There doesn’t seem to be much in the way of overt doping action going on in the 2011 edition of the Grand Boucle (a/k/a the Tour de France). That’s a good thing. Less time spent on scandals and more time on the actual racing is just fine with me. I don’t doubt that someone might test positive (though I hope it doesn’t turn out to be whoever eventually wins the race), but for the moment I’ll bask in the glow of a stage race that seems to be all about, well, racing. What a concept.
For the past 10 stages or so, Thomas Voeckler, the French rider with the German last name, has held on to the much coveted maillot jaune (or, as Phil and Paul sometimes call it, the “golden fleece”). Voeckler has downplayed his chances for winning the Tour in various statements to the cycling press. And yet, he’s still going to be wearing the yellow jersey on the last mountain stage of this year’s Tour. The French rider seemed to turn himself inside out to hang with the favorites on the last climb of today’s stage, managing to reach the line just 15 seconds before he would have had to hand over the leader’s jersey to Andy Schleck.
Schleck certainly gets the award for the gutsiest ride of the day, breaking away from the other contenders about halfway up the Col d’Izoard and managing to catch and then ultimately drop every one of the riders up the road. Depending on how things play out, this may turn out to be the winning move in a race where many of the favored riders have been playing it safe. Cadel Evans, twice the bridesmaid but never the bride, put in a gargantuan effort to preserve his chance, but has shied away from making too many aggressive moves during the course of this year’s circuit of France. And three-time winner Alberto Contador looked like he finally cracked, losing time to Schleck and the others who are in striking distance of the Parisian podium.
I wouldn’t count Contador completely out, though. Perhaps he went out drinking tonight, pounding a few beers to drown his sorrows. And perhaps he’ll launch an audacious attack tomorrow early in the stage. And if all that works out, perhaps he’ll claw back enough time to get back into contention. It’s been done before. Five years ago, to be precise. You remember, don’t you? Floyd Landis and his ultimately star-crossed raid on Stage 17 of the 2006 Tour.
Funny, none of the Versus commentators seemed to remember or mention that particular exploit. A bold attack on the day after a humbling experience in the Alps. There seems to be a collective amnesia, or perhaps a desire to wish that memory away. Or perhaps it’s just a topic that is completely verboten in the cycling press is one entertains any hope of covering Tours to come.
Whatever the case, Stage 19 is looking to be an exciting day. If Voeckler manages to hold the maillot jaune for another day, it will all come down to the time trial in Grenoble. (As an aside, the university in Grenoble is where famed French cycling journalist Damien Ressiot earned his master’s degree in … I kid you not … doping studies.) Andy Schleck needs to grab the golden fleece tomorrow in a convincing manner by gaining enough time that his rivals can’t best him in Saturday’s race against the clock. Voeckler, if he manages to hold on another day, also needs to build up enough time to avoid losing it on the penultimate stage. Tomorrow’s stage will be crucial for both riders, as well as for Cadel Evans. Somewhere around 12 hours from now, we’ll have a better sense for who might stand on the top step of the podium come Sunday.
Meanwhile…
In a rather surreal twist to the current investigation into allegations that Lance Armstrong and others on the US Postal/Discovery Channel cycling team used performance-enhancing drugs, Armstrong claims that leaks about testimony before the grand jury amounts to “character assassination” and wants an investigation into who’s leaking the information to the media. (Hat tip to reader MikeG, who posted the link here.) CyclingNews.com reports:
According to the respected Politico news website in the US, Armstrong’s legal team, headed by John W. Keker, contends that leaks about Armstrong had “the obvious intent of legitimizing the government’s investigation of a national hero, best known for his role in the fight against cancer.” The motion suggests that information from the Armstrong investigation has been leaked to the New York Times, Sports Illustrated and 60 Minutes. The motion states that, due to the leaks, “even if exonerated and never charged, Armstrong’s reputation will have been severely damaged”.
Yes, the leaks may damage Armstrong’s reputation. (I could make a snarky comment about Lance knowing a thing or two about character assassination — an oft used tactic in defending his name and reputation, but why would I do a thing like that?) Of course, allegations about how Lance won 7-straight Tours de France have been floating around for years. So I’m not sure that the stories of late will do anything more than confirm most people’s opinions on the subject. Those who support Lance by and large will still support him. And those who think he’s a fraud will find the latest stories as more proof of the correctness of their opinion. Those who have been relatively agnostic on the subject, however, may be swayed by more people telling similar stories about what happened during Lance’s glory days.
And still no word from the grand jury. No indictments. No rumblings of imminent indictments. Nada, zip, zilch, zero. (Just watch, now that I’ve said that, guess what the big story over the weekend will be.)
And the award for the most bizarre doping story in recent months…
… goes to the North Korean women’s soccer players who tested positive for steroids after supposedly consuming a traditional Chinese medicine made from musk deer glands (or deer musk glands, I’m not sure which). William Schart posted a link to this story in comments to the previous post. According to the Associated Press:
“The North Korean officials said they didn’t use it to improve performance. They said they had a serious lightning accident with several players injured and they gave it as therapy,” said Michel D’Hooghe, chief of FIFA’s medical committee. “It is not systemic, because not all of the players took it. We would have found it with the others too.”
Uh-huh. The old “didn’t use it to improve performance” line. Maybe that’s true, and maybe not. But rules are rules, and whether they intended to improve performance or not, WADA’s strict liability standard suggests that the players who tested positive should get two-year bans.
We’re sports utes on dope…
And, speaking of Floyd Landis, it turns out that he’s embarking on a NASCAR career. (Hat tip to austincyclist, who posted the link in this comment.) That reminds me of a post I did a long, long time ago about SUV doping (inspired by a VW Touareg ad). That old post is a humorous take on the VW print ad and Landis’ situation at the time. Who knew that a bit of levity wouldn’t be too far from reality five years on?
Ahh, it’s quite the race this year Rant! I was jumping out of my seat when Andy attacked yesterday…how very audacious! (from now on, I’ll call that kind of move “Andacious”!) I LOVED IT! And Cadel…I’ve been rooting for him this tour becasue it seemed he had shrugged off the ‘old’ Cadel…the guy who always plays it safe, never attacks, etc. Well, saw shades of that guy again yesterday. WHY didn’t he go with Andy? Becasue OLD Cadel was there…and saw that nobody else was going so he played it safe…again. GADS I CAN’T STAND THAT Cadel! HOWEVER, that said, I can’t take away the fact that I was SURE he would have cracked chasing Andy up the final climb, and it was Andy who cracked while Cadel regained almost 2 minutes. So there was that. (however he did appear to be the old whiny Cadel when Contador dropped out of the chase and he was wondering who was gonna help him…once he FINALLY figured that he was on his own the NEW Cadel showed up again and he mann’ed up and did the chase on his own, with amazing results.
I do have this tiny lingering doubt in my mind though (and it’s sad that the current state of affairs have led me to ponder this)…but Voeckler. I am giving him huge credit..however is it too good to be true? This is ala Rasmussen a few years back…from middle of the pack KOM guy to a podium finish? I’m not saying it’s not possible…and surely he’s being tested like crazy…but holy cow! All of a sudden he’s staying on the wheels of the BEST climbers in the world, day after day? I will root for him becasue as long as he doesn’t test positive I’ll keep my rose-colored glasses on and bask in the amazing depth of human suffering they are capable of when striving to achieve greatness. He was pretty much inside-out at the finish last night, and he really needs to add Cadel to his Xmas-card list. I’d like him much more if he had done ANY of the work to keep his yellow the past few days though…in that respect he’s acting much like the Cadel of old.
Watching Contador and Sanchez crack, well…no love lost there. I AM tired of seeing the “chaingate” stuff brought up over and over. And the bit they show where Alberto says he “didn’t know Andy’s chain had dropped, and he had launched his attack” blah blah blah..that’s a bunch of horse-dung. ANDY had attacked and AC was reacting and TRYING to catch him, and he had the best view in the house of the situation. I’ll respect him when he just says the truth: that he saw Andy had a ‘situation’ and he took advantage of it to try to win the race. Pure and simple. Drop the BS line cuz it is obviously a lie. Can’t take away that he’s still prob the best Grand Tour rider in the world right now, and is rightfully a bit off due to his CRUSHING the rest in an amazing show of strength in the Giro.
Just my 2 cents worth…I’ll keep my fingers crossed that NONE of the top guys get popped. If that plays out it will have been one of the best tours in ages. I’m STILL a fan!
Matt,
Great contrast between the “old” Cadel and the “new” Cadel. Evans needs more of the “new” and less of the “old” to win the Tour. He’s certainly sitting in the catbird seat tonight. If he can gain 58 seconds on Andy Schleck tomorrow, he can take home the big trophy this year. Both riders will have sore legs from playing in the Alps the past few days. Hard to predict, but I give Schleck a slight advantage, as he’ll probably be getting updates on how he compares to Evans’ splits as he goes through the course. If his legs aren’t too spent from the last couple of days, Schleck should be able to adjust his effort to keep from losing the maillot jaune to Evans. He just needs to be sure not to go out too hard at first, which is part of what he did last year. But the distance is a bit shorter this year, I believe. So he should be able to sustain a hard effort throughout the race. Guess we have to wait a bit to see how that all plays out.
Voeckler did a whole lot better than some of the pundits thought he would when he first took the yellow jersey. I was hoping that perhaps he could hold on by the skin of his teeth and pull off a time trial good enough to score the first French win in 26 years. Alas, that’s not to be. But props to Tommy V for a hell of a job as the tour leader. That’s the best performance by a French rider in the Tour for quite some time. And props to Pierre Rolland for his stage win today, too.
Once the Tour is on, it’s hard not to be a fan — of the sheer spectacle of the race, at the very least.
Well, it looks like Cadal will climb the top step tomorrow. Now starts the second season, so to speak: the speculation as to who might or might not have doped.
Good for Cadel. He calculated his TT superiority (relative to other GC contenders) quite well. He took a few meaningful jabs earlier in the race and road well to save his race after a mechanical in the high mountains the day before the TT. He is not my favorite rider, but I have to respect his well measured ride in this year’s TdF. Wishing him a smooth ride to the finish line in Paris tomorrow.
As for the next round of doping speculation based upon subjective observations by internet heros, they can take a flying leap. If we continue not to be able to declare a winner at the conclusion of the Tour, then F the anti-doping bureaucracy too. This steaming piece of stupidity is inexcusable:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cas-schedules-cycling-hearings-for-august-and-september
*New rule: If a year passes w/o a final (anti-doping establishment) decision, then the athlete gets to keep what he won on the road.
*Astarloza gets a CAS hearing after serving his suspension. I have to sarcastically comment that sounds just wonderful and seems like our anti-doping dollars are being well spent.
*Better yet, long retired Jan Ullrich somehow gets dragged back into the farce with UCI appealing to CAS, apparently disagreeing with the Swiss Federation’s determination that they have not had jurisdiction over him since he retired. This is curious on at least two (2) counts. First, it took the Swiss Cycling Federation a while to determine they had no jurisdiction. Second, UCI is reported to have appealed to CAS in March of 2010. It is curious there is no explanation as to why it has taken from March of 2010 to August 22, 2011 to get a hearing on the UCI appeal. That’s nearly (1 1/2) a year and a half or ~(17) months or roughly (510) days or (12,240) hours for those who are counting. Excellent time management!
I’ll add a third curiosity. What rocket scientist @ UCI decided it is a worthwhile endeavor to go after a long and legitimately retired Ullrich, and to what end? As Ullrich has not shown any interest in playing any games under UCI’s jurisdiction since his retirement, any possible sanction on appeal to CAS can only be for show, because it will have no teeth. All this serves to do is dredge up the past. I think that the money UCI gets from us via sanctioning fees, licensing fees, bike frame approval fees and our collective governments’ contributions to anti-doping agencies (our tax dollars at work) are better spent on improving the current and future state of the sport. Ullrich is better left alone and our money is better not spent chasing his shadow. YMMV.
This was a very dramatic and entertaining TDF.
I think this was most probably a very clean TDF.
I was really rooting for Voeckler and the little French team to pull it out. The fact that he and his team Europcar did so well suggests to me that they were not competing against major dopers. The times were slower and there was no superman performance by the GC contenders. And I’m 90% sure that Voeckler and his team were clean. They’re French after all!
Contador and Andy Schleck both made courageous attacks when their tour seemed in doubt, and Cadel took the lead in pursuit and kept the time gap down. Yet it seemed that they paid for those attacks with later fatigue. No superhuman performances for days on end, not even two days in a row.
I do fault Cadel for preserving omerta. He was reportedly asked by a French reporter whether he would speak out against doping, but refused claiming that he would just “lead by example”. But then he is old and part of the doping generation.
I think the authorities should pursue the dopers until they cry uncle or die. You can’t retire and avoid facing the music. It will be a deterrent to the current generation who know that if they cheat now, it may come back to haunt them. I think that is why there were probably no blood transfusions in this tour. The riders were afraid of retrospective plasticizer or other tests.
M,
UCI’s appeal to CAS is actually appealing the Swiss Cycling Federation’s ruling on non-jurisdiction. Though the apple of UCI’s eye, Ullrich is, at closest, one place removed.
Regardless, UCI’s motivation is suspect and its appeal impotently symbolic. Ullrich has not been involved in anything under UCI’s jurisdiction for some time now. If he is not involved in activities under UCI’s control, they are powerless to meaningfully sanction him in any way. (Teflon) Impotent symbolism is a weak attempt at the deterrence you theorize.
Ullrich’s most notable recent public cycling related activities include supporting charity rides. Fund raisers everywhere should count themselves fortunate when UCI has not wrapped their slimy tentacles around a ride supporting a charitable cause to extract what they consider to be their cut.
As for Cadel, he’s not engaging in Omerta (stupid overly generalized and inaccurate categorization anyway…). He’s a professional rider paid to ride and hopefully win targeted races. He’s also paid to represent his team’s sponsors and any personal sponsors.
Cadel is not employed by any anti-doping agency that I am aware of. He is probably not an informant (rat). If he is following the anti-doping rules and winning, then he is fulfilling a primary aspect of his job and doing it well. I’m thinking doing one’s job well and leading by example is important and significant.
I have zero respect and much contempt for informants. Witnesses (and sold out former co-conspirators) are another story altogether. I don’t recall Cadel being identified or called as a witness to break your so called “Omerta”. Do you? And if so, can you provide a credible cite?
And if you want to talk “Omerta”, just ask WADA. At WADA it is institutional policy that was publicly confirmed at Floyd’s Pepperdine hearing. LOL…..
However, Cadel’s team BMC is tainted by some significant previous doping associations.
The team management, Lelange and Ochowicz worked previously at Phonak and have been accused by Floyd Landis of being in on his doping.
BMC recently suspended 2 riders, Ballan and Santambroglio who are implicated in suspected blood doping in 2009. And a soigneur for BMC has recently been charged with importing 195 doses of EPO in 2009.
And then there is Lance’s old soldier George Hincapie who moved to BMC this year.
Ah, the six degrees of doping thing. I doubt that there is any rider who has been active in this century who cannot be linked to a known, suspected, or accused doper in some manner: once were teammates, had the same coach or DS at some time, rode for a team linked to doping in some way, etc.
Such connections, in and of themselves, mean nothing.
Poor Cadel. He’s made the third most fundamental error a cyclist can make if he wants to avoid doping speculation. Cadel won the Tour.
Luckily for Cadel, he didn’t win any stages, and he didn’t ride his bicycle particularly fast on any mountains. So long as he doesn’t repeat his Tour-winning ways, he probably won’t upset the “cycling has turned the corner on doping” meme.
With articles like this, http://bit.ly/p3bSM7, we all better hope that Cadel rode clean, or at least that there’s no doping positive on his immediate horizon.
There have been rumors for years about a connection between Cadel and Michele Ferrari. See http://bit.ly/q4hhIh. I raise this not because I think there is any substance to these rumors — Cadel seems to have about as good a reputation as it’s possible for a cyclist to have — but as proof that in cycling, winning breeds suspicion.
In some ways, I think one of the more unfortunate consequences of this whole doping thing is that any win, or even good performance, becomes automatically suspect. I doubt that we will see riders destroying the competition in part because of that.
Cadal took some negative comments for being too conservative. I wonder if he will be accused of holding back in order to conceal doping?
Whether or not this edition is indeed any cleaner than recent Tours I can’t say. In terms of riders caught (at least so far) it doesn’t look all that different than, say 2006: one rider busted, if my memory serves me. Too many variable can affect performance, making comparisons hard.
Excuse me, but Cadel did win a stage! Stage 4, I believe. And to call Cadel “OLD” insults Cadel, although I know we are talking average age in cycling not the real world….I could have be a very young Mother….
If anything, I think this Tour proved how clean the peleton has gotten! My God, they were dying at the end of stages…and having bad days, and cracking on climbs!!!
And I love that Floyd has found a new love in racing…good luck to him!!!
Theresa, I stand corrected (thought I’d read that he hadn’t), you’re right, Cadel won Stage 4. But he IS the oldest guy to win the Tour since WWII.
Just heard that the CAS has now postponed Alberto’s hearing until NOVEMBER! For what it’s worth…I think if they could just postpone it until he retires then they won’t actually have to make a decision..which it seems to me is what they are doing. I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes I have to admit…but it is getting ridicilous.
Following up on MattC
It’s easy to find, but here is a BBC cite:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cycling/14288716.stm
Guess if the potato is too hot, delay, delay, delay………….
BTW, and just to review, WADA has a serious problem with having declared Clen to have a zero threshold, even though it is found in the public food supply to varying degrees depending upon geography. Couple that with the tiny amount the testing reportedly found, and we have what should have been a legitimate trigger for targeted testing, not a trip to AAF land. YMMV
One of the problems with a case like Contador’s is the difficulty of inferring intent. He is arguing that the level of clen is too low to have been of any benefit, and he wouldn’t have knowingly used such a small amount. Perhaps and then again, perhaps not. I recall that a number of years you could buy a kit of nuts and bolts, made from aluminum and/or titanium as replacements to save perhaps an ounce or two on your bike. Would such a small weight saving be of any real benefit? Yet, presumably, there was some market for this. Consider how close Contador and Shleck were last year: dead even except for the chain incident. The slightest advantage could have been enough.
Then there is a different question: do we punish intent even if there was no real benefit? If Contador knowingly used a minor amount of clen, thinking he might still get a bit of an edge even though he didn’t get such an edge, should he still be punished (and if he should, how much should he be punished). WADA has opted, in general, to come down as hard as possible in such cases, probably as a deterrent.
A final consideration: the more leeway you allow the authorities to have in determining guilt and punishment, the more likely you are to get what seem to be differing standards applied in different cases. Was Contador’s acquittal by the Spanish fed legitimate or was it a case of home towning? Would a back of the pack domestique have gotten the same leniency?
WADA will indeed punish for ‘intent’ (ie: Basso and his Operatin Puerto involvement…he had blood drawn and stored, but never used..but still garnerd a full 2 year ban if I recall).
I can’t help but wonder if WADA is FINALLY working on a (hopefully) realisitc CLEN threshold value w/ a corresponding rule change…and maybe the CAS knows it’s on the table and is using delay tactics so they don’t have to rule until the change takes effect, then they could just say ‘never mind’…it will surely be a HUGE deal to strip two grand tours from a rider AND ruin his reputation and career in the process, unless they are 100% positive (ha ha) there was an actual doping violation. We’ll just have to wait and see what shakes out from this.
WADA, king of the Catch-22.
With Zach Lund and Alain Baxter, intent didn’t matter.
With Ivan Basso, intent was plenty.
Zero threshold with Clen known to be in the public food supply is WADA’s current problem. They are also fighting a national federation with some substance, if not bias. Couple that with the subject of the accusation being a multiple Grand Tour Champion, and the political implications become tricky to navigate. The usual “move along, nothing to see here” won’t fly this time.
To be clear, the latest delay is at WADA’s request. Further, the three other parties (UCI, RFEC, Contador) agree to WADA’s suggestion to reschedule, which CAS has determined will occur in November.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contador-cas-hearing-postponed-until-november
One interesting thought that I saw somewhere (but I can’t remember the source right now) is that WADA is waiting to figure out what to do about the Mexican soccer players who tested positive for low levels of clenbuterol. The line of reasoning goes that if they decide not to challenge those cases and let the soccer players go, they may reverse course on Contador. Realistically, I’m not convinced that scenario will happen, but something to consider as far as their request to delay the case goes.
Some interesting twists & turns in the Mosquera case:
The judge hearing the case is said to have asked the AEA, the International Cycling Union and the anti-doping labs in Cologne and Madrid to answer three questions: Is it possible to differentiate between intravenous and oral applications? Does this substance served to enhance performance? Is this substance found in food?
For the second question, the AEA acknowledged that it can be used to mask illegal products, although none were found in Mosquera’s sample, and that is was possible for the product to have been ingested in food.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mosqueras-hydroxyethyl-case-drags-on
It seems as though the Spanish are getting wise as to how they can refute several questionable doping tests….
In the article MikeG cites above, you’ll find this quote,
“However, the product is prohibited only if administered intravenously. It can also be taken orally. According to the Spanish website Biciciclismo, the AEA has submitted information to the ongoing hearing that it is not possible to say which method was used.”
Hence the reason for question #1. (BTW, answer=No)
This is another example of a poorly crafted WADA anti-doping reg.
We have tended to rag on WADA a lot but to be fair, they have an impossible task. The financial and logistic problems of testing athletes mean that many may get tested infrequently. The wide variety of PEDs and masking agents can cause problems; I’d imagine that a test for EPO wouldn’t detect amphetamine and vice versa. Some PEDs that are of great potential benefit in one sport may be or little use or even detrimental in another. Some PEDs occur naturally in the body, and you have to account for this in some way. All this while (hopefully) walking the line between risking convicting an innocent athlete or letting a guilty one off.
Ultimately I don’t think that WADA or UCI or any other agency can solve the doping problem. What is needed (and perhaps we are starting to see, if the opinions expressed here about a cleaner TdF have any basis) is a change in riders’ attitudes from “doping is a part of being pro” and “it’s what you have to do to compete” to something like the unwritten rule about attacking a rival how has suffered a mechanical.
I don’t have any pity for WADA.
WADA is the self proclaimed expert agency regarding anti-doping. If you claim you are the expert, then you are obliged back it up.
WADA’s Code was largely authored by a highly intelligent, attorney (Richard “Dick” Young) who IMHO misapplied his expertise.
Young was instrumental in creating a system that is closed to meaningful outside scrutiny for all intents and purposes.
The Young authored WADA Code includes an adjudication system that WADA controls, in that it stacks the deck wrt arbitrators, who act as judges, in settling appeals of rulings against athletes.
The Code also requires any action beyond the stacked deck CAS, to go before a WADA friendly Swiss Court for the final, final say.
In short, the fix is in. The Code insures WADA has all but 100% control of the adjudication system.
Judge, Jury, Executioner.
WADA’s adjudication system is only a show intended to support providing a public impression of fairness.
WADA’s “science” is purposely set up to avoid peer review. As such, it is all suspect and much of it junk.
WADA’s Code even goes so far as to prohibit employees from publicly disagreeing, even when under oath and testifying in an appeal of an athlete’s sanction.
WADA was born as cover for the IoC and its many doping scandals following a variety of olympic games. (weight lifting, track & field, …) WADA is a IoC tool intended to keep the money flowing (host cities be damned – Athens, Greece…..) and to expand the bureaucracy while creating more jobs for bureaucrats.
I’d like to opt out of having any part of funding the corrupt bureaucracy, but that is impossible unless I drop out of society, go off grid, and become a ghost. Every national sports federation that is attached to the IoC and WADA pays tribute money to them. In the USA, a small portion of our tax dollars have been co-opted by USADA, a WADA affiliate. That small portion of our tax dollars makes up the lion’s share of USADA’s annual budget.
There is nothing particularly noble about the IoC or WADA. Their story is much like you’ll find in popular and traditional children’s books like “Hansel and Gretel”. On the surface, all seem to be on the up and up, but if you read them critically at all, you’ll find the story to be quite horrifying.
It doesn’t matter anyway if you believe WADA was created for some nobel cause. It’s a case of smoke and mirrors. WADA was not actually charged with eradicating doping from sport. It was commissioned to give the appearance of working to eradicate doping from sport to protect the olympic brand. If you understand that reality, then WADA’s SOP starts to make more sense.
Cycling is one strange world…
Report: Former Postal rider confesses EPO use, then recants
http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/08/news/report-former-postal-rider-confesses-epo-use-then-recants_186816
Hi William,
Yes WADA has a difficult job and they will never solve totaly the doping problem like police are not solving crimes problem.
Society is not able to stop people of speeding, and in the same way most of the people who get a fine were not dangerous at that time. And we can see drivers being too much dangerous to others : for exemple when they are driving so close of cyclists.
Mike,
That story sort of reminds me of the bridge scene in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail.”
Bridgekeeper: “What … is your favourite colour?”
Sir Galahad: “Blue. No yel….” [Galahad is thrown off the bridge]
You can’t always change your story, eh?
Here is a really interesting angle to the war on doping:
The United Nations, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN); the International Olympic Committee (IOC); the World Anti-Doping Agency; and “an array of companies, from defense contractors to high-tech enterprises” were among those hacked, Reuters said.
http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/03/7239686-us-was-chief-target-of-cyber-attacks-mcafee
I would love to see more details on the WADA attack, and what data was stolen!
Gotta be Floyd at it again. LOL.
You sure it’s not Lance? I hear he’s a pretty good hacker. 😉
(And Mike, I would also like to know what interesting stuff the hackers found in WADA’s files.)
It really makes one wonder about the motivation. These days hacking is mostly about $$$, and occasionally about politics. Why target the IOC or WADA – very odd! I guess you might have some identity information on athletes, etc. but no financial info that I can think off. I’m sure we will never hear much about the details since I doubt WADA and the IOC fall under any of the typical HIPAA/PCI/SOX regulations…
Witch hunts and WADA-style anti-doping adjudication have a down side, which is that few American companies are willing to invest in it. http://es.pn/oQiDNR. Goodbye Team High Road.
Standard Operating Procedure for WADA I guess, coverup and deny:
WADA disputes McAfee report that its system was hacked for a total of 14 months
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/9291/WADA-disputes-McAfee-report-that-its-system-was-hacked-for-a-total-of-14-months.aspx
My favorite quote – their just not convinced(!):
“At this stage, WADA has no evidence from its security experts of the intrusions as listed by McAfee and the Agency has yet to be convinced that they took place. “
Mike,
Sounds like the old, “Nothing to see here. Everybody move along.” defense, eh?
Here is one possible reason we’re not hearing much on the doping front:
“Vroomen and Ashenden criticise lack of biological passport testing”
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vroomen-and-ashenden-criticise-lack-of-biological-passport-testing
I think it’s perfectly okay for Vroomen to speculate, especially considering his relationship to the sport and his company’s status as a sponsor/supplier to a ProTour team.
McQuaid is predictably short, vague, and terse in his response.
Ashenden seems to back up the general thrust of Vroomen’s speculation.
UCI and anti-doping put themselves in this situation by virtue of the secretive stance they have taken wrt their work product. I think the questions are legitimate and the response less than forthcoming.
Top teams required to participate in the Bio Passport pay a significant annual fee. It’s fair to ask UCI, “what is being done with the money?”.
On the subject of teams that conduct their own screening:
If the UCI & anti-doping agencies were more transparent, professional, and trustworthy, the teams might be more willing to share the data. There is a negative incentive to
share data that runs a significant risk of getting “keystone copped” by the bureaucrats.
On the other hand, a policy whereby teams keeping screenings private, without outside verification, lends itself to suspicion of organizing doping or condoning cheating.
Looks like both sides need to let the sun shine in.
FWIW, anti-doping seems unwilling to compromise with peer review and financial accounting.
Teams will look to protect their investment.
Troubled, but once promising rider accepts lifetime ban:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/usada-cyclist-david-clinger-accepts-lifetime-ban-after-second-doping-offense/2011/08/12/gIQAfYciBJ_story.html
Seems to me I have seen a figure of about 700-800 pro riders registered with UCI. If only a little over 1000 bio-passport test are done per annum, this is only a bit over one per rider per year, assuming every rider gets tested. My understanding of the program was that it is designed to monitor results over time and not changes for a rider which are or may be indicative of PED use. Even if the test is such that a one time test can reveal doping, one per year is not going to catch many people.
Of course, it’s possible that several tests are being given to targeted riders while others are given a pass. And there may be other tests given besides the bio-passport.
And of course, it’s entirely possible my understanding of this situation is wrong too. Still, however things work, 1000+ tests per year isn’t very much.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/landis-contadors-coach-was-a-drug-trafficker
I’m not sure what CyclingNews is up to? This isn’t news. It was covered ~July17th of this year. Re-states, without benefit of credit to statements Floyd made in an interview with Graham Bensinger (unless Germany’s ARD TV channel = the Graham Bensinger interview). Full interview here:
http://www.podiumcafe.com/2011/7/15/2278337/full-floyd-landis-interview-by-graham-bensinger-about-doping-nascar
Jeff,
Not only is it not news, but the writer gets the time frame wrong on when Landis’ emails to various officials came to light. It wasn’t earlier this year, it was in the spring of 2010, more than a year ago. Someone doing a summer internship, perhaps? Slow news day? Editors not checking stories before they are published, or are the editors all on vacation, this being August and all.
William,
If those numbers are close to what’s going on, there aren’t a whole heckuva lot of tests going into the biological passport, which would make its usefulness limited, at best.