Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
1,349 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5222488

Not the first time we've heard of USPS getting advanced warning of "surprise" dope controls.

Microdosing with EPO to avoid the biopassport detecting blood transfusions, brilliant.

Who was it on Bruyneel's team that just happened to have left early one day for a stage of the Vuelta when the testers showed up? Contador? and ?

Warning, the article is poorly written; e.g. it talks about beating the biopassport and USPS together, as if that would have even been a concern at that time.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
There are more time line issues here.

Why would you need to microdose in 2005? Michael Ashenden says it's only become a bigger problem in the last year after people found ways to get around the passport. It doesn't make sense to me that riders would need to micro dose when there was no out of competition testing.

I think this is a PR move by Landis in response to the claims from teams and riders that there is no point investigating what happened years ago. Now he has found a way to link it to the present system, despite the fact he was never apart of the blood passport system himself.

Smart move though.
 

· ..............
Joined
·
793 Posts
What is interesting to me is that Floyd's claims sound a whole lot like former Kelme rider Jesus Manzano's claims dating back to the 2003 tour. I recall that Manzano made statements to the effect that they would get tip-offs about when the vampires were coming and they would pump themselves full of saline through an IV so that they wouldn't test positive. I also remembering him claiming that after the IV they would feel like crap and have a horrible stage that day.

Like Floyd, Manzano was discounted as a nutjob who just wanted revenge on Kelme for firing him, and that he only made up the stories to get a big payoff for his story etc....

While Floyd has destroyed nearly all of his credibility, I believe there is a fair bit of truth in his allegations, regardless of his motives and some likely embelishments and half-truths thrown in for good measure. I don't think we're going to see a lot of hard evidence come to light, but enough of Floyd's statement seem to ring true to me.

The sad thing is that when you engage in doping you are, by definition, a cheat and a liar. You have no credibilty, and that will always be the first defense against anyone who opens their mouths about doping and makes accusations.

If there is any hope to come out of Floyd-Gate, maybe it will lead to the testers getting a few steps closer to the dopers for a while. I've gotten the impression that Manzano's claims played at least a small role in breaking Operation Pureto (Fuentes being Manzano's former dope doctor at Kelme).

Maybe we'll see something similar happen here. I'm not holding my breath though.
 

· Back from the dead
Joined
·
20,800 Posts
I didn't see a whole lot of new details from Landis. Most of this stuff has been discussed here already.

To me, the most surprising in that article is that Ashenden was surprised. I thought he was supposed to be the expert on EPO testing. I'm shocked, frankly. It's hard to imagine riders could figure this stuff out and he couldn't.
 

· ..............
Joined
·
793 Posts
TWD said:
I believe there is a fair bit of truth in his allegations, regardless of his motives and some likely embelishments and half-truths thrown in for good measure. I don't think we're going to see a lot of hard evidence come to light, but enough of Floyd's statement seem to ring true to me.
Of course, it's also pretty easy to argue the other side, that Floyd's claims are all made up and only corroborate the rumors we've all heard. Precisely because Floyd's claims are based on info provided by those same rumors, leaks and past claims from sources like Manzano.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
mohair_chair said:
I didn't see a whole lot of new details from Landis. Most of this stuff has been discussed here already.

To me, the most surprising in that article is that Ashenden was surprised. I thought he was supposed to be the expert on EPO testing. I'm shocked, frankly. It's hard to imagine riders could figure this stuff out and he couldn't.
Yes Ashenden was being disingenuous. He has known about micro dosing for years.

But Ashenden does also point out they could still well test positive for an early morning test, so really this is not about micro dosing and more about have advanced warning of a test. I doubt that sort of thing goes on anymore. Remember at the time out of compeition testing was just starting and doesn't have the procedures that it does today.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,349 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Rex Hunter said:
There are more time line issues here.

Why would you need to microdose in 2005? Michael Ashenden says it's only become a bigger problem in the last year after people found ways to get around the passport. It doesn't make sense to me that riders would need to micro dose when there was no out of competition testing.

I think this is a PR move by Landis in response to the claims from teams and riders that there is no point investigating what happened years ago. Now he has found a way to link it to the present system, despite the fact he was never apart of the blood passport system himself.

Smart move though.
This is why someone who understands the issue should be doing the interview, not someone who covers "tennis and Olympic sports". Who knows how much it is Floyd's statements vs. the author creating the jumbled mess.

Anyone with any knowledge would have asked him about why he was worried about reticulocytes, etc. when the biopassport wasn't around a couple years ago and he's never had to worry about it. As far as microdosing, you'd still need to do it during races to avoid the controls even in the absence of OOC testing.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
danielc said:
Brings to mind that one time a tester showed up to Armstrong's house and didn't have access for 1hr while Armstrong took a shower and Bruyneel entertained.

In this case Armstrong had the right to make the tester wait. Protocol is for the testers to travel in pairs. For their protection as well as the riders. This guy showed up alone. Also, there are not that many testers, most of them are known to the riders. (that could create all kinds of payola issues) This guy was also from the French Regulatory Body, (can't rember the acronym right now). Why was he testing on American soil. I could understand if it was US or UCI authorities. They had every right and Johan even had the duty to get verification before they let him take samples.

If someone appeared at your door to take a blood sample wouldn't you demand some proof that they were indeed there legally and had the right, authority, and just cause to stick a needle in your arm and withdraw you blood?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
ronnoX said:
In this case Armstrong had the right to make the tester wait. Protocol is for the testers to travel in pairs. For their protection as well as the riders. This guy showed up alone. Also, there are not that many testers, most of them are known to the riders. (that could create all kinds of payola issues) This guy was also from the French Regulatory Body, (can't rember the acronym right now). Why was he testing on American soil. I could understand if it was US or UCI authorities. They had every right and Johan even had the duty to get verification before they let him take samples.

If someone appeared at your door to take a blood sample wouldn't you demand some proof that they were indeed there legally and had the right, authority, and just cause to stick a needle in your arm and withdraw you blood?
Wasn't it in France?

The problem wasn't the time taken to confirm the guy was legit, the problem was Armstrong left his presence.
 

· What? Me worry?
Joined
·
815 Posts
Landis doesn't really bring any new facts to light. He has just repeated and elaborated on accusations many others have made in the past. At this point it's pretty naive to believe that doping isn't pervasive in pro cycling, but without clear, factual evidence it's doubtful that much will come of his revelations.

Now, the real goal should be cleaning up the sport for the future. Will the legal and media circus that would precede attempts to catch and punish riders who doped in the past significantly contribute toward attaining that goal, or will efforts to drag down the big names who cheated just diminish the sport? It's a tough call, particularly since it's highly probable that they all doped. It's not like the playing field wasn't level.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,342 Posts
StillRiding said:
Landis doesn't really bring any new facts to light. He has just repeated and elaborated on accusations many others have made in the past. At this point it's pretty naive to believe that doping isn't pervasive in pro cycling, but without clear, factual evidence it's doubtful that much will come of his revelations.
eyewitness testimony, which is what Landis providing, is direct evidence. Whether you want to believe the evidence or not is your problem.

http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2010/05/24/truth-lies-and-evidence/
 

· Registered
Joined
·
474 Posts
ronnoX said:
Colorado

Your right Armstrong should not have left his presence
Not splitting hairs but it was in France while he was training for Milan-San Remo. It was an out of competiton test by the French anti-doping authorities.

Since he is training in France at the moment I see a few more hair-pluckings in his short-term future.
 

· What? Me worry?
Joined
·
815 Posts
blackhat said:
eyewitness testimony, which is what Landis providing, is direct evidence. Whether you want to believe the evidence or not is your problem.

http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2010/05/24/truth-lies-and-evidence/
There are already many people who have offered eye-witness testimony, but he-said, she-said is not even going to make it in front of a judge. If Landis can provide hard evidence (which he has admitted that he can't) then it would be a different story. Maybe investigators will be spurred by his revelations to dig deep enough to discover hard evidence. If so, lots of big names are going to be brought down. But, the question still remains: will that be good or bad for the future of the sport? Or, would it just be better to avoid the circus and just focus on making changes to ensure a clean future? Who knows?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,611 Posts
blackhat said:
eyewitness testimony, which is what Landis providing, is direct evidence. Whether you want to believe the evidence or not is your problem.

http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2010/05/24/truth-lies-and-evidence/
I think the point is that Landis' statements indeed are direct evidence, but his credibility (either in a hearing or other tribunal) is subject to some serious impeachment because he's an admitted liar (on multiple fronts). The better evidence that is needed is physical evidence, like a videotape, an audiotape, photographs, or doped blood that can conclusively be matched to its source. That's what's lacking here. So what Landis is throwing out is nothing new. I'm sure by now Lance has engaged his law firm to prepare a detailed press release picking apart all of Floyd's statements that will portray Floyd in a very negative light. I'm not taking sides here -- just pointing out that in the absence of a true smoking gun, all of this is old hat -- unless Floyd has something else up his sleeve that he hasn't revealed. (His diary entries are all self-serving statements, so I don't think that's particularly helpful.)
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top