reproach.

All of this is just stupid common sense by the way. A child could figure this out.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> So that kind of tampering might end up with a reading that is way off the scale, such as 11:1 where 1:1 is normal, and way out of line with readings taken before and after? I'm not saying that's what happened, but it seems like it could based on your comment.


Landis' doctor has said he's seen values as high as 100 to 1 from body builders (I assume he means who are doping heavily with steroids). So it would at least have to be above that to be so far out of line to suggest tampering.


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

Cue the Black Helicopters...


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Landis' doctor has said he's seen values as high as 100 to 1 from body builders (I assume he means who are doping heavily with steroids). So it would at least have to be above that to be so far out of line to suggest tampering.


If you are tampering on the sly, it would be silly to rig the sample to be 100:1, because that would be a big red flag. All you need to do is cause it to exceed the 4:1 limit. If you accidentally put in two drops of a substance instead of one, now you are up around the 9:1 mark.


----------



## paul2432 (Jul 11, 2006)

Sintesi said:


> On this I agree. The two samples should be tested at two qualified facilities at remote locations.. One lab does the test on the completely anonymous A sample. If it comes back positive/anomylous then they call the B lab to run a test on a same numbered sample and both send their results to a third qualified party for analysis and decision. Again completely anonymous. No one in the entire chain of custody should know who they are testing. Any leaking of a rider's name or results before the final analysis is completed should render the testing procedure invalid.
> 
> As far as I'm concerened WADA, their people and their accredited labs should be on trial. There should be no questions when it comes to the lab work and there should be complete protection of the riders's identity until the samples have been confirmed. The fact that all these details of Floyd's samples have been leaked is a strong argument towards banning the lab and professionals involved from any such testing in the future. People's lives and the credibility of the entire sport is at stake therefore the labs must be beyond reproach.
> 
> All of this is just stupid common sense by the way. A child could figure this out.


What you have described is contrary to the UCI Cycling Regulations. Articles 187-188 specifically call for notifying the rider and his team after a positive "A" test. Once the information is diseminated, controlling leaks becomes much more difficult.

Paul


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> If you are tampering on the sly, it would be silly to rig the sample to be 100:1, because that would be a big red flag. All you need to do is cause it to exceed the 4:1 limit. If you accidentally put in two drops of a substance instead of one, now you are up around the 9:1 mark.


Think about it. The amount of testosterone in urine is very very small. For someone to spike the sample they would have to know that whatever form they add the testosterone would integrate into the urine so that it comes thru on the test and they'd have to know precisely how much to add so that a realistic number was revealed on the test. That means they'd probably have to have some sort of trial and error process to get the amount right which means access to a lab to run the test.

Sabotage only seems to make sense to me if someone gave it to Floyd in some sort of typically administered manner (cream, injection, pill).


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Think about it. The amount of testosterone in urine is very very small. For someone to spike the sample they would have to know that whatever form they add the testosterone would integrate into the urine so that it comes thru on the test and they'd have to know precisely how much to add so that a realistic number was revealed on the test. That means they'd probably have to have some sort of trial and error process to get the amount right which means access to a lab to run the test.



So it was someone at the lab, and not Lemond.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

desmo13 said:


> So it was someone at the lab, and not Lemond.


Except the lab test's anonymous samples so the fact that they nailed Floyd would be pure chance.


----------



## Sintesi (Nov 13, 2001)

paul2432 said:


> What you have described is contrary to the UCI Cycling Regulations. Articles 187-188 specifically call for notifying the rider and his team after a positive "A" test. Once the information is diseminated, controlling leaks becomes much more difficult.
> 
> Paul


Yeah, that's the point: Their "rules" suck. The entire system is in need of serious reform. 

I don't even know why they have this option of performing the B test. They should confirm the findings every single time there is a positive in the A and keep the ID secret until the entire process is complete.


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

desmo13 said:


> So it was someone at the lab, and not Lemond.


It's ALWAYS LeMond. He is after all a bitter old crust of bread that hates every American Tour winner besides himself. Just ask the Lance Fanboy Club.


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

zero85ZEN said:


> It's ALWAYS LeMond. He is after all a bitter old crust of bread that hates every American Tour winner besides himself. Just ask the Lance Fanboy Club.


What if someone like Lance, and Lemond.. how do they decide what position to be on in this debate (still a debate until UCI rules)


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

terzo rene said:


> Post facto tampering is extremely difficult simply because the number of molecules involved is quite small in modern testing so adding an amount small enough would be almost impossible on the sly.


Do not see so big difficulties - it just enough to have contaminating substanse properly dissolved and to know volume of urine. Concerning the seals and so on - can somebody explain exactly how vial is corkedand sealed? Does it completely exclude contamination of a content using syringe or something similar. 

Concerning anonimity - not so many probes are taken each day at TdF (4, if I remember correctly). You have at least 25% chances to contaminate right probe. And there are chances to contamination of probe by person that collect and/or label probes and so perfectly knows which probe is from whom.

Anyway all this discussion is ridicilous, there is only one way to stop cheating - legalize doping :mad2: . And I see no valid reasons against:thumbsup: .


----------



## aliensporebomb (Jul 2, 2002)

Although, I thought of a couple of things when Operation Puerta hit that I've
posted before and nobody said much:

-One rider (Allan Davis) claimed that he had never heard of much less met or
spoken on the phone to the doctor in question.

-Tyler's name was in the list of Operation Puerta alleged riders seeing the 
"good doctor" yet he was on suspension and shouldn't have been around
to be treated - this leads to my idea:

-If a rider really wants to dope, but wants to have some kind of plausible deniability
instead of using a goofy codename, why not use the REAL NAME of a cyclist 
(ala Allan Davis) low enough in the standings to not raise suspicion. Sure, Tylers
name is a red herring but I could see someone being cleverly dishonest by using
the name of a real cyclist to divert attention from themselves.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

aliensporebomb said:


> -Tyler's name was in the list of Operation Puerta alleged riders seeing the
> "good doctor" yet he was on suspension and shouldn't have been around
> to be treated - this leads to my idea:


Well that's a bad lead in, the Puerto period in question ('02-'03) was prior to Hamilton getting caught for homologous blood doping.


----------



## stamp adams (Apr 16, 2006)

Yeah, it isn't looking good for Landis. I don't have a clue about doping but it would seem to me that a synthetic testostorone would improve Landis argument (forthcoming) that there is sabotage involved. The biggest problem wiht someone doing it on the night following stage 16, as another writer here suggested, is that it was pretty much concluded that Landis was out of the running following his performance that day, so why bother. This would lead to the conclusion that if it happened, it happened following the sample being given. Here is how, Sample given, sealed and given to observer (who notes the code). The code is given to an accomlice in the lab who has a solution of 15 ppm of synthetic testosterone. Landis urine sample is used to dilute this solution 50:50 and bingo, 8:1. If samples are double-blinded, as they should be, and separate labs run the the tests that would make the above argument moot. But the simplest expanation is given by ewitz above. How sad if true.


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

EasyRider47 said:


> Now that's a brilliant strategy! What a class act! If FL can find someone to take the rap or find some lame excuse for cheating, he can still be your hero and represent the best that cycling has to offer!


Tyler tried that one too, with the mysterious extortionist Christian Vincenz.


----------



## Stud Muzzin (Mar 5, 2006)

*You people make me laugh...*

how different these threads would read if the sample had belonged to Menchov, Perriero, Sastre, Dessel or any other "dirty Euro."


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

Stud Muzzin said:


> how different these threads would read if the sample had belonged to Menchov, Perriero, Sastre, Dessel or any other "dirty Euro."


How do you know?


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

Stud Muzzin said:


> how different these threads would read if the sample had belonged to Menchov, Perriero, Sastre, Dessel or any other "dirty Euro."


That's pecause they're dirty Euros...


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

I know that a lot of people believe that Americans are only concerned because an American is involved, but that simply isn't the case. Many here were disappointed that Vino didn't get a chance to start and I am one of them. He was my favorite going in. When he was bumped I picked Floyd. I liked Pereiro if he were to have held the jersey as he is a class act. I just wonder why no one has questioned his abilities in this Tour that he previously never exhibited such as his final TT attempt. Maybe they all doped.


----------



## Spinnerman (Oct 21, 2004)

Live Steam said:


> I thought I read that the lab is in Colorado Springs. Landis requested that a different lab do the test of the B.
> 
> I believe that in order for WADA and the UCI to get a handle on this they need to put measures in place that will not allow for questioning of the testing. When the samples are taken, the A and B should be seperated immediately. The A should go to yhe host country lab and the B should be shipped to another lab remote from the host country. I also believe the information should not be released until officially done so. The chain of custody is not just that of the physical sample, it also concerns the custody of the information. If that is violated, then no one can know what other procedures were not followed. If the racers are to adhere to protocol, then the lab and everyone concerned should.


I agree, but think there should be actually three tests performed at the same time. All three batches should be, if they are not at this time, anonomous and then the results returned and compared. If they results return a postiive result and are statistically equivalent results, then the rider is informed of the results and has an opportunity to quickly mount a defense, etc. If one of the results is negative or does not compare with the others statistically, the test is then ruled as nonconlusive. This process should take no more than a couple months from testing to final determination. All the while the information should not be leaked to the media until the ruling is final. The athlete should still be allowed to compete until there is a ruling. 

If Testoserone does help with recovery and is considered a performance enhancing drug, where does one draw the line between performance enhancing and something that is not. One could so far as to say that Vitamins and Massage help with recovery; so are they to be banned? Personally, I am not for dopping. On the other hand, each cyclist is an adult and is responsible for their own health and what they put into their body. I would prefer no testing, or perhaps DNA testing, rather than the charade we are dealing with today.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Live Steam said:


> Maybe they all doped.


.... yes, maybe.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

James OCLV said:


> That's pecause they're dirty Euros...


And an American would never stoop so low as to cheat? Please


----------



## goloso (Feb 4, 2004)

*this guy agrees*









nfmmmmmmm


----------

