| Author |
 Topic  |
|
KD teammate
Hors Categorie
Denmark
5683 Posts |
 Posted - 28/09/2008 : 11:11:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by sander
About the new CERA test: the Sporza commentators said that there are rumours, that there are 13 persons who have used CERA in the Tour, some of them from the CSC team 
Yeah, I made a brief a comment about this development in the "Jimmi Casper topic". Since it looks to be quiet a dramatic case, it seems appropriate to highlight the case also in this topic. The essense is, that during the Tour they only had the test ready for analysing the urine samples for CERA, but today they have a refined method to also analyse the blood. Its important to stress, that so far we have absolutely no information about who is going to be discovered or not. Speculation about names, is only speculation about names. Only thing we now is, that AFLD will do the test of the suspectfull blood samples tomorrow (Sep.29). Time will tell how many they will catch. Perhaps its only Piepoli, or perhaps we will indeed have 10 more posetive riders. Only time will tell... |
Edited by - KD teammate on 28/09/2008 11:12:42 |
 |
|
|
Maxxor
Stagiaire
3 Posts |
Posted - 29/09/2008 : 02:17:38
|
No, nothing revolutionizing, although not all of the topics had been covered in this thread, so I thought some of the readers might be interested.
One interesting topic you didn't mention:
apparently cheap non-brand epo from the far east and south america has a slightly different composition and are therefore less likely to show up in the EPO-test which is based on the original epo-product. Oh, and those products can be ordered on the net, with effectively zero risk of the authorities catching the package.
quote:
Originally posted by KD teammate
PS: In order to evaluate suspicious time trial results from Tour de France, we have to be extremely carefull. First of all, its a known fact the only the 40 best riders on the time trial is going with maximum power, while the other riders are doing a "relaxed ride" (in order to save energy for the next stage in the race). In top of that we also have some teams in Cycling who with full intention prefered to hire many specialists in the ITT dicipline, and therefor its not suspectfull to have some teams being more dominant than others in the ITT. In this years Tour de France, I didnt find the ITT results suspectfull itself, since it was really all the well known specialists doing great. The suspicious part about the ITT results from T-mobile in TDF 2006, was related to having 4 riders in top10, where to my knowledge it was not normal to have all 4 of them showing such a superior performance.
I agree that 4 out of 10 riders is suspicious. However, I also find 4 teams dominating the top 15 like that suspicious. That's 3 and 4 riders each in top 15 - you seem to draw a fine line between suspicious and a-ok. Apparently, anybody can get in top 10-15... |
Edited by - Maxxor on 29/09/2008 02:19:35 |
|
|
|
Police
Stagiaire
42 Posts |
Posted - 29/09/2008 : 11:55:24
|
Some rumors from the newspaper Gazet van Antwerpen concerning 14 riders who is under "investigation" for drug use in this years TDF. The distribution looks like this: two from Ag2r-La Mondiale, three from Saunier Duval-Scott, two from Columbia, five from CSC-Saxo Bank and two from Gerolsteiner.
If this has what so ever some thruth its indeed chocking news and then I would like say its more or less the closure of CSC-SaxoBank and Columbia who "fights" doping hardest in the peloton.
|
Edited by - Police on 29/09/2008 12:01:58 |
|
|
|
KD teammate
Hors Categorie
Denmark
5683 Posts |
Posted - 29/09/2008 : 12:24:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Maxxor
I agree that 4 out of 10 riders is suspicious. However, I also find 4 teams dominating the top 15 like that suspicious. That's 3 and 4 riders each in top 15 - you seem to draw a fine line between suspicious and a-ok. Apparently, anybody can get in top 10-15...
Indeed, I think we have a very thin line between "suspicious and okay". And its important we try to draw that line as correct as possible. Let me start by saying, that I think its extremely difficult to conclude anything by just looking at the results. Its only after analysing the results carefully, that we should make up our mind wether or not it look suspicious.
In regards of the results from Sella in the Giro, we had a general consensus at this forum, that his performance looked suspicious. It was not the fact that he allmost won 3 stages and the mountain jersey, but more because of the way he did it. In spite of being in a long hard breakaway in the first stage he won, he didnt show any sign of tiredness for the next 2 difficult stages where he also turned out to be the strongest one. As we learned 2 months later, UCI tested Sella posetive for CERA, and thereby confirmed our suspicion. The essence is, that it was not Sellas results starting our suspicion, but a carefull evaluation if his string of results -and how they were acchieved, could really be possible without doping.
Of course we are all entitled to have our own oppinion about what looks suspicious and what is looking normal. As stated earlier, I just think its very seldom that we can use the results by themself, to decide wether or not a performance of teams/riders are suspicious. All the doping/antidoping related circumstances and facts surrounding a team/rider, are much more important subjects to look out for. But since we are now having this interesting discussion, when to deem time trial results as suspicious, I would like to highlight all the important factors to take into account.
Factors to take into account when judging results from a Tour de France ITT:
* Only 40 riders in a TDF time trial is going with full speed (corresponding to those believing they have a chance to get a top10 result plus those riders believing they have a chance of top20 in the overall). All the other riders are "relaxing", to save power for the next stage.
* Teams with a potential ITT-winner/GC-favourite will typical ask 3 of the other riders at the team to go full speed, in order to gain important experience from the course, that can be reported back to the later starting favourite. Thats why a natural dominance of some teams become likely.
* Teams like Garmin, CSC-SaxoBank, Columbia and Gerolsteiner are well known to have signed a lot of the best time trialers in the world. Thats why we can also expect it to be natural if those teams are showing a more dominant performance in this specific discipline.
* Teams with many ITT specialists, also have more training, wind tunnel tests, and investment for best equipment, compared to other teams.
Those factors above are extremely important to take into account, before deciding wether or not any ITT results from the Tour is looking suspicious. To be honest, I think its allmost impossible to conclude anything from the results of a time trial in Tour de France. The main reason why the results dont show us anything, is because of the tactical decisions being made, that only a few riders are going full speed, while the rest are saving forces for the next stage. To elliminate such tactical factors, it would be far better to look out for the results from a dedicate ITT "oneday" race. We only have 2 such races on the calendar, where all the top level riders are riding, and thats of course the WC/OL ITTs. Again we should however remember, that eventhough the tactical factors are not disturbing the picture at those events, we still have the 2 other important factors to take into account, that those teams/nations having hired/invested in the best ITT athletes, also will show a tendency to be dominant, without this being suspicious by itself.
So why did I then became suspicious about the 4 T-mobile riders in top10 at the ITT time trial from Tour de France 2006?
Most important reason, was of course the Freiburg case where Werne Franke highlighted that he had proofs about at least 5 riders from the team having recieved blood doping at the Tour. I have to admit, that I didnt became suspcious about the result itself during the Tour. Next piece of information was a report from the official Lausanne Lab from last year, that aprox.50% had been blood manipulated in 2006, and that a different pattern of suspectfull samples had been discovered in 2007. The Lausanne Lab pointed out, that in 1996-2005 there was a tendency of certain teams having all their riders submitting suspectfull samples, while in 2007 it was more a pattern of some teams "collecting" on a handfull of doped riders.
When further looking at the results, I also became suspectfull that the allegations from Werne Franke was correct, since I not only found 4 riders in top10, but more importantly those 4 riders were also all posting a superior time, being max.3% slower than the winners time.
Results from the TDF time trial 2006 (that were all max.3% slower than the winner):
01 Gonchar (T-Mobile): 1.01.43 = 50,55 km/h
02 Landis (Phonak): +1.01 = 49,73 km/h
03 Lang (Gerolsteiner): +1.04 = 49,68 km/h
04 Rogers (T-Mobile): +1.24 = 49,43 km/h
05 Larsson (FDJ): +1.33 = 49,30 km/h
06 Sinkewitz (T-Mobile): +1.38 = 49,23 km/h
07 M.Fothen (Gerolsteiner): +1.41 = 49,19 km/h
08 Klöden (T-Mobile): +1.43 = 49,17 km/h
09 Menchov (Rabobank): +1.44 = 49,17 km/h
10 Posthuma (Rabobank): +1.44 = 49,16 km/h
11 Evans (Davitamon-Lotto): +1.49 = 49,10 km/h
12 Karpets (Caisse d'Epargne): +1.51 = 49,07 km/h
When looking at the results from 2008, we dont find any team dominating within the magic 3% of the winner time. Of course we cant use this fact alone to rule out, that some riders/teams might indeed still have been doped, but at least it looks like the time differences was not with one team being superior above the rest. 
Results from the TDF time trial 2008 (that were all max.3% slower than the winner):
01 Schumacher (Gerolsteiner): 1.03.50 = 49,82 km/h
02 Cancellara (CSC-SaxoBank): +0.21 = 49,55 km/h
03 Kirchen (Columbia): +1.01 = 49,04 km/h
04 VandeVelde (Garmin-Chipotle): +1.05 = 48,99 km/h
05 Millar (Garmin-Chipotle): +1.37 = 48,59 km/h
06 Menchov (Rabobank): +1.55 = 48,37 km/h
|
Edited by - KD teammate on 29/09/2008 12:34:16 |
|
|
|
Police
Stagiaire
42 Posts |
Posted - 29/09/2008 : 15:39:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by KD teammate
Results from the TDF time trial 2006 (that were all max.3% slower than the winner):
01 Gonchar (T-Mobile): 1.01.43 = 50,55 km/h
02 Landis (Phonak): +1.01 = 49,73 km/h
03 Lang (Gerolsteiner): +1.04 = 49,68 km/h
04 Rogers (T-Mobile): +1.24 = 49,43 km/h
05 Larsson (FDJ): +1.33 = 49,30 km/h
06 Sinkewitz (T-Mobile): +1.38 = 49,23 km/h
07 M.Fothen (Gerolsteiner): +1.41 = 49,19 km/h
08 Klöden (T-Mobile): +1.43 = 49,17 km/h
09 Menchov (Rabobank): +1.44 = 49,17 km/h
10 Posthuma (Rabobank): +1.44 = 49,16 km/h
11 Evans (Davitamon-Lotto): +1.49 = 49,10 km/h
12 Karpets (Caisse d'Epargne): +1.51 = 49,07 km/h
Results from the TDF time trial 2008 (that were all max.3% slower than the winner):
01 Schumacher (Gerolsteiner): 1.03.50 = 49,82 km/h
02 Cancellara (CSC-SaxoBank): +0.21 = 49,55 km/h
03 Kirchen (Columbia): +1.01 = 49,04 km/h
04 VandeVelde (Garmin-Chipotle): +1.05 = 48,99 km/h
05 Millar (Garmin-Chipotle): +1.37 = 48,59 km/h
06 Menchov (Rabobank): +1.55 = 48,37 km/h
I think you should pay some attention to that it might been different conditions which has a rather high impact on the time difference. It could be that one route had more "hills" or could been more wind etc. One should also remember that most of the riders at 2006 were/is considered as ITT-specialists.
However, it is tragic that there is 2 riders from Columbia and 5 riders from Team CSC-Saxo Bank that had strange samples during the TDF. These two teams are togehter with Astana and Garmin-Chiptole considered to the teams which are riding clean. IF it turns out that this rumor is true and 5 CSC-riders are caught I think it will be quite different from not speculate in systematic doping.
It would be interesting to get the other members point of view in this issue. |
|
|
|
Culkasi
Hors Categorie
United Kingdom
4080 Posts |
Posted - 29/09/2008 : 17:13:42
|
I think that we all wish to see the results first - Nygaard has today denied that any CSC riders should be amoung the named riders positive for CERA
Culkasi |
|
|
|
Police
Stagiaire
42 Posts |
Posted - 29/09/2008 : 17:56:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Culkasi
I think that we all wish to see the results first - Nygaard has today denied that any CSC riders should be amoung the named riders positive for CERA
Culkasi
Of course he needs to deny this but still it is really bad for the team that 4-5 riders are suspected and named in newspaper for using illegal drugs. |
|
|
|
KD teammate
Hors Categorie
Denmark
5683 Posts |
Posted - 29/09/2008 : 19:24:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Police
I think you should pay some attention to that it might been different conditions which has a rather high impact on the time difference. It could be that one route had more "hills" or could been more wind etc. One should also remember that most of the riders at 2006 were/is considered as ITT-specialists.
Sorry, but you didnt get my point! In my post above I clearly ellaborated and made my opinion absolutely clear. I stated that we cant make any conclusions from the results alone. I actualy warned people to conclude anything only based on the results! No further comments are necessary. In order not to repeat myself, I will just refer to the entire part of my earlier post.
In case some of you are curious about the two ITT stages being discussed, they were actualy very identical in profile. Maxxor stated, that he was suspicious about many riders from the same team being placed in top10 at both ITT stages in 2006 and 2008. But I replied, that we had a number of natural reasons why some teams where more dominant in the top10 than other teams, in such ITT stags during Tour de France. My point is, that we cant conclude anything based on the results alone. We can only use them as part of a bigger analysis.
Profile of TDF ITT stage 2006 (52km entirely flat): www.letour.com/2006/TDF/LIVE/us/700/dprofil.html
Profile of TDF ITT stage 2008 (53km entirely flat): www.letour.fr/2008/TDF/COURSE/us/2000/etape_par_etape.html
Finaly, I agree with you police, that the average speed cant be compared between the 2 events due to wind conditions playing a major role. But please note, that none of us made any attempt to do so. I only pointed out, that instead of having a top10 criteria to look upon, it would be better to compare the relative difference in average speed between the riders, in the particulair stage being analysed. And yet again, I still think such an analysis can not be used to any attempt to build up suspicion -when it only stands alone. If you combine it with other facts, it might however be interesting in a more complex analysis.
|
Edited by - KD teammate on 29/09/2008 19:42:43 |
|
|
|
CrossRacer
National Champion
USA
322 Posts |
Posted - 30/09/2008 : 19:06:51
|
| Most of us have probably heard about this by now, but I don't remember seeing it in the forum yet: a 20 month ban was suggested for Ricco instead of the normal 24 months. CONI will be making the final verdict. |
|
|
|
Quiche
Elite Rider
Denmark
134 Posts |
Posted - 30/09/2008 : 19:36:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Police
Some rumors from the newspaper Gazet van Antwerpen concerning 14 riders who is under "investigation" for drug use in this years TDF. The distribution looks like this: two from Ag2r-La Mondiale, three from Saunier Duval-Scott, two from Columbia, five from CSC-Saxo Bank and two from Gerolsteiner.
If this has what so ever some thruth its indeed chocking news and then I would like say its more or less the closure of CSC-SaxoBank and Columbia who "fights" doping hardest in the peloton.
It has become WAY WAY WAY to easy to claim that bike riders are doped.
One source can just claim that 14 riders are doped without anyone questioning whether or not this might be false. The entire Danish press are posting this as if it's true just because this newspaper "Le Soir" is claiming this.
Instead of waiting for the French doping agency or UCI or whomever should confirm anything the papers just hang out riders uncritically.
No one trusts the riders even if the whole thing might prove to be wrong. It's a damn shame.
I have complete confidence in what Bo Belhage and Rasmus Damsgaard are saying about the case. I have no reason whatso ever not to believe them since Bispebjerg hospital is still considered at the top of the game in fighting doping.
The riders would not have been able to take CERA without it showing in their blood values. The whole point in taking EPO/CERA is to strengthen your blood, so if it doesn't show in your blood, it's pretty clear.
It would really make Belhage/Damsgaard/Bispebjerg look like fools if they came out now and denied it even though it's true. They would never again have any credit in the field of anti doping.
Therefore I am completely sure "Le Soir" have taken a chance and are running a story on hear say basis alone. Papers makes more mistakes than riders, but apparently they can don't have to suffer from it. They can just go about doing their rumor stories again and again. |
|
|
|
hobo
Stagiaire
12 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 09:09:10
|
| On Cyclingnews, they said, that the whole procedure takes 10 - 15 days and they just started now. So if some of the "suspicious" tests turn out to verify a positive, we will know about 14 days from now. What really annoys me, is the way the riders are treated. If everybody agrees to have the "see-through-cyclist" with all values available until the end of time, then they should be treating those data like any other medical data. Everybody who writes names or teams shouldn't be allowed to write anything ever again. What would be more sad, if someone really told names and all those rumours turn out to be true. |
|
|
|
Quiche
Elite Rider
Denmark
134 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2008 : 01:16:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by hobo
On Cyclingnews, they said, that the whole procedure takes 10 - 15 days and they just started now. So if some of the "suspicious" tests turn out to verify a positive, we will know about 14 days from now. What really annoys me, is the way the riders are treated. If everybody agrees to have the "see-through-cyclist" with all values available until the end of time, then they should be treating those data like any other medical data. Everybody who writes names or teams shouldn't be allowed to write anything ever again. What would be more sad, if someone really told names and all those rumours turn out to be true.
And on a different note, l'Equipe has now confirmed that there are only a maximum of ten of these so called suspicious tests that are still considered suspicious.
I have talked to a very well-informed French journalist today and he told me, that the reason why it wasn't a French paper breaking this whole story is because the case wasn't even half way settled yet when Gazetta and Le Soir snooped up rumours at the World Championship.
He said that to begin with they had made some blood profiles for these riders and that they were going to add more parameters to about 35-40 tests. This number was then brought down to about 23-25 tests and further down to 14-15 tests as they put in the numbers from these riders and now they are down to somewhere in between 6 and 10 tests. So a maximum of ten and possibly only six (or less) of the tests are really suspicious and will be tested for CERA.
In other words: Not surpricingly Le Soir and La Gazzetta simply jumped the gun and brought an unfounded story throwing around a lot of suspicion on innocent riders.
And what is even worse: Le Soir has been guessing about which riders could be included and for instance they have just thrown suspicion to riders who has cancelled their participance in the World Championship. Which is why Cancellara, O'Grady and Sastre have been mentioned. And I guess Frank Schleck is included because it would be an easy guess after the Puerto thing. |
|
|
|
CrossRacer
National Champion
USA
322 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2008 : 15:17:22
|
| Ricco received a 24 month ban. 18 months for doping at the Tour and another 6 months for using a banned doctor. Ricco's ban will expire July 30, 2010. |
|
|
|
Culkasi
Hors Categorie
United Kingdom
4080 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2008 : 17:44:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by CrossRacer
Ricco received a 24 month ban. 18 months for doping at the Tour and another 6 months for using a banned doctor. Ricco's ban will expire July 30, 2010.
I think its a joke - they can't give him a 6 month discount for telling how he doped, and then give him an extra 6 months because he worked with that specific doctor. Now we'll never see riders cooperate again
Culkasi |
|
|
|
KD teammate
Hors Categorie
Denmark
5683 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2008 : 10:00:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Culkasi
quote:
Originally posted by CrossRacer
Ricco received a 24 month ban. 18 months for doping at the Tour and another 6 months for using a banned doctor. Ricco's ban will expire July 30, 2010.
I think its a joke - they can't give him a 6 month discount for telling how he doped, and then give him an extra 6 months because he worked with that specific doctor. Now we'll never see riders cooperate again.
I dont agree. First of all, Ricco still recieved a substantial bennefit of his collaboration! The ethical rules have pointed out, that a rider recieving a suspension below 2 years (e.g. due to collaboration), wont recieve the additional 2 year suspension from ProTour teams, and wont recieve the requirement from UCI to pay 1-years salery before he returns! So basicly, Ricco had these two options:
1) Admit and frame an already lifetime suspended doctor:
Suspension = 2 years (§2.1) - 0.5 years (§10.5.3 for collaboration) + 0.5 years (§16.4 in Italy, for using a doctor without license) = 2 years
2) Refuse everything without collaboration:
Suspension = 2 years (§2.1) + 2 years (additional from all ProTour teams) = 4 years (plus additional payment to UCI of 1 years salery)!
The essence is, that Italy have a clear extra rule (§16.4) in their national antidoping law, that prohibits any athlete to receive medical treatment from a doctor/person, without any medical license within the sports federation. According to the nature and extend of why the athelte violated rule 16.4, the suspension can variate between 1 month-6 months. This rule was by the way, also used to suspend Danilo Di Luca, A.Spezialetti, S.Masciarelli and R.Marzoli in the Operation Oil for Drugs case. So when Ricco admits that he also violated this rule (with the purpose to dope with CERA), its only fair he recieves an additional 6 month for violating rule 16.4.
In my point of view, rule 16.4 is fair and excellent, and should really be copied into the official UCI rules to apply for all riders in all nations. The idea to punish riders, who take advantage of medical advice from doctors without a license from the sports federation, is needed to narrow down the option for riders to hide a potential doping use. When its only allowed to use official doctors inside a team or sports federation (with a license), then we have a much more controlled environment. Second of all, the rule also help to enforce, that a doctor who is suspended for lifetime from the sport (and thereby lost his license), also dont have the option to just open up his private practice, and just continue offering the riders/athletes his "medical treatment" from his private office instead! |
Edited by - KD teammate on 03/10/2008 10:26:42 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Doping affairs in Cycling since 1980
