Tour de France 2007

broken link

Apparently the Link URL field has a character limit...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/sport/article-23406122-details/Now%20the%20man%20they%20hoped%20would%20save%20the%20Tour%20faces%20a%20new%20inquiry%20into%20doping%20allegations/article.do

Nice quote from today's Scotsman newspaper (www.scotsman.com)

"Wiggins also revealed that when he didn't take part in an anti-doping protest organised by the French teams - "I have friends in other teams who aren't French and are clean," Wiggins explained, "I didn't want to watch them ride off and be saying, in effect, that they were on drugs because they weren't with us [in the protest]" - there were comments from other riders that left him "depressed."

"When I caught up [with the non-protesting part of the peloton] everyone was laughing, patting me on the back and saying well done for coming with us. I heard some awful things at that point, which made me very depressed - the worst was one rider who joked that he didn't understand the French, that if they took drugs they would go faster, and why didn't they try it?" "

Unknown guy in the next grave wrote:

Rorkes Drift wrote:

There have indeed been numerous studies on the effects of EPO, including its effects as a PED. See, for example, Sawka et al., 1996 and Birkeland et al., 2000. They find the performance enhancing effect to be 5% or more (hence the figure I cited -- I did not make the number up myself).

Ah, now it's FIVE percent. Of course before you were talking 20% -- which is to say, you were talking out your ass. I don't know what "Sawka et al" or "Birkeland et al" are and I am not going to to spend hours delving into pub-med to try to prove your point for you. Why don't you quote the relevant sections which SHOW a 20% improvement

My, there's certainly no need for such vitriol. I said 20% combined for ALL PEDs and transfusions. The 5% was for EPO ALONE!! Go back and actually read my post, and perhaps the scientific studies I cited, instead of spewing dogmatic speculation.

No offense but all that article says is that Dick Pound is going to go over the same documentation that UCI already went over and cleared him for.

If Dr. Franke is right, then Spanish investigators and UCI cut a deal with Contador where they removed him from the case in exchange for his testimony against other riders. The question is whether WADA is going to respect that agreement, especially if someone else has compromizing documents in hand.

myboyblue started this thread with the question "who else is watching?"

And I can say I was faithfully watching up until the stage on Wednesday. There I was watching the evening re-cap show and the battle between Rasmussen, Contador, Evans and Leipheimer up the final climb when I notice the little ticker along the bottom of the screen saying Rasmussen was out.

That was the final straw. I'm not going to invest three weeks of my life following an event where the results of what I watched the day before are suddenly shown to be a sham.

My solution to this debacle is this. For, lets say, four months leading up to the Tour the riders are extensively tested for drug use. Then with a about a week to go before the Tour, and all the test results are in, those riders who have tested clean are allowed to start the Tour. And that's it. No more testing. Let them do whatever the hell they want after that point.

Actually, I think the only way cycling can get over its problem is if riders are not alone in shouldering the punishment. It is absurd that director sportifs and team managers who explicitly compel their riders to dope, assist in orchestrating doping procedures, or tacitly approve of riders doping on their own, can often emerge unscathed when a rider is caught. Walter Godefroot and Mr 60% (i.e. Bjarne Riis) himself were quick to wash their hands of Ullrich and Basso after Operation Puerto, but does anyone really believe that those two "had no idea"?

Because of the team structure, managers, directors, and even medical support staff, as things now stand, have a strong incentive to facilitate and/or cover up doping. Why? Because they get to reap all the rewards (stage wins, titles, etc.) without sharing in any of the risk (i.e. 2 year ban, fines, etc.) This year, with the ouster of the entire Astana and Cofidis squads, certainly is a step toward aligning the reward/risk balance between riders and team management, but it is still skewed in support of an endemic doping system. I think only when the risks are more widely shared will we begin to see a veritable erosion of the doping culture in professional cycling.

Or even better, keep right on testing them during the tour. Then test them afterwards, all year long.

But testing was not the issue. Rasmussen was tested extensively both before and after. He rode the Giro and was tested there. Then he was tested twice by WADA during May and June (the same time period where apparently the Danish anti-doping people couldn't find him) and then he was tested again during the Tour - daily while he was in yellow. All his tests were negative.

I guess you could also say that anyone who misses even a single test is not allowed to start either.

Sure, you could come up with all kinds of standards. None would be perfect. The key is that there is no double standard. Whoever competes within the rules and wins, wins.

Rasmussen was held to a tougher standard than others because confidential information was leaked and the press jumped on it. The organizers are a bunch of pus\sies and they caved in and forced Rabobank to pull him out.

Contador was held to a milder standard, in that he had his name removed from Operacion Puerto in exchange for testimony. But we haven't seen the end of that one...

not this again wrote:

But testing was not the issue. Rasmussen was tested extensively both before and after. He rode the Giro and was tested there. Then he was tested twice by WADA during May and June (the same time period where apparently the Danish anti-doping people couldn't find him) and then he was tested again during the Tour - daily while he was in yellow. All his tests were negative.

True...the problem is that deliberately evaded tests by stating that he was in mexico when he was actually training in italy. If he wasn't doing anything fishy in Italy, then why didn't he just tell doping control and his own team that he was in italy? the decption in this case makes him look pretty suspicious.

not this again wrote:

If Dr. Franke is right, then Spanish investigators and UCI cut a deal with Contador where they removed him from the case in exchange for his testimony against other riders.

Where in the article does it say this?

greenbeer wrote:

True...the problem is that deliberately evaded tests by stating that he was in mexico when he was actually training in italy. If he wasn't doing anything fishy in Italy, then why didn't he just tell doping control and his own team that he was in italy? the decption in this case makes him look pretty suspicious.

That's just speculation. There's one person who says he saw him in Italy in June. The UCI already said they couldn't open a case based on one piece of hearsay. Once his cell phone records or something puts him in Italy, that's different. The point is he wasn't given the benefit of the doubt, so why is Contador?

Did anyone catch in his interview where he said he had talked to his friends in ITALY, the ones who support him.

There seems to be a reason he goes to Italy.

not this again wrote:

The point is he wasn't given the benefit of the doubt, so why is Contador?

I should have thought that was obvious. Ras violated the doping code of conduct by missing tests, hence there was some doubt against him. The way in which it was dealt with was poor, but the issue was that he had missed tests.

Contador hasn't missed any tests, as far as I'm aware, or failed any. The only evidence against him is what was in the Peurto documents, which wasn't enough to build a case around so they dropped it. I don't know where the idea that he confessed in return for a reprieve came from.

This isn't to say Contador wasn't doping though, I'm sure there's every chance he was.

Yes. If Ras wanted to prove that he was in mexico, all he needed to do was show a passport that states when he entered and left the country.

The other thing remember is that his team manager kicked him out because he lied to him. TDF officials had nothing to do with it.

think again?? wrote:

There seems to be a reason he goes to Italy.

Umm yes, he lives there.