Danilo Di Luca had a bad day today, but it wasn’t out on the roads of the Tour de France. Di Luca and his team weren’t invited to participate in this year’s Tour, so he’s had to find other ways to practice his profession this month. Today, however, some test results from the Giro d’Italia caught up with Di Luca, and those results weren’t good news for the Italian rider.
Based on the results of the intial testing of two of Di Luca’s anti-doping samples from the Giro, it’s alleged that he used CERA, a blood-boosting drug related to EPO. Earlier today, the International Cycling Union (UCI) announced that they have provisionally suspended the Italian based on tests taken on May 20 and May 28. As reported at CyclingNews.com:
“These adverse findings were a direct result of a targeted test programme conducted on Mr Di Luca using information from his biological passport’s blood profile, previous test results and his race schedule,” the UCI press release stated.
“This is further proof that the system works and we are determined to get rid of the cheats,” UCI president Pat McQuaid told Cyclingnews‘ Shane Stokes.
McQuaid’s comment today comes just over a week after he denied a Spanish newspaper’s story that the Italian rider was a target of a biological passport investigation. Exactly what kind of penalty Di Luca faces for the offense is uncertain, according to CyclingNews.com’s article. Although the cyclist served a three-month ban for his connection to the Italian “Oil for Drugs” scandal:
It is still unclear as to whether or not Di Luca would face a possible lifetime ban for a second doping offence. “I’m not sure of the regulations on this but I don’t think it would count as a second offence. But that is for the legal people to determine,” said McQuaid.
CNN.com adds Di Luca’s comments regarding today’s developments.
Di Luca told he reporters he was clean, saying: “Would I be so stupid as to take CERA at the Tour of Italy one year after (Ricardo) Ricco, (Emanuele) Sella and (Davide) Rebellin were caught.
“I’ve fallen from the clouds, it’s really very strange, so much so that I couldn’t say how I feel. A two-year ban would be a terrible penalty for me which would force me to retire.
“For me it’s important now to have the B samples tested in a different laboratory to the one in Paris because I’ve heard they use some very strange methods.
“How do I feel? How should I feel? I know what’s awaiting me. But most of all I know that if it’s confirmed this will be the end for me.”
Di Luca’s plans to race the Brixia Tour in Italy appear to be shelved at this point, as does his participation in the World Championships in September.
What seems odd about the case is that it’s taken so long for the results to be announced. Maybe I’m imagining things, but didn’t the AFLD/LNDD manage to announce positive test results for the same drug last year while the riders implicated were still competing at the 2008 Tour de France? Seems like those test results came back in a week to 10 days, not 60 days. I’m certainly puzzled and curious about what’s taking so long.
But then again, as one comment by eightzero to the previous post points out, two months after the event is over, the negative publicity from such test results does much less damage to the organizers, or even the sponsors.
Today’s news makes me wonder whether we can anticipate some similar news come September, this time with one or more riders from the Tour turning up positive for one banned substance or another. And, given how long it took for Di Luca’s A sample results to come back, does this mean that the B sample results will come back in September, also? My guess is that it will be an interesting month for the sport of cycling, and not just because of the drama that unfolds during the Vuelta á España.
In Other News
Over at VeloNews.com, Michael Berry offers up his take on the whole Hincapie/Maillot Jaune fiasco of a few days back.
In cycling, it is said there are no favors. This is rubbish. Life is full of favors, as is cycling. Teams help each other knowing the favor will be returned. Teams cooperate in every race I ride. The greatest champions have won not only because they are the strongest but also because other teams have given them support.
I know that the riders from Garmin, a Girona-based team, didn’t want to set off in pursuit of George. They had no reason to ride, aside from following the orders, which came over their radios. And, I know they now dearly regret their pursuit. But still they rode.
Berry’s article is an interesting read. If you haven’t already done so, give it a look.
Stage 17 is always interesting
Today’s stage certainly had an odd moment. At one point it appeared as if Alberto Contador attacked his own teammate, Andreas Klöden. Not exactly sure what to make of the move, or whether it was orchestrated or spontaneous. Whatever the case, it’s one of those events that will be debated, I suspect, for quite some time to come.
And speaking of tactics, if the Schleck brothers’ ride today was an attempt to put the hurt to the current leader of the Tour, it didn’t appear to work. But it sure did take a lot of time away from the other riders, knocking Lance Armstrong and Bradley Wiggins (among others) down in the standings. Tomorrow’s time trial may shuffle the deck yet again, depending on how well the brothers from Luxembourg hold up. I’m guessing that one of them will drop in the general classification once the last rider (Contador) cruises across the finish line and eveything is tallied up.
Re Stage 17:
Lance twittered “Getting lots of question why AC attacked and dropped Kloden. I still haven’t figured it out either. Oh well.”
I guess AC loves cancer.
Um, maybe AC is NOT he sharpest knife in the drawer, so to speak 🙂
OK, spot the paraphrased reference (without using Google):
“There’s a cancer growing on this team, Mr. Bruyneel … “
🙂
um, TBV. What are you trying to say?
This actually should come as a surprise to no one. Let’s review some highlights from Alberto Contador’s career:
Mallorca Challenge, 2008. Alberto learns during the fourth stage that ASO will not invite Astana to the Tour de France; whereupon he takes off on a solo breakaway, repeatedly screaming “Astana a la Tour!” into the accompanying moto camera. He is, of course, swept up before the finish.
Vuelta a Espana, 2008. Contador, the overall winner, complains that Levi Leipheimer (second overall) rode too well in the time trials and endangered his lead. He also remarks to the press that he wanted to gift Stage 14, not to his teammate Leipheimer, who accompanied him, or to Ezequiel Mosquera, who did much of the pulling in the break, but to Alejandro Valverde of Caisse d’Epargne.
Paris-Nice, 2009. Race leader Contador takes off without his team, bonks, and negotiates with his friend Luis Leon Sanchez of Caisse d’Epargne to ride ahead and win the stage. In fact, Sanchez puts so much time into Contador that he takes over the classification and wins not only the stage, but the whole race. Contador later admits he didn’t expect Sanchez to ride so far ahead, but gets annoyed when Lance Armstrong points out what a colossal error it was.
Dauphiné Libéré, 2009. Alejandro Valverde of Caisse d’Epargne pats Alberto Contador on the back and grins as they go over the last mountain together, with Valverde leading the race, Contador in third. Valverde publicly states that Alberto helped him to win the Dauphiné and he plans to return the favor in the coming Tour de France.
Could there be a pattern here?
I think the worst incident by far is the 2009 Paris-Nice debacle. That was a difficult week for Astana, with two concurrent races – Paris-Nice conflicts with Tirreno-Adriatico – and a former winner of each race as team leader. If they’d known li’l Alberto was going to screw around, they could have put all their resources in Italy with Kloeden and cut their losses.
How does Alberto thinks he’s getting a ride to the Vuelta after the performances he’s put in this week? I cannot imagine that Alexandre Vinokourov would put up with him. Honestly, I have trouble understanding why Johan Bruyneel stood it so long.
Liggett junkie,
Thanks for that summary. And here I thought that Contador was doing a “reverse Hinault” on Armstrong and the team. Turns out, he’s just impetuous and uncontrolable …
I do think that Bruyneel embarrassed himself by not clearly naming Contador as leader before the race. What happened inside Astana team is a joke for most of the people, and it’s not Contador’s fault.
About the move of Contador there is no risk, he was clearly stronger than the 2 Schleck, he was trying to win the stage. Probably he hoped that only one Schleck, and maybe Klöden, could come with him because of the wind so they would share the work with him, the 2 have a common interest.
The dream of some people to have an Astana podium is not the problem of Contador who has to secure his win, even against his teammates whom he can clearly trust.
In that stage there were 2 people to blame: Klöden who didn’t eat enough, the DS who was driving behind Contador and Kloden, he didn’t folow his leader, if he had a puncture he should have waited.
It’s funny too that Bruyneel was in favor to radio and he is enable to use them to check if his own riders have well eaten and drink!
After ITT, I do think that all is clear for everyone.
… And an idiot. He will NOT learn from experience.
I don’t know how much JB should be embarrassed: as things stand he could quite likely have 2 riders on the podium in Paris and one other in the top 10.
He had 4 riders who could possibly win. Name one as the leader from the start and that puts a big target on that rider’s back. Plus, if he were to suffer some setback, like an injury or illness, or simply could make the effort required, you might not have a backup. Suppose Armstrong had been named the leader: he couldn’t apparently keep up with that break last week, but no problem for the team, AC was there.
Not that I am defending AC, all he had to do on S17 was stay with the Schleck bros, not attack them. Same for anyone else who might have possibly caught up to them.
William,
To win TDF, it’s the first goal of a time. To bet to put 2 or 3 of his riders on the podium can be stupid if you don’t secure the win.
Contador had a big interest to gain time on most of other contenders. With that margin he can be quiet, punctures while a strategic moment or a bad day should be not a problem.
As we can see after TT, the Schleck are still able to do 2 and 3. With or without Contador’s attack nothing would have changed. In all cases Klöden was going to bonk and the brothers would have kept or increased the tempo.
As manager of a team, even when the leader or a player do an error you have no interest to put more pressure on him during the event, you just have to give advice to repeat that mistake. His job is to give more confidence to his athletes. DS will wait the end of TDF to point errors and mistakes done. As manager I would not tolerate members of my team to critizise openly other riders. There is some old bears who have still a lot to learn! ;D
Sorry read “first goal of a team”… too late
I am no expert in cycling, but I think Jean C has a point about the podium. I cannot think of a Tour where any team worked to place multiple team members on the podium. I don’t remember a Postal team, or a Discovery team, that cared who came in second or third in Paris. And when Lance was winning races, I don’t remember his being concerned about accelerating away from teammates. Instead, I remember his teammates leading attacks to launch Lance up the road to victory (while the teammates eventually fell away exhausted from the effort).
AC is the obvious leader of Astana, and based on the little I know about cycling, he’s not required to help his teammates finish higher in the standings. He’s only required to take the clearest and most intelligent path to finishing first in Paris.
Jean C, to continue my thought, I’m not being critical of LA or JB either. AC is just like Lemond on a team with Hinault. If you are AC or Lemond and you ride on a team with an aging star like Hinault or LA, arguably your “job” is to give the aging star a chance to win the race if possible.
Jean C, is there any doubt in your mind that Lemond was the better rider in 1985? Or that Hinault was looking for some way to win again in 1986?
This is an old story.
This is getting a little bothersome. This is also what happens when you stack a team with leaders. Let’s look back when Johan only had one leader on the team.
When Lance was boss, Johan drilled it into the team that they were not to even think of a personal result. One time, Johan thought Floyd went too hard in a TT and did not use it to rest, he reamed him out. When riders dropped off the pace in helping Lance, they were told to soft pedal and conserve energy. This is why so many riders left US Postal. To ride for themselves. If they stayed with US Postal, they knew they were only there for Armstrong.
If Lance thought he needed to attack, he had the freedom to do so.
Why are folks sniping at Contador for not trying to help Kloden? If Contador wanted to attack and widen his lead, he should have been allowed to. Kloden should have been told to soft pedal to the finish.
We can debate whether the attack was smart but that should be it.
I am actually surprised at how well Lance is handling the issue. Would you want to ask Bill Gates to come work for you? Of course not. He has been in charge too long.
Larry,
In 1986, Hinault and Lemond were 2 real contenders at the same level, there were no doubt. Here LA come back after 3 years off and 37 year old and more important no real performance: a very different situation.
So no reason to be unfair with Contador. Probably Armstrong was only the 4th of the team. To put him as equal of Contador was a serious mistake.
In 1986, we had less coverage than today. I do think that Hinault has tried to win it but by forcing the decision on the road and no tricks during the race. He launched 2 massives cycling attacks in Pyrenees. The first day, he built a 4minutes advantages with Delgado, and a lead of 5’25 on GC on Lemond 2nd. He could have stopped there, and managed it, he would have won his 6th TDF but no, he repeated it the following day, bonked and lost 4mn on Lemond.
So for me, he wanted to win but by letting no doubt to Lemond: ” I won because I have done what I needed.”
In the first ITT 65km, Hinault had beaten Lemond by 44sec. So I think that Hinault was probably stronger, at least at the beginning of the Tour but Lemond may have to be the strongest at the end.
Hinault like Merckx were generous riders, not afraid to attack, they have more pleasure by riding so. The Badger seems not to like how it’s now, so do Fignon.
Of course, it was always better in the old days, but probably they are right, we have often boring races, thanks to earphones which give teams the possibility to react rapidly to any attack!
I’ll admit that the big goal is the yellow jersey while also pointing out that there are a number of goals in the Tour: KOM, Green Jersey, stage wins, etc. With that in mind, it certainly looks quite likely that AC, JB, and Astana will have accomplished this by Sunday, barring either a major collapse on the Ventoux and/or a super attack by Schleck. So what does JB have to be embarrassed about? Lance mounting the podium on Sunday is probably not quite as solid as AC, but it certainly is possible. More gravy.
And we do not know the inner working of the team. Maybe all these questions about who the leader is was a smokescreen and AC was the designee all along. LA never, to the best of my knowledge, attacked AC; maybe because he no longer has the legs, and maybe because the team goal all along was to have AC win, with Lance, Levi, and Kloden as super domestiques and insurance if AC were to falter. Within that scenario, LA still could get POed about AC attacking to his and Kloden’s determent, not that I necessarily agree with him.
Some winners tend to do just what is required to win and then back off. Anquetil was famous for this, part of the reason that Polidor was more popular. Others, like Merykx (sp?) were known to attack as often as possible, even when not necessary to win overall. The public tends to favor the later type of rider, but if the minimalist strategy works, who can fault it? And what if there are a few squabbles in the Astana team? Might be different if the team had fallen apart, but as of this point in time you can’t argue with the results.