# 1998 Tour de France retro testing



## burgrat (Nov 18, 2005)

Here we go...just when you thought there couldn't be enough doping talk, the retroactive testing for the 1998 Tour is about to drop.
Looks like the podium (inc. Julich ) are all EPO positive. So I wonder who was the highest placed "clean" rider? I guess we'll never know. 
I don't think anyone is shocked. 

Pantani, Ullrich, Julich, Zabel among 1998 Tour positives - VeloNews.com

French Senate Report On Doping Due On Wednesday | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Holy cow. That was 15 years ago. Just how long does that stuff stay in your system?


----------



## ALIHISGREAT (Dec 21, 2011)

I think its a bit unfair to be honest.. they didn't test everyone, so its only those unlucky enough to have been tested that will be shamed.

But then I'm also thinking that its a good thing to deter dopers, if you know you're going to be called out x-years down the road.


----------



## burgrat (Nov 18, 2005)

ALIHISGREAT said:


> I think its a bit unfair to be honest.. they didn't test everyone, so its only those unlucky enough to have been tested that will be shamed.
> 
> *But then I'm also thinking that its a good thing to deter dopers, if you know you're going to be called out x-years down the road.*


I think that is maybe the best reason to do this. It has been 15 years though and this is getting rather silly to go back that far. 
Just how much old piss do they have stored in France?


----------



## PJay (May 28, 2004)

burgrat said:


> I think that is maybe the best reason to do this. It has been 15 years though and this is getting rather silly to go back that far.
> Just how much old piss do they have stored in France?


In unrelated news: Gee, those French whites are pretty inexpensive lately, aren't they?


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

burgrat said:


> I think that is maybe the best reason to do this. It has been 15 years though and this is getting rather silly to go back that far.
> Just how much old piss do they have stored in France?


This is what USADA wanted and hopefully now they will retro everyone as far back as they can. USADA english for cycling is lame.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

The trouble with retroing is the current limitations of testing. 

How do we know that we will not find an even more extensive test in three years, after the current samples are destroyed?

There has to be some limit -- if you make it past 10 years you're good. 


Also, I think that some time in the future there may be a biological passport for urine. There could chart metobolytes or other markers as telltale signs of doping.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Local Hero said:


> The trouble with retroing is the current limitations of testing.
> 
> How do we know that we will not find an even more extensive test in three years, after the current samples are destroyed?
> 
> ...



10yrs....hmmm...
This is where the testing agencies need to be true and examine every person of interest in that era. We all know how widespread EPO use was in that time frame of cycling thanks to USADA and their insistence on going after the US cyclists of that time. It's time for the other agencies to step up as well. Those results will bring true light to what pro cycling was at that time. People will then realize it was not just a few riders on a few teams, but every top rider on every team.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Some separate issues:

1. There is a statute of limitations in terms of doping sanction - 8 years. This report is not about determining doping sanctions. However it may have an impact on specific individuals if they are bound by other requirements to provide truthful information about prior doping activity. e.g. in some countries there have been investigations where evidence was gathered - and if it's shown false testimony was provided, there may be other consequences. Indeed the SOL may not apply if false testimony was involved.

2. What it is saying is that testing protocols at the time these retro tests were conducted had improved from a time when such doping was not detectable and rampant. That sends quite a different message to everyone and I see no reason not to continue to validate the reliability of newer tests using known doping samples.


----------



## Adim_X (Mar 7, 2011)

Will they take these guys results off the record books to....like they have done to some Americans? 
Sent from my RM-845_nam_vzw_100 using Board Express


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Adim_X said:


> Will they take these guys results off the record books to....like they have done to some Americans?
> Sent from my RM-845_nam_vzw_100 using Board Express


They'll probably only take away Julich's podium, those damn Frenchies are always out to get us and nobody else.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Adim_X said:


> Will they take these guys results off the record books to....like they have done to some Americans?
> Sent from my RM-845_nam_vzw_100 using Board Express


How could they? It's beyond the statute of limitations.


----------



## WeakMite (Feb 20, 2005)

So I guess Zabel wasn't being truthful at that press conference where he admitted his EPO use.

At that time he claimed _(through tears)_ that he used it during the first week of the '96 TdF, then stopped because of the side-effects. 

Now he shows up positive in '98 for it.

View attachment 284661


Reference: 
Zabel And Aldag Confess EPO Usage | Cyclingnews.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/sports/othersports/25cycling.html


----------



## jtompilot (Mar 31, 2002)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Some separate
> 
> 1. There is a statute of limitations in terms of doping sanction - 8 years. This report is not about determining doping sanctions. However it may have an impact on specific individuals if they are bound by other requirements to provide truthful information about prior doping activity. e.g. in some countries there have been investigations where evidence was gathered - and if it's shown false testimony was provided, there may be other consequences. Indeed the SOL may not apply if false testimony was involved.
> 
> 2. What it is saying is that testing protocols at the time these retro tests were conducted had improved from a time when such doping was not detectable and rampant. That sends quite a different message to everyone and I see no reason not to continue to validate the reliability of newer tests using known doping samples.


Usada threw out the 8 year limit


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

jtompilot said:


> Usada threw out the 8 year limit


Not really. The 8 year SOL applied from the time which the offense becomes known (as in has a credible accusation to begin prosecution from) because of the conspiracy nature of the offenses.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

some interesting names in the list of positives 

-Marco Pantani

-Jan Ullrich

-Bobby Julich

-Laurent Jalabert (polka dot jersey)

-Jacky Durand (combatibity price)

-Laurent Desbiens (2 days in yellow)

-Mario Cipollini (green jersey)

-Erik Zabel

-Andrea Tafi

-Fabio Sacchi

-Jeroen Blijlevens (current Belkin's DS )


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

ALIHISGREAT said:


> But then I'm also thinking that its a good thing to deter dopers, if you know you're going to be called out x-years down the road.


I guess Froome and Wiggings will not sleep so well for the next 15 years or so rrr:


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

So.. in 2028 we'll know from this year's tour who was doping.


----------



## PaxRomana (Jan 16, 2012)

Not Jacky Durand!

Oh, the humanity.


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

"the senators are believed to be likely to publish the riders’ identities and could equally include lists of samples taken in the 1999 Tour, which was won by U.S. rider Lance Armstrong. Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour wins and banned from cycling for life last year for doping in a scandal that plunged cycling into crisis over the extent of substance abuse among the peloton."

I think this is good they are naming names... I bet some in the current peloton are a little nervous about their future! 

Julich.. doesn't he now coach for team sky?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

pedalruns said:


> Julich.. doesn't he now coach for team sky?


He was fired after he confessed to EPO use.


----------



## PaxRomana (Jan 16, 2012)

Julich, Yates, Leinders.

Clean team over there at Sky.


----------



## ZoomBoy (Jan 28, 2004)

PaxRomana said:


> Julich, Yates, Leinders.
> 
> Clean team over there at Sky.


Hey Servais Knaven is still there! He never doped right?


----------



## nOOky (Mar 20, 2009)

I have a problem with situations like this. Either test everybody that took part in the tour and apply the punishment equally, or let it be. Every domestique that helped, every stage winner, every rider should be suspect. Even if the lowest placed rider used EPO just to get through the tour and survive he's cheating. I guess I hate selective punishment.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Not everyone was tested, normally they tested the winners, or jersey holders.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

nOOky said:


> I have a problem with situations like this. Either test everybody that took part in the tour and apply the punishment equally, or let it be. Every domestique that helped, every stage winner, every rider should be suspect. Even if the lowest placed rider used EPO just to get through the tour and survive he's cheating. *I guess I hate selective punishment.*


I agree. Too bad talk like that gets ya labeled as an Armstrong apologist.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

nOOky said:


> I have a problem with situations like this. Either test everybody that took part in the tour and apply the punishment equally, or let it be. Every domestique that helped, every stage winner, every rider should be suspect. Even if the lowest placed rider used EPO just to get through the tour and survive he's cheating. I guess I hate selective punishment.


it's no different than the general testing process.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Salsa_Lover said:


> some interesting names in the list of positives
> 
> -Marco Pantani
> 
> ...



once again, looks like most, if not all the top riders were on it

makes a level playing field


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

How about the timely retirement of Stuart O'Grady? He signs a contract for 2014, breaks the record for number of Tours, now with the list of positive riders coming out from 1998, retires before it is released. Unfortunately he was only on the suspicious list, so he didn't really need to retire. Looks like he pulled the Levi, TommyD, Christian, DaveZ card there. Let them ride the tour then bring the results. Just like USADA did last year.


----------



## nOOky (Mar 20, 2009)

Salsa_Lover said:


> Not everyone was tested, normally they tested the winners, or jersey holders.


That's exactly what I have a problem with, apply the rules equally or not at all. Sure they walk the stage winner over and take his blood right then and there, but not the guy that put in a superhuman effort leading him out or pacing him up the mountain 90% of the way. Whatever I guess. I just hope they take the split prize winnings back from all the team mates of the cheaters that they shared with.


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

Unless they are Lance Armstrong they aren't even going to change the results from back then, so why bother posting results? Too many non-English speakers were still winning stuff back then.


----------



## PJay (May 28, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> once again, looks like most, if not all the top riders were on it
> 
> makes a level playing field


Let's just reinstate all of those results. It is supper-hard for me to go look back up results I kind-of recall, when everything is blanked out.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

PJay said:


> Let's just reinstate all of those results. It is supper-hard for me to go look back up results I kind-of recall, when everything is blanked out.


If we're going to be "fair", we need to wipe out a lot of years since they'll never give those titles back to Lance.


----------



## MattSoutherden (Jun 24, 2009)

This isn't an anti-doping agency investigation. It's purely the release of some re-tested samples that were analysed as part of a process verification study.

By the nature of the examination process, they are not admissible as evidence in a disciplinary proceeding, and as such cannot be used to strip results.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

However, it can be used to make fun of riders. Alot.


----------



## zigmeister (Jan 26, 2012)

Anyone surprised by the results released today? I'm not, most were suspected, many have already admitted.

What bothers me is Vaughters is making twitter posts that the results mean nothing. What a joke. Yes, the anti-doping savior is really interested in the sport dealing with its pasts and moving forward. You can't move forward unless you get all of the omerta out in the open.

"Garmin-Sharp CEO Jonathan Vaughters, a staunch anti-doping advocate who publicly admitted his own PED use for the first time in 2012, dismissed the value of the list on Twitter on Monday night, writing: “Re ’98 tests:small percentage of guys were tested. Smaller% were still taking epo after police raids started. Names in report? Meaningless.”

Vaughters followed up by claiming that 100 percent of the peloton would have tested positive for EPO if tested three-to-four days before the start of the 1998 Tour."

Haha...ridiculous assertion and way to handle this situation. If the "small percentage tested" all were positive, then you are right, 100% would have been positive...which he is saying that everybody was on EPO?!?! WTF are you talking about Vaughters???

Since that is the case, then we need to go after every single rider who tested positive, and remove all results, run them through the ringer like Armstrong, and make examples of them. Not just dismiss it as meaningless.


----------



## grandprix (Jul 8, 2012)

ALIHISGREAT said:


> But then I'm also thinking that its a good thing to deter dopers, if you know you're going to be called out x-years down the road.


This does nothing to discourage doping. If anything it sends the clear message that as long as a rider can stay ahead of testing he is better off doping, at least with regard to his career. The choices come down to:

A) Dope because the guy next to you is.If you happen to be talented and respond well to the current techniques you will be competitive. Maybe podium at a Grand Tour. You'll have a long in demand career and if you are careful you'll never fail doping control. At worst you'll be retroactively tested or one of your teammates will turn on you. You'll either be retired or at the end of your career before any punishment is handed out. You'll have made all the money you can, jetted all over the world, and you'll just be losing palmares you never would have had in the first place had you not doped. 

B) Don't dope. If you are really talented maybe you'll be competitive in some small stage races or a classic or two. Maybe get a chance to fall off the back of the peloton at a GT. You'll always be on the cusp of losing your contract to a doper though. Most of your career will be spent watching GTs on television and seeing doped support riders zipping back and forth to their team cars on the 6th high climb of the day to run gels and water bottles to their doped team captain, left wondering if only your director had known about warm downs and elliptical chainrings and altitude camps and high cadence and blood eating worm parasite treatments would you have been super human too? You'll be confident you'll never see your name in the doping forums, but you won't see it anywhere else either. 

Given that cycling (or any other pro sport really) has done absolutely nothing to address actual ongoing doping, and controls remain an intelligence test, I'm not sure why an athlete would not dope.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Zabel being positive clearly discredits him in a huge way. Moreover it demonstrates that even when admitting doping, the athletes lie not just to mitigate the legal consequences for themselves, but merely to preserve their legacy, which is much more egocentric. It confirms to me that anything a professional cyclist says can not be believed, especially when conveyed with crocodile tears.


----------



## nOOky (Mar 20, 2009)

It really irritates me when my non-cycling friends think and tell me that all the pro cyclists are dopers, and that the sport as a whole is a joke. It's actually somewhat disparaging to avid cyclists and even those of us that race for fun. Even listening to ESPN radio they discount cycling as a sport, because it's rife with doping. Like there is no substance abuse or cheating of any kind in pro football or baseball, yea right.

Damn, just forgo testing the racers and call it an "unlimited" class and let it be


----------



## saird (Aug 19, 2008)

Coolhand said:


> However, it can be used to make fun of riders. Alot.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

nOOky said:


> It really irritates me when my non-cycling friends think and tell me that all the pro cyclists are dopers, and that the sport as a whole is a joke. It's actually somewhat disparaging to avid cyclists and even those of us that race for fun. Even listening to ESPN radio they discount cycling as a sport, because it's rife with doping. Like there is no substance abuse or cheating of any kind in pro football or baseball, yea right.


I would like to see LiveSTRONG take a stand for clean sport...for all sports. 

They should lobby for the NBA, NFL, and MLB go through a season of the same testing that pro cycling endures.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> They should lobby for the NBA, NFL, and MLB go through a season of the same testing that pro cycling endures.


That would be nice. There would officially be no Santa any more. Even if those pro ballers didn't kill someone, they'd all be cheats.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Wait, i thought others here said Sprinters don't dope :mad2:

And the French too!

They all are dopers and it might NEVER change in ANY sport.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

"A victory that will stand the test of time." - Froome

"We shall see." - Time


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Brad the Bold said:


> "A victory that will stand the test of time." - Froome
> 
> "We shall see." - Time


+1000!


----------



## burgrat (Nov 18, 2005)

atpjunkie said:


> once again, looks like most, if not all the top riders were on it
> 
> *makes a level playing field*


I understand the argument for this, but different people will respond differently to doping. I don't think that if everyone doped there would be a true level field. Someone like Armstrong responded unbelievably to doping. Look at Basso or Cunego before and after. Simply not the same type of rider they were.
Obviously the goal would be to have zero doping, just pure hard work and training so that we could see the best natural performance without chemical intervention, but I don't think that will ever happen. If we could somehow uniformly dope everyone the same in some sort of "unlimited" league, would we be seeing who truly is the best or simple who responds the best, much like someone responding better to a medicine than another person? Would it really be a level playing field?


----------



## rufus (Feb 3, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> once again, looks like most, if not all the top riders were on it
> 
> makes a level playing field


No it doesn't, as Hamilton explained in his book. 

A rider whose natural hematocrit is fairly low, say like 40 or 41, will receive a far greater benefit from using EPO than someone whose natural level is 47 or 48. Allows someone who might otherwise be barely hanging on at the back of the pack to hang in there and be competitive with the big boys.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

rufus said:


> No it doesn't, as Hamilton explained in his book.
> 
> A rider whose natural hematocrit is fairly low, say like 40 or 41, will receive a far greater benefit from using EPO than someone whose natural level is 47 or 48. Allows someone who might otherwise be barely hanging on at the back of the pack to hang in there and be competitive with the big boys.


Is it really a rider's fault if they respond to EPO more than another rider? EPO is still EPO. 

A few years back, my HCT was 53 for unknown reasons and I wouldn't be likely to respond to EPO without being at risk for a stroke.


----------



## burgrat (Nov 18, 2005)

spade2you said:


> A few years back, my HCT was 53 for unknown reasons and I wouldn't be likely to respond to EPO without being at risk for a stroke.


Sure Spade, maybe you were pocketing a little Procrit for home use...


----------



## grandprix (Jul 8, 2012)

spade2you said:


> Is it really a rider's fault if they respond to EPO more than another rider? EPO is still EPO.


No. 

Which is why the level playing field doesn't make sense, because it isn't level even without dope. All the guys on this doping list gain more fitness from riding up a hill than I do. If we all ride the same training program we still won't all get the same times. How is that level?

But doping is still against the rules and without rules what is the point of the contest?


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

*Christophe Bassons-The unsung hero for the epo era..*

Cycling Reacts To 1998 EPO Positives Report | Cyclingnews.com

"Christophe Bassons rode the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France, and was outspokenly anti-doping. So outspoken, in fact, that a virtual “shunning”, led by Lance Armstrong, whom he had publicly criticized, caused him to abandon the 1999 Tour midway through. “This list does not surprise me at all,” he told RTL. “The new generation will not do the same crap, but it requires that those people who have lived a lie for so long not be at the heads of teams or are TV consultants, coaches or others ... (...) I think it is necessary to clean it."

He added, “For me, some riders were doped in the Tour in 2013. I am convinced of that.”



I agree with his comments...get rid of the old guard that lived/live the lie....And I wonder which riders he thinks were doped this year?? hmm..


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> I would like to see LiveSTRONG take a stand for clean sport...for all sports.


I would like to see the KKK take a stand against racism.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

burgrat said:


> I understand the argument for this, but different people will respond differently to doping.


Some people respond better to training, some recover faster, some weigh less than others, some respond better to any of the other drugs in the performance athlete's doping cocktail. The list is endless. The playing field became no less level when EPO came into the sport. Some people could afford it earlier, some got more out of it, some could afford higher quality advice on how to use it. Same situation, different drug.


----------



## bdavro (Jul 23, 2011)

To play devil's advocate for a moment, I find it interesting that people talk about "clean" and "dirty" as if they are absolutes. What about using recovery drinks? Electrolytes on the bike? Synthesized proteins, BCAAs, or any other item on the shelf at GNC or your local LBS? These are all shades of grey, arent they? Sugar, sodium and caffeine can have a huge effect on performance. Where should the line be drawn?


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Coolhand said:


> However, it can be used to make fun of riders. Alot.


Not that riders ever bring ridicule upon themselves, no sir.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

spookyload said:


> Unless they are Lance Armstrong they aren't even going to change the results from back then, so why bother posting results? Too many non-English speakers were still winning stuff back then.


The French Senate is NOT a regulatory body, it's not within their remit to sanction anybody. They made that clear. There was no doping test protocol for these re-tests so how can there be any punishment? The results have to stand. This was the very same argument used by some of the Lance apologists when his samples retrospectively came up positive for EPO; the results were not obtained from a UCI sanctioned dope test, so he didn't fail a test.

Maybe the reason 'too many' non-English speakers were winning stuff is because they were 80% of the peloton. Look at the names on Salsa Lover's list, with the exception of Julich they're all dirty cheating Euro-dopers. Some people are never satisfied.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Conflicting reports on how many positives there were. Some articles say 57 out of 60. If that's true I think it's pretty damning for the sport. Where is the complete list?


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

bdavro said:


> To play devil's advocate for a moment, I find it interesting that people talk about "clean" and "dirty" as if they are absolutes. What about using recovery drinks? Electrolytes on the bike? Synthesized proteins, BCAAs, or any other item on the shelf at GNC or your local LBS? These are all shades of grey, arent they? Sugar, sodium and caffeine can have a huge effect on performance. Where should the line be drawn?


Simple. WADA's already drawn the line for us.

If you want to understand the rationale of what is prohibited and what isn't, then I recommend reading the WADA Code. It's quite informative and helps to explain most of the questions on this matter.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

davidka said:


> Some people respond better to training, some recover faster, some weigh less than others, some respond better to any of the other drugs in the performance athlete's doping cocktail. The list is endless. The playing field became no less level when EPO came into the sport. Some people could afford it earlier, some got more out of it, some could afford higher quality advice on how to use it. Same situation, different drug.


It's not simply a matter of physiological evenness, it's a matter of a level playing field with respect to the rules of the sport, of which doping is but one way such a level field can be corrupted. There were other ways in which the level playing field was tampered with as well that are linked to doping, e.g. corruption of officials, threatening behaviour, inconsistent application of the rules, misuse of resources for illegitimate reasons and so on. 

But it also changes those who actually get to play the game in the first place, or are able to remain in the field of play.

No-one expects every athlete to be equal, but we expect that they will abide by the rules and code of conduct of the sport when they compete/participate/prepare. That is the level field we talk of.


----------



## SFTifoso (Aug 17, 2011)

I thought it was BS to strip Armstrong, and I think it's BS to start going through past results with a fine tooth comb. Label them as dopers, but that era was what it was. Move on. Leave it alone.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

SFTifoso said:


> I thought it was BS to strip Armstrong, and I think it's BS to start going through past results with a fine tooth comb. Label them as dopers, but that era was what it was. Move on. Leave it alone.


And be destined to repeat the past over. And over. And over...


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> But it also changes those who actually get to play the game in the first place, or are able to remain in the field of play.
> 
> No-one expects every athlete to be equal, but we expect that they will abide by the rules and code of conduct of the sport when they compete/participate/prepare. That is the level field we talk of.


It is now clear that the rules have been ignored so far as doping is concerned and rules are also not applied consistently in other areas of the sport (time cuts, drafting cars, sprinting infractions, etc.). With regards to doping, the riders determined the code of conduct in the past. Doping was clearly accepted inside the peloton. Those who did and didn't play did so by choice, one way or the other. 

Take doping out of the equation and there will always be athletes with access to better resources as they develop (Mark Cavendish once spoke about getting on the Natl. team so he could get better FOOD) and teams with bigger budgets. Same as it ever was.


----------



## eyebob (Feb 3, 2004)

Nook,

There is no formal punishment here, I don't think. So this is just a list of names until or if the governing bodies decide to do something about their results.

It's a mess either way.

rmt



nOOky said:


> I have a problem with situations like this. Either test everybody that took part in the tour and apply the punishment equally, or let it be. Every domestique that helped, every stage winner, every rider should be suspect. Even if the lowest placed rider used EPO just to get through the tour and survive he's cheating. I guess I hate selective punishment.


----------



## nate (Jun 20, 2004)

DrSmile said:


> Conflicting reports on how many positives there were. Some articles say 57 out of 60. If that's true I think it's pretty damning for the sport. Where is the complete list?


Here is a good round-up of information and links.
http://velorooms.com/index.php?topic=3086

You can also check Twitter for more information. @SSbike, @dimspace, and @dogsandcycling, for example.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

SFTifoso said:


> I thought it was BS to strip Armstrong.


This I agree with. Suspend him, sure. But strip titles not NOT testing Positive OFFICIALLY? Complete BULLS!T! Hater or Fan Boy, anyone wit a BRAIN would see this. Especially after all the others dopers and a possible UCI cover up.

Call it the "doping era with titles having an asterisk. Then moving forward, had HARD consequences. 1st offense, 2 year ban. 2nd, LIFETIME for UCI events and that's i.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

DIRT BOY said:


> This I agree with. Suspend him, sure. But strip titles not NOT testing Positive OFFICIALLY? Complete BULLS!T! Hater or Fan Boy, anyone wit a BRAIN would see this. Especially after all the others dopers and a possible UCI cover up.
> 
> Call it the "doping era with titles having an asterisk. Then moving forward, had HARD consequences. 1st offense, 2 year ban. 2nd, LIFETIME for UCI events and that's i.


For all of those who are going to scream about the merits of taking LA's race results (seeing as the UCI is unable to reward them to ANY OTHER racer due to doping positives) here is something to think about. What hurts more, taking race results or being outed as a doper and losing all your sponsorship/employment and ability to earn a living in professional cycling. If I was to make a choice you could take my results, my kid's results, and their kid's results. If I can still make 75 million in sponsorship contracts I'll explain to my children/grandchildren why they can't win any professional bike races no problem. 
Taking race results is just stupid if the athlete is not currently riding in the peloton. Taking their ability to endorse products and work for cycling teams is more important and has a much bigger impact to those who are considering using PEDs.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

SicBith said:


> For all of those who are going to scream about the merits of taking LA's race results (seeing as the UCI is unable to reward them to ANY OTHER racer due to doping positives) here is something to think about. What hurts more, taking race results or being outed as a doper and losing all your sponsorship/employment and ability to earn a living in professional cycling. If I was to make a choice you could take my results, my kid's results, and their kid's results. If I can still make 75 million in sponsorship contracts I'll explain to my children/grandchildren why they can't win any professional bike races no problem.
> Taking race results is just stupid if the athlete is not currently riding in the peloton. Taking their ability to endorse products and work for cycling teams is more important and has a much bigger impact to those who are considering using PEDs.


Or do both, as is happening with Armstrong. I personally don't care whether he lives out his days penniless or showers in champagne, but I think if you know a result to have been obtained through false means you take it away. Lance didn't win the tour - done. I just believe then there should not be a winner - no professional sportsman wants to win under those circumstances so leave the winner spot blank.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

roddjbrown said:


> Or do both, as is happening with Armstrong. I personally don't care whether he lives out his days penniless or showers in champagne, but I think if you know a result to have been obtained through false means you take it away. Lance didn't win the tour - done. I just believe then there should not be a winner - no professional sportsman wants to win under those circumstances so leave the winner spot blank.


I totally understand your point, and using LA isn't the best way to explain my point. We can use O'Grady as an example. His positive test cost him his job he had lined up. You can't take his stage win because of SOL, but you can out him (as the did) and take his ability to earn a living in cycling. The Belkin director was just canned as well. He had an opportunity for a small fine and suspension, he choose to continue lying and now needs to find a job, which may be hard for him as he most likely does not have a university degree having spent his 20's racing a bike.
My .02 on LA. ASO cannot reward those jerseys to any other rider as the top 10 from each of the races were caught doing the same thing. Use a identifier to indicate his use of PEDs and move on. Eddie Merkex was caught using speed and admitted it as well but his punishment was ridiculous (6 months suspension even with multiple offenses). Should we take his tours away as well?


----------



## nOOky (Mar 20, 2009)

Just publishing the list does some damage no?



eyebob said:


> Nook,
> 
> There is no formal punishment here, I don't think. So this is just a list of names until or if the governing bodies decide to do something about their results.
> 
> ...


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

DIRT BOY said:


> This I agree with. Suspend him, sure. But strip titles not NOT testing Positive OFFICIALLY? Complete BULLS!T! Hater or Fan Boy, anyone wit a BRAIN would see this. Especially after all the others dopers and a possible UCI cover up.


I have no beef with your opinion, however a positive doping test is but one of several ways to incur an official doping infraction requiring sanction. IOW a positive dope test is not a necessary pre-requisite for an official doping sanction to apply. There are other forms of evidence that can also apply.


----------



## bluelena69 (Apr 19, 2005)

Salsa_Lover said:


> some interesting names in the list of positives
> 
> -Marco Pantani
> 
> ...


My question is: where are the names of the rugby, soccer, tennis and handball players, in addition to the swimmers and weightlifters? I have so many problems with this report, but the fact that, yet again, cycling has been singled out and served up as the sacrificial lamb pisses me off to no end. Hell, its widely been reported that rugby is, by far, the most egregious lot of dopers, so why not name names? Why just cyclists?


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

zigmeister said:


> Anyone surprised by the results released today? I'm not, most were suspected, many have already admitted.
> 
> What bothers me is Vaughters is making twitter posts that the results mean nothing. What a joke. Yes, the anti-doping savior is really interested in the sport dealing with its pasts and moving forward. You can't move forward unless you get all of the omerta out in the open.
> 
> ...


Vaughters is simply saying 'they/we all doped'
which I think is probably pretty accurate


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

nOOky said:


> It really irritates me when my non-cycling friends think and tell me that all the pro cyclists are dopers, and that the sport as a whole is a joke. It's actually somewhat disparaging to avid cyclists and even those of us that race for fun. Even listening to ESPN radio they discount cycling as a sport, because it's rife with doping. Like there is no substance abuse or cheating of any kind in pro football or baseball, yea right.
> 
> Damn, just forgo testing the racers and call it an "unlimited" class and let it be


tell your friends if they released cycling doping controls on the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL you'd have no leagues left. That cortisone treatment their favorite athlete got for a sore shoulder carries a 2 year ban


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

burgrat said:


> I understand the argument for this, but different people will respond differently to doping. I don't think that if everyone doped there would be a true level field. Someone like Armstrong responded unbelievably to doping. Look at Basso or Cunego before and after. Simply not the same type of rider they were.
> Obviously the goal would be to have zero doping, just pure hard work and training so that we could see the best natural performance without chemical intervention, but I don't think that will ever happen. If we could somehow uniformly dope everyone the same in some sort of "unlimited" league, would we be seeing who truly is the best or simple who responds the best, much like someone responding better to a medicine than another person? Would it really be a level playing field?


the people who typically respond better are the people with better genetics and better training to optimize the program. In other words the same people who would win if no one doped. It doesn't make an average rider great, it makes all athletes better and the best, that much more


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

rufus said:


> No it doesn't, as Hamilton explained in his book.
> 
> A rider whose natural hematocrit is fairly low, say like 40 or 41, will receive a far greater benefit from using EPO than someone whose natural level is 47 or 48. Allows someone who might otherwise be barely hanging on at the back of the pack to hang in there and be competitive with the big boys.


but they still all race at sub 50 unless they have a TUE. But yes, point taken, an 8 point H Crit lift is better than a 2 pt.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

davidka said:


> It is now clear that the rules have been ignored so far as doping is concerned and rules are also not applied consistently in other areas of the sport (time cuts, drafting cars, sprinting infractions, etc.). With regards to doping, the riders determined the code of conduct in the past. Doping was clearly accepted inside the peloton. Those who did and didn't play did so by choice, one way or the other.
> 
> Take doping out of the equation and there will always be athletes with access to better resources as they develop (Mark Cavendish once spoke about getting on the Natl. team so he could get better FOOD) and teams with bigger budgets. Same as it ever was.


the creme still tends to rise


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

atpjunkie said:


> the people who typically respond better are the people with better genetics and better training to optimize the program. In other words the same people who would win if no one doped. It doesn't make an average rider great, it makes all athletes better and the best, that much more


Not to start a nature vs. nature argument, but the idea of a "genetic freak" is a very dubious concept that is usually used as a beard to rationalize the superhuman results of a doper. Epigenetics is a much more significant factor in athletics than people want to believe.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

davidka said:


> Some people respond better to training, some recover faster, some weigh less than others, some respond better to any of the other drugs in the performance athlete's doping cocktail. The list is endless. The playing field became no less level when EPO came into the sport. Some people could afford it earlier, some got more out of it, some could afford higher quality advice on how to use it. Same situation, different drug.


Nonsense. 

Take two established Pro cyclists. One gets a 2% benefit from EPO the other get 15%. This is massive. No training methods or nutrition program can give such wide disparity of response. 

EPO is the reason Riis won the Tour. Simple as that.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> the creme still tends to rise


L'effet EPO / The EPO Effect - YouTube


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

As it seems there is to be no "Truth and Reconcilliation Process" - I'm very much in favor of the powers that be going back and testing as many samples as they can - and letting the cards fall where they may.

Shameing should not be the only consequence, those found to be cheating should have to re-pay award monies, have victories struck from the record etc. As it stands now, it seems each case is treated as if it were in isolation - widly varying consequences for the same infractions. 

People are fired from some teams and lose their livlihoods while others seem to go along as if nothing happened. I'm no Lance fan-boy but we all piled on with the harshest consequences in his case - simply because he was the best at cheating in a field full of cheaters - IMHO seems the others (Riis et.al.) should be measured by the same yardstick.

If we're not going to do the T&R Process, let's catch and fairly punish as many as we can - seems the only way to clean dope out of this sport left to us.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> Take two established Pro cyclists. One gets a 2% benefit from EPO the other get 15%. This is massive. No training methods or nutrition program can give such wide disparity of response.
> 
> EPO is the reason Riis won the Tour. Simple as that.


So why didn't Levi or Tyler or Jan or Joseba or Vino win more GTs? They were all on sophisticated programs. You have doped GC Honches and doped domestiques as we have seen many teams had programs. Why the same guys @ the top? They all race (Riis excluded) with a sub 50 H Crit level. You still have to train to optimize the doping, you still have to strategize on when to gain time and when to sit in. 
Anyone that doesn't accept that some folks are just better base stock have probably never played a competitive sport in their life. Some people just win out in the ole genetic lottery, doping doesn't change that, it makes everyone better. This is simple physiology. Boonen for example has a relatively low H Crit count, how does he dole out the pain he does on the stones?


----------



## nate (Jun 20, 2004)

Here is a good article about the French Senate's doping report.



> In many ways it makes sense that the media is focusing on riders and their indiscretions rather than anti-doping reforms. After all, senate reforms don’t make for headlines nearly as good as “Rider X took EPO in the 1998 TdF”. But in reality the Senate reforms are much more important and meaningful.
> 
> The French Senate Report lists 60 recommendations divided into seven chapters (or “pillars”) which aim to improve the effectiveness of anti-doping control in all sports, not just cycling. Not only for the integrity of sport, but for the health of the athletes. These recommendations can be analysed in isolation, but are constructed to work in an coherent framework.


Missing the point | Cycling Tips


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

DrSmile said:


> Not to start a nature vs. nature argument, but the idea of a "genetic freak" is a very dubious concept that is usually used as a beard to rationalize the superhuman results of a doper. Epigenetics is a much more significant factor in athletics than people want to believe.


really? You think if you or I had trained enough we could have become elite cyclists?
How about track and field? How about football, basketball.
Face it. It's been that way since elementary school, some kids are better athletes. 
It continues to adulthood. Then you get to the elite level and some are still better? 
I competed in Div 1 sport, I was en route to possibly becoming an elite level rower, I was damn strong and could take a load of punishment. I'm sure there was another 10% that made me look average and had we been going for a spot @ the Olympic training center I wouldn't have stood a chance. Of the 3o that make it 8 get in the boat. Are you implying those 8 are only there because of drugs? Nope. Some folks are just better, and I'm okay with that.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> So why didn't Levi or Tyler or Jan or Joseba or Vino win more GTs? They were all on sophisticated programs. You have doped GC Honches and doped domestiques as we have seen many teams had programs. Why the same guys @ the top? They all race (Riis excluded) with a sub 50 H Crit level. You still have to train to optimize the doping, you still have to strategize on when to gain time and when to sit in.
> Anyone that doesn't accept that some folks are just better base stock have probably never played a competitive sport in their life. Some people just win out in the ole genetic lottery, doping doesn't change that, it makes everyone better. This is simple physiology. Boonen for example has a relatively low H Crit count, how does he dole out the pain he does on the stones?


You are not making much sense. 

Do you really think that levi would have been a Grand Tour Contender in an undoped world? Really? 

Levi was a nobody in his 2nd season in Europe when he suddenly found himself on the podium of the Vuelta. That shocked everyone, including Levi. Just 12 months earlier he was saying he did not think he would ever be able to even ride a GT.......and suddenly he is on the podium of the most top fuel race in the sport? 

Chemical invention.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are not making much sense.
> 
> Do you really think that levi would have been a Grand Tour Contender in an undoped world? Really?
> 
> ...


Nah. Levi just found the right wheel to suck!!


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> and suddenly he is on the podium of the most top fuel race in the sport?
> 
> Chemical invention.


He had been doping the entire time.


----------



## grandprix (Jul 8, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Take two established Pro cyclists. One gets a 2% benefit from EPO the other get 15%. This is massive. No training methods or nutrition program can give such wide disparity of response.


A 15% benefit as measured by what?

Are you claiming that some riders became 15% faster?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

grandprix said:


> A 15% benefit as measured by what?
> 
> Are you claiming that some riders became 15% faster?


you remember how Riis used to crush the flat TTs before the mid 90s? me neither.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

den bakker said:


> you remember how Riis used to crush the flat TTs before the mid 90s? me neither.


Best. Bike. Throw. Ever.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

spade2you said:


> Best. Bike. Throw. Ever.


Do you have a link to a video of this? It would have to be awesome to beat Wiggo's throw this year where the bike went up the road and parked itself, resting on a stone wall!


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

The Tedinator said:


> Do you have a link to a video of this? It would have to be awesome to beat Wiggo's throw this year where the bike went up the road and parked itself, resting on a stone wall!


Here's a link you can do a comparison of best bike throws.

Bjarne Riis | The DYNAMITE! Files


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

The Tedinator said:


> Do you have a link to a video of this? It would have to be awesome to beat Wiggo's throw this year where the bike went up the road and parked itself, resting on a stone wall!


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

I don't know. I think Millar's was better. He doesn't even look back. LOL.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

I could watch pros turf their bikes over and over so I can get a good laugh.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

love4himies said:


> I could watch pros turf their bikes over and over so I can get a good laugh.


The problem with watching it over and over again is that it starts to almost make sense to try it yourself...


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Take two established Pro cyclists. One gets a 2% benefit from EPO the other get 15%. This is massive. *No training methods or nutrition program can give such wide disparity of response.*


Actually they can. 

Keep in mind 10% is a pretty typical variance in threshold power for a trained cycist through a year, let alone variances due to different training approaches.

Sorry for late post, been away, catching up.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Actually they can.
> 
> Keep in mind 10% is a pretty typical variance in threshold power for a trained cycist through a year, let alone variances due to different training approaches.
> 
> Sorry for late post, been away, catching up.


Please give an example of a nutritional or training method that can give a 10% boost in output to a highly trained Professional in the 3rd week of a Grand Tour or in the couple weeks between the DL and the Tour

Thanks


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Take two established Pro cyclists. One gets a 2% benefit from EPO the other get 15%. This is massive. No training methods or nutrition program can give such wide disparity of response.





Doctor Falsetti said:


> Please give an example of a nutritional or training method that can give a 10% boost in output to a highly trained Professional in the 3rd week of a Grand Tour or in the couple weeks between the DL and the Tour


That noise you heard was a sonic boom as the goal posts moved faster than the speed of sound.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

asgelle said:


> That noise you heard was a sonic boom as the goal posts moved faster than the speed of sound.


Do you have a link or evidence of this sonic boom?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

asgelle said:


> That noise you heard was a sonic boom as the goal posts moved faster than the speed of sound.


Hardly. 

Regardless of semantics the fact remains that the products and methods used in oxygen vector doping produce far greater disparity in response on highly trained Pro's then nutrition and training methods. Most can see we not talking about the difference between the off season and peak


----------

