Team OUCH’s season is done with Sunday’s final stage of the Tour of Missouri, and the team’s future seems to be somewhat in question if you believe the twitrumors:
from fakefloydlandis:
That’s the end of OUCH for a lot of folks, just want to say thanks to everybody, especially Brent. Remember, the Wolfman abides.
Sponsorship, as it all too often is these days, appears to be at the heart of the concerns and as news on that front comes out you’ll know when we do.
Congrats to (Landis friend) Garmin’s Dave Zabriskie who won the whole enchilada! And until we hear more from OUCH, here is their final presser on the ToM:
Kansas City, MO – Andrew Pinfold of the OUCH Pro Cycling Team Presented by Maxxis took a very close 2nd in the final sprint of the final stage of the Tour of Missouri To Martin Gilbert (Planet Energy).
Pinfold was put into perfect position by teammate Karl Menzies inside the final kilometer, and they both benefited from an attack by Tim Johnson with 3 km to go which kept the pace high.
Once Johnson was caught, Mick Rogers (Columbia-HTC) also had a go. “It was hard racing,” Pinfold noted.
Coming into the final kilometer, Cervelo Test Team took over the front to bring back Rogers and set up 2009 Tour de France Green Jersey winner Thor Hushovd for the sprint.
But with 500 meters to go, “Menzies came over the top of the Cervelo train and dropped me off on Thor’s wheel,” Pinfold said. “I was able to come around Thor. Then it was a drag race with Gilbert to the line. He started his sprint a bit earlier than I did. It came down to a bike throw.
“We were close a few times this week,” Pinfold said. “Today was a bit bittersweet. It would’ve been great to get the win for the team, but it was still good to get the result at the end.”
Pinfold’s trip to the podium wrapped up a solid week of racing by OUCH Presented by Maxxis. The team put U.S. Criterium Champion John Murphy in the top 10 of a couple stages, and Brad White got to the podium on Stage 4 by virtue of earning Most Aggressive Rider for the stage. And Rory Sutherland parlayed a strong 10th place in the Stage 5 individual time trial to finish the Tour in 10th overall.
“The guys raced well all week,” said team director Sportif Mike Tamayo. “Sometimes those efforts don’t always show up on the results sheet. But we were active in every stage, Murphy was sprinting well and Karl and Pinner did a great job of finishing things off today on a high note.”
Rant, I didn’t know if you caught this one:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/astarloza-blames-positive-on-training-session-horrillo-back-on-bike
According to Deia, that defence is being organised by ex-pro and now lawyer José Rodríguez, who believes that Astarloza’s problems stem from a session on his home trainer in a hyperbaric tent immediately prior to undergoing a random test on June 26.
On the surface, it’s an interesting argument. I’m not sure scientifically if it holds any water though…
MikeG
Well, the articles does make vague reference to scientific studies. Whether any such studies are conclusive and directly on point is another question.
Mike,
It’s an interesting claim, to be sure. I’m a bit skeptical, to be honest. I’m not sure what data the doping charges are based on off the top of my head (blood values? urine samples? both?), but the idea that the changes that triggered the positive result occurred during the training session, itself, and would have been gone an hour later seems a bit fantastical. I would like to see more of the evidence that Astarloza’s lawyers have dug up, in order to know what to make of it all.
I’ve been pondering this a bit more and it does seem a bit far fetched. Of course, hyperbaric training, whether in a tent or just by going to someplace at altitude, can produce effects (that’s the whole point, after all) but typically the effect take a while to take place, at least a matter of days.
It would also seem that such a defense, even if there was some scientific basis to it, would only work against indirect evidence, like blood values; and not against direct evidence of a banned substance, i.e., a blood or urine test which detects the presence of a substance.
Quiet here.
I’m wondering if I’d pay more attention to the Vuelta if Valverde wasn’t in the lead. Isn’t he like a conviced doper in some other country? If this race somehow was at least partly in that other country, he couldn’t even be in the race? So what law applies to a race dictates who can be in it?
Nothing like sport to transcend boundaries.
And isn’t Valverde on the same team that had a guy second in the TdF a few years back?
Valverde was linked to the OP affair. In 2007, UCI apparently tried to ban him from the Worlds, but CAS ruled in his favor. Italy has claimed to have DNA evidence that some blood seized in the OP affair is his, and banned him from competing in Italy for 2 years. So yes, if the Vuelta were to enter Italy (not likely, considering the geography), he would be out.
But having different statuses in different jurisdiction is not all that uncommon.
Astarloza was convincted with an urine test. There is some old scientific studies claiming that hct could be raised after the use of a tent but I don’t know one alleging the creation of rEPO !
Maybe Astarloza should have had Damsgaard for personnal “anti”-doping program…
Jean,
I could believe that the use of a tent could raise certain values, like the hematocrit. Although, I find it a bit of a stretch that it would happen right away. The body needs a bit of time to make those extra blood cells and all. Like you, I can’t imagine how using a tent could cause the athlete to show indications of using EPO or one of its variants.
The use of the tent should cause natural production of EPO, and most likely almost immediately. The hematocrit wouldn’t respond very quickly as it takes a few days to produce a red blood cell (but jumps in EPO do cause early release of cells already in production).
It’d be interesting to see these studies. If freshly produced natural EPO can look like synthetic EPO, and there’s papers that say that, it would throw all EPO tests into doubt (again). I’m just guessing that’s what they say, I can’t think of anything else at the moment.
As usual, my feeling is the don’t have sufficient background info on how their EPO test works. The general case works, and that’s good enough. They never look for the corner cases that might trigger a false positive.
tom
Tom,
Interesting angle. If what you posit is correct about the test (fresh natural EPO could appear to be synthetic in the test’s eyes), then you’re right. It would throw the tests into doubt, again.
I seem to recall that there are actually several different forms of EPO the body produces. One tends to be more dominant than the others. “Synthetic EPO” supposedly mimics (or is the same as) one of the less dominant forms, and the conjecture I saw was that when one of those lesser forms is present in too large a quantity, the athlete must have doped. If I’m recalling the case of Rutger Beke correctly, he was able to show — via additional testing — that his “positive” result was merely the way his own body happened to work, he happens to produce the various natural forms in amounts that differ from what the test anticipates.
It will be very interesting to see how this plays out.