Operacion Puerto hangs like an albatross around the neck of professional cycling. It is, well and truly, the gift that keeps on giving. Thank you very much, Dr. Fuentes.
The latest twist in the OP saga is the recent announcement by the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI) that they intend to conduct an inquiry into Operacion Puerto that may involve testimony from non-Italian cyclists, doctors, team officials and anyone else whose name is in any way connected with the 20-month ongoing doping scandal.
CyclingNews.com and Cycling Weekly’s websites both are carrying stories about CONI’s decision to, as Stephen Farrand of Cycling Weekly wrote, “reopen” the Operacion Puerto investigation.
In a brief statement on the Italian Olympic Committee website on Wednesday evening, the ‘Procura Antidoping’ headed by former police chief Ettore Torri, said they had also sent the evidence to the Rome police, who has special powers to investigate crimes committed outside of Italy. Doping is a penal crime in Italy and those involved can be fined or even put in prison.
The Procura affirmed that it has the powers to investigate if non-Italians (sic) riders and doctors have committed anti-doping offences and can ban them from Italy.
Interesting that the Procura has the power to investigate non_Italian riders who may have committed doping offenses in a country other than Italy. I thought that the job of investigating doping offenses (or maybe it’s merely prosecuting doping offenses) was rightly the responsibility of a rider’s home country’s anti-doping agency. Now, if an offense had been committed in Italy, then I suppose that CONI might have a leg to stand on, but doesn’t the World Anti-Doping Code specifically state that only the anti-doping agency of a rider’s own country can sanction him or her (other than if a party with standing appeals to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in the event that said ADA doesn’t prosecute)?
Sure, doping is a legal infraction in Italy. I get that. But if the offense isn’t committed in Italy, what gives them the power to ban a rider from competing in races? That seems wrong. If every country followed suit, pretty soon riders could be banned from racing in various countries based on differing laws and differing interpretations of the World Anti-Doping Code. Wasn’t the whole point of WADA and their code to “harmonise” the process? Or is that just fluff written so that the masses will think the system is fair, while the powers that be run roughshod over any cyclist they suspect? (Which, for some, is every cyclist capable of turning their pedals around.)
If this keeps up, it won’t be those doping who kill the sport of cycling. It will be those who can’t create a consistent, coherent program to find and punish the dopers.
CONI has managed to be the only agency that’s gotten any convictions (as best I remember, someone correct me if I’m wrong) in the Operacion Puerto mess. They got Ivan Basso to ultimately admit to “attempted doping” and sanctioned him. It certainly looks like they’re trying to find a way to keep the likes of Alejandro Valverde (or anyone else whose name has been connected to the scandal) from racing in the Giro or the World Championships. The World’s, incidentally, will be held in Basso’s stomping grounds, in or near Varese come September. Basso won’t be eligible, I believe, as his suspension won’t be finished before the races are run. (One other race that might be affected by CONI’s actions is the 2008 Tour de France, which will visit Italy this year.)
This investigation also has the potential to keep the likes of Tyler Hamilton out of the World’s (assuming he were to be chosen for the US team). Even though USADA hasn’t proceeded with a new case against Hamilton based on information from the Puerto investigation (after having that info for what seems like eons), I’m sure that CONI will be calling on Hamilton to come pay them a visit in Rome. If they just want to know what he knows, fine. If they’re out to punish him, that’s another matter.
Hamilton has done his time. If he truly did blood dope in 2004, my guess is someone helped him. Perhaps Dr. Fuentes? (Just a wild-haired guess on my part.) So if that were the case, wouldn’t he essentially be put on trial twice for the same crime? Whether or not he was involved in Puerto, it’s time to let it go.
The same is true for all the others who were connected, but not proven to have committed any offenses. How much of the limited resources available to the anti-doping agencies should continue to be focused on this investigation, and how much should be focused on catching those who are cheating right now? Learn what can be learned from the Puerto files, but pursue the ne’er-do-wells who are currently doping. Too much focusing on Puerto could easily distract those who ought to be chasing after the people who are getting away with it — or trying to get away with it — right now.
Take some of that money and invest in better training for certain lab techs in certain places, and in better equipment, and in better testing methods. That will do more good than continuing down the garden (Puerto) path.
If only a rider’s national federation can prosecute a doping case, how does the French anti-doping agency get away with taking action against Landis?
Good question. From what I understand, that has to do with a law that was in effect during the 2006 Tour which preceded France’s implementation of the World Anti-Doping Code as part of their national law. Jean C can probably fill us in on the details, but the basics are that under the previous law, the predecessor to the AFLD had the right to prosecute any athlete suspected of doping in France, not just French citizens. Since the previous agency morphed into AFLD, that responsibility carried over to them, after the previous incarnation of the agency had started the case in September 2006. AFLD became operational sometime in October 2006. Confused? It’s a mess.
The long and the short of it is that what the world needs is clarity in the rules. And by CONI’s actions, we’re getting less of that than before, IMHO.
Rant is correct. Wada agreement began in France after vote of Parliament which was in Autumn 2006. So Floyd’s doping offence is under the precedent law in France… and under new rules in US!
It’s not just CONI which is acting but Italian Justice too, from the recent news, Mafia seems to make money with doping so pressure is not sportive. I doubt that all entities like WADA, CONI, police of many countries, governement are acting like stupid people. I think the know more than we know. The risk would be present present for all those political entities and so for their governemnt, I doubt they would do that just for to have a clean sport, it’s bigger. Don’t forget CONI’s chief is a retired police manager.
The good news for cycling is : he want to prosecute all athletes even football where the stakes are bigger and money is “kolossal”!
Rant, William,
“Operacion Puerto hangs like an albatross around the neck of professional cycling. It is, well and truly, the gift that keeps on giving. Thank you very much, Dr. Fuentes”
— Rant I couldn’t agree more with you. Dr Fuentes IS a major villain in this melodrama — who sees to have “gotten off” from being “hung” for his crimes — through a “real technicality” that existed – at the time – in the Spanish courts of Law. Do you and I like it? I don’t think so. Is it a good thing? I think it sucks. Is it fair? Yes it is. Whether we like it or not — we have to respect and adhere to the laws of the land!
I for one believe that Dr. Fuentes had his “set up” specifically in Spain BECAUSE he knew of the “loopholes” existence in Spain. The man might have the ethics and morals of a cat in heat — but it does not make him stupid. Whether we like it or not — LEGALLY — he got away with it. But I think if we only “thank” Dr Fuentes for our troubles, we are missing the chance to identify clearly the broader view of the situation.
It has always been a major problem to “see” clearly who the players are in the present situation in cycling and sports. To now — we have assumed that WADA and the UCI are the people who are responsible for the “situations” and “chaos” that is taking place, first in the world of procycling and second in the developing “situations” now going on with the fight against doping in sports in general — world wide.
It is a given – there is doping and cheating going on in the world of sports in general. The question therefore comes to this, “How do we want to fight this doping and cheating?”
However — the basis that “fair” is defined by the idea that a person is “guilty” MERELY BECAUSE an “accusation of guilt” has been made against them. This concept can only be interpreted as an obscene twist of logic. Especially since we all are assured by the “governing bodies” that their AIM is to “clean up the sport world — make it fair and even!”
There is NOTHING FAIR OR EVEN HANDED about acting on the belief that “a person is “guilty” – MERELY BECAUSE an “accusation of guilt” has been made against them.” The “governing bodies” MAY NOT BE ALLOWED to sway us into buying into accepting this behavior. Even though instances such as “Operation Puerto” occur in the ongoing fight against doping and cheating in sports. THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.
The “first issue” is to do with the real situation called “Operation Puerto” — the outcome of which no one likes. But it is what it is. It may not be ignored – that in Spain, when this happened, there was no law to prohibit this from happening. BUT – let us not forget — even though the “bad guys” got away with it — there NOW IS A LAW that will prevent this from happening again!
The “second issue” has to do with the reaction of the “governing bodies!” Let’s look at this for a moment. THEY DON’T `LIKE´ IT! — Okay — they are probably not any different from the rest of us in finding the RESULT of OP as a “loss” in the battle against doping and cheating. BUT IS IT ACTUALLY? I don’t believe so. The LAWS in Spain have corrected, quiet speedily I might add, what allowed Dr Fuentes and his ilk to exist in their land. THAT IS A FACT! Not a “loss” — in my opinion.
William, now we come to your very “significant” question. — “If only a rider’s national federation can prosecute a doping case, how does the French anti-doping agency get away with taking action against Landis?”
Rant appears to be saying that the AFLD “gained” its perception of right because of the establishment of a law or laws that that came into existence in 2006. My question is — are we talking about a “law of WADA?” Or are we talking about a “law of the land of France?”- Because, there IS a great difference between the two.
I for one – respect “the laws of the land,” of each country — this goes without saying. I do not feel that I or anyone else outside of “said” land has a right to “judge” such laws good or bad — since it is “a choice of the land to enact it.” I think it is a very good idea that we all “respect and honor” the sovereignty” of nations.
So the question is — “who’s law/s are we addressing here?” — is it the sovereign state of France? Or are we addressing the rules of WADA? I think this a very important difference and we should be very certain what the question addresses. IF WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT THIS WITH ANY HOPE OF CLARITY!
If we don’t address this question, then I am afraid we are simply in a state as we have found ourselves previously on many occassions — being caught up in merely “reacting!” -merely “reacting” to the “news” that we are being “fed.” I think that it is about time that we consciously “stop” our own habit in doing this. We need to be able to understand the situations clearly — otherwise there can be no sane resolution to this twisted situation.
To close — I believe that we should consider the activities in action in the present. We KNOW that CONI is now exerting “force” against racers, regardless of country. We KNOW that the AFLD has acted against Mr Landis. My suspicion is that BOTH these organization are the representatives in their individual nations of one particular governing body — that body is the IOC. Yes — both the CONI and the AFLD are also “representative” of their individual countries federations — BUT — there is a very obvious CONNECTION between them WITH THE IOC.
If we are seriously attempting to understand where the root problems are stemming from — then — we must try and connect the dots — so we may look for “pure information” to understand what we are dealing with — not merely “reacting to the “mindless spin” that we have been doing, or as Rant points out — “than continuing down the garden (Puerto) path.”
To clarify – Jean C’s response was not on view for me when I made my comment. The Issue of Doping and cheating in cycling and sports is a complex one. France obviously has found it necessary to address the question from “organized crime” point of view.
I do not question the truth of this. I accept it.
My comments are addressed to the problems we are having with the Rules and Regulations being formed by WADA which was a “development” of the IOC.
Jean C – I also do not think that the police would act like stupid people, their actions are defined by the laws in existence. BUT I do not equate WADA and the UCI on the same level as the police who are the only rightful representative of a democratic system.
Thanks Rant and Jean. Makes sense to me now. Could perhaps something similar the case in Italy?
In general, it seems to me re OP: there was no violation of Spanish law at the time, so none of the people involved were prosecuted by the Spanish authorities. Whether or not any of the people involved violated laws of other nations is another story. It is theoretically possible that a country can outlaw behavior its citizens commit outside of the country’s boundaries. The US, for example, outlaws pedophiles who travel to other countries with looser laws and/or enforcement to participate in their vile acts. So it is possible that Italy could outlaw doping when the acts occur outside of Italy.
Another possible legal theory could be that one is guilty even if the injection or ingestion occurred outside of Italy if one then races in Italy presumably under the benefit of the doping. Kind of like someone from say, Illinois, going to St Louis and getting drunk, then driving back home and getting stopped once back over the river. Still guilty even though the drinking took place outside the jurisdiction.
Whatever the case, it appears the the Italian authorities have the power to investigate violations outside Italy. Unclear is what authority they have to prosecute. Italian citizens only? Or others? If the latter, they will have to get suspects into Italy or else try them in absentia. And if the later occurs, they “convict” would have to enter Italy before any penalty could be enforced (other than being banned from racing within Italy).
Another possible scenario is, since the Spanish have seemingly dropped this case, WADA has charged Italy with continuing the investigation. Perhaps WADA is leery of involving France, what with all the questions raised by Landis, Armstrong, Mayo, etc., and is looking to another major European country to continue the investigation.
Could someone read this and tell me if there is anything t learn? I could not find i.t..
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13885.0.html
What I believe about OP:
the case was put under the rug by Spaniards because of political reasons. Don’t forget that football teams like Valence, Barcelone and Real were cited, tennis players like Nadal, and Track and Field athletes… So a lot of top athletes of Spain but too most of the world known athletes like Ronaldhino… It would have been a big blow.
Even if doping was not banned in Spain at this time, I doubt that Fuentes has not breaken some civil laws of Spain related to health like storage of blood, transportation, and so. They could have done better if they wanted really especially on financial aspect with a lot of illegal transactions! Is there no tax in Spain?
It was written somewhere that Fuentes had an office during TDF… so he would have broken many french laws (traffic of human organ, …) Spanish Police should have sent those informations to french authorithy… probably they didn’t or we, politically, didn’t want to push more the plug.
If OP restart it’s only probably because of the amount of black money generate by doping which is a danger for future. And it’s not an accident that it’s an old police chief who is in charge of the new investigation, a guy able to connect the dots with mafia practises!
BSMB!
It’s an interesting piece but I’m not quite sure what Floyd was trying to get at. It seemed like he was trying to get Steve Johnson to given an oppinion on if he felt Floyd was guilty. I think what will be more interesting is Rogers’ follow up interview with Floyd on the nature of his relationship with Michael Ball and Rock Racing.
If CONI has the power to determine that non-Italian athletes violated its Doping Code, then one wonders if there are any limitations such as the concept of double jeopardy on how many country’s anti-doping can conduct simultaneous or successive hearings regarding single alleged doping incidents. The concept of double jeopardy arose to avoid multiple “forum shopping” in order to obtain a conviction somewhere in criminal cases in the US. In civil cases in the US, successive lawsuits are prohibited by a concept known as judicial estoppel. Multiple hearings in venues with concurrent jurisdiction are often resolved by motions as most if not all litigants want to litigate once, due to the time and expenses associated with complex litigation. However, the anti-doping crusade isn’t impeeded, usually, by these kinds of proceedural rules. Thus, Floyd Landis fights in France and against the ADA simultaniously and we have seen OP investigations occur at the UCI level and now “independently” in Germany, Spain and now Italy as well as to some extent, France.
What is very interesting as it regards this year’s Tour de France is the fact that one stage terminates on Italian soil. Since CONI only has the power to ban a rider from Italian soil and not otherwise effect their career (for example by subjecting them to a 1 or 2 or lifetime ban) any determination it makes (subject to appeal to CAS) against Valverde, Contador, Perierro, Menchov, Flecha, Paulinho, Davis and perhaps, Sastre, will effectively preclude them from riding in the tour de France as well as any race in Italy.
Brace yourself for another round, here. Over 3, 4, 5 or more years of continuous prosecutions and inquiries, arising from new law or interpretation of rules/authority may result in removing all these guys from the sport one way or another.
Question:
If CAS decides that Floyd is guilty, then he must have lied in his earlier depositions, right?
Does that mean he will get to share a jail cell with Ms. Jones?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/sports/othersports/11cnd-jones.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
My gut feeling tells me that Floyd was “trying” to verbally confront a part of the “governing bodies” – Some one who “seemed willing” to hold dialogue with him.
Trying to “figure out” what Floyd “wanted” or “meant” by this interchange at this point seems to me to be missing the point.
ddt240, bitch slap me back! – Is it such a reach to think that Floyd simply wanted to be able to get his personal feelings aired – directly? Maybe get a couple of punches in to “confront” those who he sees as partly being responsible for the situation that he is in?
Okay – SJ is not directly one of the people who are responsible as he states himself – BUT he is a member one of the “governing bodies” that he as a cyclist has to survive – is it so unusual that he would do this – just to get a “shot in?” Not in my opinion – I think it is nothing more then a sign that Mr Landis is merely “human.”
But then again folks – let us not forget – THERE IS A SECOND PART to this interview – should we wait till we go and draw “conclusions and inferences?”
jeanC brings up an interesting angle that I hadn’t really thought about. . .the mafia. Sporting bodies as a pawn between governments and organized crime. That changes things. If a cyclists has dealt with the mafia to obtain dope, then they are monumentally stupid, as well as criminally liable (am I naive to think that the Chinese black market is less morally reprehensible? probably). If the CONI investigation is in fact part of a larger war against the mafia (and I admit that jC is probably onto something there), then the cyclists caught in the battle deserve what they get.
I must disagree with his assertion though, that these organizations wouldn’t act stupidly. I have faith that government organizations will act stupidly. I am sometimes pleasantly surprised when I am wrong (I know that NASA even went so far as to put men on the moon, which proves it is possible for them to be effective), but I don’t start with the assumption that government is competent. Perhaps well intentioned. . .perhaps.
Michael,
That was not the moon but a sound stage in SoCal. Everyone knows that!!
I found SJ’s answers unsatisfactory. Do you think FL took testosterone, based upon the evidence? I can answer that, but the man in charge of the organization responsible for his suspension can’t (“I have no idea”)? Please. What does he think? That he’s running the midnight shift at a McDonald’s? What a chump. If he had simply said yes, I would have disagreed, but I would have respected his candor.
What a loser.
BSMB:
In theory, I suppose that Landis could be convicted of perjury, based on a guilty verdict from CAS. Whether or not in practice a case would even be brought against him is another issue. Most of the famous or infamous cases in recent times, a perjury trial seems to be sort of a “Plan B” tactic when it proves impossible, for one reason or another, to convict someone of the main violation.
Example one: the Clintons are investigated for possible wrong-doing in the Whitewater affair; nothing can be found to pin anything on them for that; but the Lewinski affair comes out and they impeach him for perjury, but then the Senate does not convict.
Example two: the investigation of the Valerie Plame affair fails to find anyone who can be charged with the crime of outing a CIA agent, but they get Scooter for perjury.
Example three: they don’t get Marion Jones in any drug test, but are able to hang a perjury conviction on her when she ‘fesses up.
If every convicted suspect that ever said under oath he was innocent was also convicted of perjury, we would have to build twice as many prisons as we now have.
My guess is that the California authorities could care less what happens in CAS. If he is held guilty, he will remain punished as per the original hearing. If he is held innocent, it would be hard to sustain a perjury case against him.
Rant,
As the current (ridiculous and illogical, but beneficial to the doping omerta) system is constituted, national federations decide on sanctions. But as even you would surely admit, the Spanish Federation is not serious about stopping doping, and has displayed an unserious attitude re. doping both in offical pronouncements as well as in sanctioning. More importantly, it’s clear to anyone who is watching that different national federations mean unequal pursuit of doping infringements as well as in doping testing, and that these inequalities play out in the races. Most likely, the Spanish Federation wants to maintain the “gains” accomplished through doping and resents the scapegoating of Fuentes and Saiz when they are clearly not the only players in the game.
What do you think you would do if you were in charge of the Giro and the Tour, and you were faced with the possibility that a group of riders, many of whom were linked to Puerto, show up and dominate your event? Relying on bodies like the RFEC and the UCI is essentially what the Tour did last year–and look where it got them! The most prominent contender was ejected for blood doping, the yellow jersey was thrown out due to a failure by the UCI and the Danish federation to enforce their own rules, the winner remains linked to Puerto, doping-oriented teams dominated the Top 30, and 12 out of the top 25 in the Tour GC were from Spain, even though Sevilla, Mancebo, Beloki, etc were all excluded. Much of this might have been prevented by an honest investigation into Operation Puerto and the additional pressure this would have put on dopers.
Ultimately, what the Tour (and perhaps now the Giro) has realized is that if you want to conduct a fair cycling race, it’s impossible to rely on the judgements of these authorities to protect you from bad publicity. So essentially CONI is pursuing the only case it can pursue–because if they don’t find out what the truth is now, then they’ll probably regret it when the Giro rolls around.
All that said. Puerto needs to be resolved, and I hope those riders who have been excluded because of it are allowed to race again soon. And I hope CONI can put some pressure on unsanctioned riders to testify on the doping networks in exchange for amnesty. In any case, given that you are always saying you are against doping, why would you object to the truth coming out about Puerto? I believe you have expressed doubts about the veracity of Jaksche and Sinke’s confessions–don’t you want to know once and for all whether they are telling the truth? Don’t you want the details about how the network worked and what the riders think about it to come into focus? How can the sport fight doping with so much smoke and mirrors about how doping networks work and what percentage of the peloton is doping? The hard truth is that the people in the doping networks are not just going to come out and admit it–someone (like Torri) has to go through the arduous labor of putting pressure on them. A thankless job, to be sure, but an honorable one.
As for Hamilton, many believe he was involved in OP (there is the 2003 blood doping schedule that was leaked after all), but he hasn’t admitted to it. Do you think it will be good for cycling in the US if further evidence emerges and Hamilton continued to lie–besmirching the sport still further? What a wonderful development for the Tour of Georgia or the Tour of California! What cycling needs more than any other factor is higher standards of integrity from major actors. Here’s a wild idea—why not use your platform to demand that Hamilton tell the truth–that he stop dishonoring the sport and himself by lying? Conversely, if you believe Hamilton, then you should be all for an investigation into OP in order to determine once and for all whether Hamilton was involved. Continued lies and propaganda, however, help no one, least of all cycling. Personally, I would be all for Hamilton racing if he would just admit his mistakes–but allowing him to race now without clearing up his doping past is 1) a very bad example for young riders trying to stay clean and 2) a potential publicity nightmare for cycling.
Ludwig,
Interesting.
I continue to be amazed at ALL the so called Anti-Doping crowd. Particularly on DPF. They confess/extole that they are against doping, and yet what they really care about is a scalp. They justify and excuse at best poor/shoddy lab work as necessary or exemplary.
ElizaB had a comment on DPF the other day, in what was a sarcastic throw away line, yet really is the heart of the issue if you really care about doping. Her comment was something like “why aren’t you complaining about the negative tests?” at LNDD.
That’s the crux of the issue, if you really cared about doping, it would seem to me that if there are 2/3% testing positive with shoddy lab work, that means 97/98% are getting off. Maybe there are a whole lot of dopers getting off due to the shoddy lab work which I see defended fiercly at DPF.
I realize it’s easy to say one is anti-doping, maybe a little action in that direction would also be useful. But a scalp makes one feel good and that’s more important then actually doing anything to combat doping.
Regards,
Ludwig,
You state: Here’s a wild idea””why not use your platform to demand that Hamilton tell the truth–that he stop dishonoring the sport and himself by lying? Conversely, if you believe Hamilton, then you should be all for an investigation into OP in order to determine once and for all whether Hamilton was involved. Continued lies and propaganda, however, help no one, least of all cycling. Personally, I would be all for Hamilton racing if he would just admit his mistakes–but allowing him to race now without clearing up his doping past is 1) a very bad example for young riders trying to stay clean and 2) a potential publicity nightmare for cycling.
Here’s a wild idea – Hamilton didn’t dope. I believe he didn’t dope and openingn a investigation is not necessary. Seems you expect him to confess to doping. I think that’s the only thing that will make you happy would be a confession from Hamilton. You ask for the truth? US Cycling doesn’t have the guts to pursue the case, why not? Why not ask US Cycling what they think? Seems everyone wants to blame the athlete yet the athlete can’t defend himself.
Heck, Steve Johnson has no idea if Floyd doped. Here’s a wild idea – you either believe that he did or didn’t. SJ is the head of US Cycling and he doesn’t have the balls to admit what he truly believes. Hmmm… his ‘non-answer’ tells me he doesn’t fully belive Floyd is guilty, but like the rest of the ‘powers that be’, he doesn’t have the guts to admit it. I think an investigation should be opened to determine if SJ believes Floyd is guilty or not. Imagine if the truth was that SJ truly believes that Floyd is innocent but is just playing along party lines??????
Ludwig,
You make some interesting points. As it stands, the national federations are the ones who are supposed to be deciding their countrymen/countrywomen’s guilt, rather than a federation in a different country. So, even if the Spanish federation isn’t dong it’s job properly with regard to their own riders, that should only affect their citizens. In theory, it’s up to USA Cycling and USADA to prosecute any Americans suspected of wrong-doing, or the home federation for a particular athlete.
So, with Hamilton’s situation vis-a-vis OP, the relevant US authorities have had that 6000-page dossier for some time now, and they haven’t done anything to bring charges against him. At some point, they ought to stand up and say one of two things. Either,
A) “We’ve looked at all the evidence in the dossier, and we can’t find anything that proves Hamilton was involved with Fuentes and OP.” Or,
B) “We’ve got solid proof and we’re bringing him up on charges of ______ .”
Whichever it is, Hamilton (and anyone else implicated in the whole mess) deserves some sort of pronouncement. So, yeah, I agree with you that this has to be finished and put to rest. Best for all concerned — the cyclists, cycling fans, and the sport as a whole — to have some “closure” (although I try to refrain from psychobabble, this one seems appropriate) on OP.
Where I see trouble is when a federation in one country starts taking action against riders from another country. That goes against WADA’s own code. Whether or not the code should be constructed that way is another matter for another debate.
But in the case of CONI, that’s Italy’s Olympic committee. Not an individual federation, per se. As a member of the IOC, CONI has to agree that Olympic sports in Italy recognized WADA’s authority and be bound by WADA’s code. CONI, themselves, have to do the same. So if the WADA code requires that Spaniards be prosecuted in Spain, Italians in Italy, Danes in Denmark, and Americans in the US, shouldn’t CONI only be going after Italians?
(By the way, the Danish Cycling Union’s claim on Rasmussen over the last few years is a bit — shall we say — “interesting.” He’s been licensed in Monaco recently, and Mexico before that. It’s been about four or five years since he was licensed in Denmark — which led to some very pointed comments in the Danish media in October and November, by the way. Making it more odd was that the DCU would even consider having a rider licensed in another country on their World’s and Olympic teams to begin with. Even if Ras is Danish, being licensed somewhere else seems problematic to me when it comes to representing the home country in international competition.)
So, to get back to OP and Spain and Fuentes, etc. If, as a promoter of a race, I suspected that riders from a certain country were getting away with doping due to little or no enforcement by their home federation, there’s a part of me that would be leery about letting any riders from that country participate. But, before I’d ban an individual, I’d want some solid proof that he was doping. Suspicions aren’t enough, in my book. Call it the “Show Me” mentality of my home state, if you will.
That said, I would also want to be sure that the anti-doping lab was top-notch in order to catch the guilty parties. And I’d keep a very close eye on people I had qualms about to make sure nothing suspicious went down. Other than that, like the ASO and Unipublic and RCS Sports, I’d be stuck letting those riders compete, and I’d be hoping and praying that no catastrophic doping story struck my event.
Jean,
The point you raise about the Mafia and organized crime reminds me of something a friend of mine likes to say, “For every opportunity, there’s an opportunist.” I wouldn’t at all be surprised to find out that some of the tentacles of whatever doping networks exist could be linked to organized crime. More to the point, I’d be surprised if they weren’t. There’s an opportunity to make a large amount of money from selling doping products, and making money from illegal activities is something the Mob is very good at.
I think the biggest problem with the OP mess is that the police didn’t investigate thoroughly enough so that they would have rock-solid charges they could really prosecute. The authorities got a little too far ahead of the game, and Fuentes was careful to skirt the edges of their laws without going too far over.
I wouldn’t at all be surprised if athletes from other sports were involved, either. But, for whatever reasons, we haven’t seen any real solid info come out about football (soccer, as it’s called over here) or tennis or track and field. At least, nothing that sticks. Perhaps someone’s worked to cover it all up. Or perhaps Fuentes simply outfoxed the law. I think it will be a long time, if ever, before we know the full truth of the matter.
Hi Rant,
As always, you give us thoughtful insight into the bizarre workings of the anti-doping zealots of the cycling world. Many, many thanks, though I often lurk rather than speak.
You wrote, “If this keeps up, it won’t be those doping who kill the sport of cycling. It will be those who can’t create a consistent, coherent program to find and punish the dopers.”
With all respect (at the risk of stating the obvious), and considering Armstrong/Pound feud as well as the Landis debacle, I think we’re long past the point where the win-at-all-costs anti-doping agencies have permanently sullied and possibly killed the sport of cycling. As I’ve written here and elsewhere, while I once was a voracious fan and viewer, the inherent corruption of the sport by officious fools has forever fouled my interest. I feel it’s already been a tragedy of the highest order, and a criminal miscarriage of justice. I only wish that the self-appointed guardians of the sport were in some way liable for their public, flagrant excesses which have arbitrarily deprived too many athletes their livelihoods without a semblance of due process.
Steve
aka “ShepFan” on TBV
Steve,
The sport has already been killed by doping… Probably we don’t have the same definition of the Sport.
For you, Armstrong was a sportsman or an experience ? No one has seen sport since EPO era! What we have seen it’s just competition between doctors. Recall you Fuentes saying on Phone : ” whaou!!!We have One and 3 !” for an Italian race… It was not the win of a rider but his.
People by ignorance and laziness are ready to swallow everything, especially when the shit is a little masked, it’s confortable… You have better to watch wrestlling which is more honest.
Do you think Marion Jones or Flo-Jo were doing Sport? Or do you think they have stolen the fame and the livelihood of other athletes ? Could you enjoy to watch a video of Jones’ races? Is it the antidoping crowd who have suilled those events?
NO… it’s Marion Jones and his wish to win-at-all cost!
Sorry, I just forgot to include in my precedent last information about Marion Jones who had a A sample tested EPO positive but his B sample became “negative”… What have we learnt in his trial? She was using EPO alonh his carrer….Of course, EPO allows athletes to train HARDER…
I have no problems with accepting that “Organized Crime” Is involved with the debacle that is unfolding in Cycling and sports.
The pertinent question though is — Are they merely running a “sideline business” in sports OR have they managed to turn individuals “established” in Cycling to work for their ends directly?
My opinion is that they have managed to infiltrate the ranks of the governing bodies, at least on the European scene where cycling has been in existence as a professional sport for over a hundred years! As to what is happening in the States — “business” runs things. At least these may be the “common perceptions.”
If one “steps-back” for just a moment — it would certainly shed a much clearer light on what is transpiring today and explain why “normal” people — no matter how “egocentric” their motives may be — can possibly develop rules of governance that cause CONFLICT rather then resolution.
It is not only logical — but also intelligent to ask, that if organized crime wanted to “fix — control” the racing “action” — they would do, just this.
We have been banging our heads against an idea that the “problems” in sports and Cycling are due to the egocentric self-serving behavior of individuals — or that it is a case of jingoistic national differences in the mix of the so called “governing bodies.”
We all make our comments on the “assumptions” that, what France wants is different then what Spain wants — or — that Italy’s interests conflict with what may be desirable in Belgium and the rest of the participating nations. That the Americans don’t care about anything but winning and taking over the Tour de France by dominating it and they will do this at whatever the cost, including being “clever dopers.”
All such “assumptions” are generated from a point of extreme frustration and downright anger on the parts of everyone involved. MAYBE.
But if I was interested in “controlling” the games of Chance — I wouldn’t put too much energy in providing “services” so that people can dope — I would “let small fry” with big egos and hunger for profit do this. The “small fry” have to pay me for “information” and maybe I can even provide them in some cases “with protection,” so why would I want to provide a “doping service” myself?
Logically the way to control or fix sports is to have my “people” become members who are responsible for the establishing of rules and governance. What better opportunity for me to “fix” and make sure that there are spurious rules and conflicting laws that create for me “easy loopholes” to work and profit from. Then it is no great effort for me to “address” the petty egocentric motivations of individuals who are so motivated from the beginning and play to their weaknesses to get what I wanted.
As it has been pointed out by our favorite “whipping-boy” Dickie and might I add quiet a few others — “The cheaters are smart and we are always merely playing a game of catch up.”
Sure they are “smart” — they have an “inside track” to the game plan — you don’t have to be particularly “smart” when “your people” are making up the “rules and laws” of how the game is to be “played.” As long as the Rules and Laws stay “fixed” in their present form — the business of controlling the outcome of who wins or looses will mostly fall my way. I can’t lose.
So the “bright bulbs” come up with a solution. The answer would appear to be to “take out the racers themselves.” Sure — if you “take out the racers” then who ever “owns them” can’t put them in the races and supposedly this will cut the cheating. The “bright bulbs” are so certain that THIS IS THE SOLUTION that they even state publicly that it would be “better for racing” if the old guard was replaced by the fresh young “clean faces” in the racing crowd who supposedly have no reason to have been “signed on.” Pretty bold talk in public — coming from sycophantic burrocrats if you ask me.
So the “purge” begins and one “hero” – “old guard” — “experienced competitor” is thrown to the “public meat grinder” for consumption. After all — Sports are contaminated by a “culture of doping and cheating.” They are justified in feeling that they are “cleaning house!” For me if I were “fixing things” — this wouldn’t bother me a bit. I can ALWAYS get me some more “racers.” In fact — maybe because of human nature, the old guard was demanding way too much from the profit! My “new fresh faces” would actually cost me a lot less money.
As far as I’m concerned — if, I was – “fixing” the races — AS LONG AS NOBODY NOTICES THAT THE RULES AND LAWS are a shambles — The fix, “just keeps on giving.”
While EVERYBODY ELSE is busy playing the game of “public hangings” “kangaroo courts” and “Hey — whos’ got the sample?”
JeanC,
Your post seems to suggest that you believe that the EPO era killed sport due to doping, but doping has always been there. Be it HGH, Blood Doping, EPO, steroids, amphetamines, or even caffeine; athletes have always looked for an edge over the competition.
To say sport died in 1989 when EPO was released to the public is just as naive as saying that EPO never had a part in anyone winning a race. IF sport in fact died due to doping, something that I would argue ad nauseum, then it died long before either of us were born, they just didn’t have a way to prove it yet.
Just as there will always be athletes who compete dirty, there will always be athletes to compete clean. I choose to believe that occasionally those athletes will rise above and actually win.
One more thing regarding Marian Jones.
She was not convicted of PED use. She was convicted of perjury for false testimony in the BALCO case which was regarding THG (aka “the clear”) and a check fraud scam, and had nothing to do with EPO. During the BALCO case she testified that she was not using THG, but was using flaxseed oil. When she came clean, it amounted to perjury.
As far as I am aware, while her ex husband claimed he saw her use it, she never confessed to using EPO, and the negative B sample result cleared her of the charge.
An excerpt from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/sports/othersports/12jones.html?ref=othersports :
In a pre-sentencing memo, the lead Balco investigator, Jeff Novitzky, provided Karas with evidence that Jones’s drug use went further than THG. The evidence included doping calendars and testimony from a doctor that indicated Jones had used the blood-boosting drug EPO and human growth hormone.
And yes, sport like cycling died with EPO because if it was not possible to win against cheaters using blood doping as it was possible earlier against old drugs… that is why Riis had won the TDF despite his poor level! There is a lot of scientist studies backing this point, which give a rage of 15-25% for output power…
If you are still sceptic buy some video of Lemond TDF and Riis TDF, you will see easily the gap… How could you explain it when NO major improvements were made during the elapsed time!
Jean:
In 1990, Lemond average just about .6 kph slower than Riis did in 1996. Considering all the possible influences on average speed (difficulty of different courses, level of competition, strategy, weather to name a few) I am not sure if this is any particular evidence that Riis doped (or that Lemond was clean). I have made that much improvement in my own personal times without doping, sometimes perhaps because I trained better, and sometimes probably simply because I had a good day. And in one case, because the wind switched and I had a tail wind for about 7 miles of a 10 mile TT!
William, what you are writing it’s just a lack of knowledge. I can just say to you to look their speed on similar mountain stages… or just have a look on time like record of Alpe d’Huez climb:
Les records de la montée de l’Alpe d’Huez
37’35 – Marco Pantani, 1997
38’01 – Lance Armstrong, 2001
39’45 – Miguel Indurain, 1991
48’00 – Bernard Hinault et Greg Lemond, 1986
You can read even if it’s in french, the chart are explicit!
http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=2500
As amateur you can improve slightly your performance by a better training or more training, it’s rarely the case for pro, at least the most serious.
Jean:
While out riding after making my post I realized I was as clear in making my point as I might have been, although ultimately I think we will have to agree to disagree.
I am not trying to argue that Riis did not dope, after all he confessed (although people have been known to confess to crimes they did not commit). What I am trying to say is that there are many factors that can be involved in why one performance is different than another. Just because Armstrong or Pantani or whoever did a faster tine on a given climb that another is not conclusive proof that the one doped. It might be suggestive, but not conclusive.
But then, as I say, I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree about this.
Rant,
In your comment in response to Ludwig, Jan 11th, 2008 at 7:58 pm , —“As it stands, the national federations are the ones who are supposed to be deciding their countrymen/countrywomen’s guilt, rather than a federation in a different country.”
I understand the “context” that you are using this — but is it not true that in the US the “national federation” does not do this rather that the USADA has been charged with this duty? Am I wrong in this bit of information?
You also point out —“But in the case of CONI, that’s Italy’s Olympic committee. Not an individual federation, per se. As a member of the IOC, CONI has to agree that Olympic sports in Italy recognized WADA’s authority and be bound by WADA’s code.”
IS THERE SOMEWHERE IN THE WADA CODE where CONI is able to act as an adjudicating arm of WADA? Since as you point out — CONI represents the IOC in Italy?
Les records de la montée de l’Alpe d’Huez
37″²35 – Marco Pantani, 1997
38″²01 – Lance Armstrong, 2001
39″²45 – Miguel Indurain, 1991
48″²00 – Bernard Hinault et Greg Lemond, 1986
Well we know Pantani was doped to his gills so to have a similar time Armstrong must have been sucking down “the clear” and a few other things as well. So clearly Armstrong doped as did Indurain. Only Lemond is innocent in this doping category ’cause his time sucks. Makes perfect sense to me.
Steve,
I understand how you feel. I certainly have much different thoughts and feelings when watching a bike race or reading about it than I did before. Bike racing is pretty ingrained in me, and what’s happened up to now isn’t enough to kill it for me. But if things continue as they have over the last few years, that could certainly change.
Morgan,
Perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I could have been. USA Cycling, and all other sports federations affiliated with the USOC have agreed to have USADA be the adjudication/enforcement arm of the anti-doping movement in this country, as USADA is the WADA-affliated organization, and the IOC mandates that all Olympic sports and Olympic committees recognized WADA as the anti-doping authority for rules, testing and so forth.
CONI may or may not be able to act as an adjudicating arm, depending on whether or not they also run the anti-doping agency in Italy. I don’t know all the details about the structure in Italy. But as an Olympic committee, they’re supposed to recognize WADA’s authority and WADA’s rules. So if one of WADA’s rules is that only the federation of an athlete’s home country can initiate an anti-doping case against an athlete, CONI is required to respect that rule. At least, that’s my understanding. Now, exactly how the anti-doping system is set up in Italy, I’m not sure.
Rant,
Thank you for clarifying my questions.
I wish to state categorically that what I present below is personally and ethically,
“repugnant.” But it is the only way I find I can make my comment and try to bring to light a point.
The Legendary Greg LeMond — In 1986, Greg LeMond became the first – and still only – American to win the largest single sporting event in the world, the Tour de France.
—Tragedy struck less than a year later when Greg was accidentally shot while hunting in California.
— Sixty shotgun pellets ripped through and lodged in Greg’s body, including two in the lining of his heart.
— While waiting for rescue, his right lung collapsed and he lost three quarters of his blood supply.
—Because of the dangerous location of forty lead pellets, however, surgeons were forced to leave them imbedded in Greg’s body.
—In engineering a comeback, Greg overcame reduced physical capabilities by enhancing the innovations that helped him win the 1986 Tour.
—These cycling breakthroughs, all which have become commonplace today, include: wind tunnel testing, aeroframes, heart rate monitors, protective eyewear and helmets.
—Greg overcame a seemingly insurmountable lead by Frenchman Laurent Fignon to win by 8 seconds, the closest finish ever in the Tour de France’s 85-year history!
—To prove his championship return was no fluke, Greg won the Tour de France for the third time in 1990, before retiring from competitive cycling.
The above is from what can be found at: http://gl.nidus.net/greg_lemond.html
I have taken out some of the “commentary” that is the piece WITHOUT in any way tempering with the original.
I would like to address the comments and particular logic that Jean C presents us. — “Les records de la montée de l’Alpe d’Huez — 37″²35 – Marco Pantani, 1997—- 38″²01 – Lance Armstrong, 2001—- 39″²45 – Miguel Indurain, 1991
— 48″²00 – Bernard Hinault et Greg Lemond, 1986”
If I follow the “reasoning” of Jean C — it is not “possible” to “win” against riders using modern day drugs, his statement, Jan 12th, 2008 at 8:24 am —“sport like cycling died with EPO because if it was not possible to win against cheaters using blood doping as it was possible earlier against old drugs”¦”
(A)—Following Jean C’s logic then I must assume that he is saying that in some way “cheating and doping” in the old days was “fairer.”
(B)—Therefore I must also infer that “everybody in the peloton” was “using.” This INCLUDES EVERYBODY — and everybody was using “old drugs.”
(C)—If I am to accept the “logic” of Jean C’s statement, then I can only assume that “old style cheating and doping” was acceptable to his way of judging the situation.
(D)—Therefore that means that Bernard Hinault, GREG LEMOND and “everybody in the Tour was using old style drugs to help them win and get through.
(E)—Therefore, no matter the claims of Mr. LeMond – that he did it “purely” on being cutting edge in his approach in training and racing. LeMond was also using, along with all the rest.
(F)—Therefore the question I have to ask is — Since Jean C appears to be saying that “old style doping and cheating” is “acceptable” but the “new style of doping” is not. The reasons Jean C implies is that the “new drugs” are so superior that it allows EVERYBODY with the ability to ride like 800 pound gorillas.
(G)—Therefore if EVERYBODY was “cheating and doping” with EPO after 1989 — somehow this “unbalances the FAIRNESS” of the results. This to me seems to contradict what he is stating.
(H)—Being that EVERYBODY was “doping and cheating” from 1989 to the present, implies to me that the “field” of racers were in essence — “balanced.” If we take his reasoning to it’s logical conclusion — there was “no gain” from the doping or cheating accept that with the advent of EPO the OVERALL performances were better.
But you all may have noticed that at some point — this has stopped being a question of “fair play” and “pro or anti-doping.” Rather it becomes a question of WHICH STYLE OF DOPING/CHEATING, one wishes to “ACCEPT.”
And there I am thinking that this was a simple question of “fairness and an equal playing field” in competition, how naïve of me. The real question all along is which style of doping/cheating I need to “agree” with. Perhaps then I should also ask myself if WADA and the IOC are also asking this question in this particular light. Hmnnnn. (sarcasm)
Morgan,
I NEVER SAID that cheating or doping was acceptable… you must be more carrefull before making such points!
My point was : it was possible for clean riders to beat dopers in the old days, but in EPO-blood doping era, it’s impossible to beat them on a GT!
To support the point I gave the evolution of power and time along the years…
Yes EPO change a poor gifted pro rider to a 800 pounds gorilla, look at Bjarne Riis’ carreer.. The improvement in power is equivalent to the difference between 2 categories of riders, that means a continental rider EPO could compete with CLEAN pro tour riders!
Saying that LEMOND and HINAULT were doped in 1986 you only make and reinforces my point that ALL recent winners of GT were using blood doping and very efficient PEDs!
Jean C,
I am grateful that you clarify where you stand on doping and cheating. It may be possible that the different languages we are used to communicating in, is the problem?
My statements came from what YOU had said. I try to look at your statements using a logical approach. It is not meant to “put words in your mouth” — it was an attempt to follow the “logic of your statements.”
You must consider this – you respond now, — “it was possible for clean riders to beat dopers in the old days, but in EPO-blood doping era, it’s impossible to beat them on a GT!”
I do not see where this is in conflict with what I wrote in my statement? BECAUSE — you are stating now the same thing you said before. I do not ARGUE or try to “reinterpret” your statement — BUT — if you say this I would still like to point out to you that,
(A)—If you state that —“”it was possible for clean riders to beat dopers in the old days,” you are saying that, before EPO, the cheating/doping riders were a rarity, yes? I do not “see” how you come to this conclusion.
(B)—Since many “old” pros have written in their “biographies” that they “needed to prepare” themselves correctly — meaning, that they had prepared their doping for the major races. And that this preparation was an “accepted” part and was known by the pro teams themselves.
(C)—From this I must conclude then that in the “old days” they were “cheating/doping,” also. I cannot know if this was a “rarity” as you state — Because if the pros believed in “preparing themselves correctly”— then they must have pretty much all been involved. So where is it logical to assume that it was a “rarity?”
You point out to me then, —“To support the point I gave the evolution of power and time along the years”¦” —I have no problem what so ever in understanding this — it is “self-evident that the numbers have changed drastically. I agree with you.
BUT — There is a schism here about your conclusion. You imply that the old riders were doping too — but somehow this is more acceptable then doping with modern drugs and methods. I do not see this as presenting your point, that being “there was more of a chance” at fairness in the old days of racing, not if all the pros were doping — that means ALL of the peloton were doped. So where is the “imbalance and unfairness” in this respect?
If as you state, —“Yes EPO change a poor gifted pro rider to a 800 pounds gorilla, look at Bjarne Riis’ carreer.. The improvement in power is equivalent to the difference between 2 categories of riders, that means a continental rider EPO could compete with CLEAN pro tour riders!”
You are making a “distinction” now between Continental Riders and Pro riders, Yes? You imply that the Continental Riders are therefore “clean,” am I correct? The Pro riders were “juiced” to the gills. But I see a “flaw” in your reasoning here, Jean C.
(A)—If the “continental Riders were racing with the Pro riders — then my only conclusion can be that the “continental riders” would also “prepare” themselves to compete against the pros.
(B)—Now it may be true that when the “continental riders” only raced against one another — they were “clean.” But I don’t see how this can supported, because you yourself imply that Continental Riders were doping and cheating along with the Pro riders. BECAUSE the entire peloton was doped.
(C)—It seems contradictory therefore to use the “statistical numbers” as a “proof” to validate your conclusion. Since we have to accept that riders in cycling are basically doping wherever they can get “away” with it — then is it not logical to assume that the “numbers” you have — are numbers from earlier “none doped riders.” They cannot be.
Here you take liberties with my words, and present them out of context. —-“Saying that LEMOND and HINAULT were doped in 1986 you only make and reinforces my point that ALL recent winners of GT were using blood doping and very efficient PEDs!” —I am not saying that LEMOND and HINAULT doped.
What I am stating is that if — HINAULT and LEMOND are to be “looked at” as the “old pros” in the equation — then we may “assume” that they were also doping — but this is not saying that they are doping. This is a “logical assumption,” given what has been stated before. Do you see?
What I am trying to point out is this.
In your presentation of your comment, you imply that there is a “difference” in the manner of “good” and “bad” doping. You imply that EPO is bad — BECAUSE — it allowed EVERYBODY to be contending in the races. By boosting everybody’s “ability” to be competitive.
If this is true then you cancel out the “good and bad” aspect of the cheating. Since EVERYBODY was doping in cycling. So I must therefore ask myself — “Where is there an imbalance of the playing field.” I must say — I cannot see one. Not if EVERYONE was doping and cheating as you say.
On the other hand — if you wish to have a completely “drug free peloton” — I have no objections, and neither do any of the others commenting here. But this will not be accomplished by pointing out that we have on our hands a century or more of “cheating and doping” going on in Cycling. At this point, we basically agree that this has been the case.
BUT—What does come into contention is the interpretation of what “cheating and doping” implies, NOW, in the present. We cannot come to clarity by accusing and labeling people as “good cheaters and dopers” as compared to “bad cheaters and dopers.”
WHAT WE CAN DO IS LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE “RULES AND LAWS” WE HAVE IN PLACE and see if they can deal with the present situation. In my opinion and in the opinion of many others, this is not possible, AS THEY STAND. WHY?
BECAUSE — the laws themselves are a product of the very same people who “helped” create the “cheating/doping” situation to begin with. So while I may agree with you that there is “cheating and doping” in existence” in cycling, I cannot agree with you that the methods being used to adjudicate the riders are FAIR AND EQUAL.
Thank you for responding to my statement.
Morgan, Jean,
At the risk of sticking my neck into your discussion … From all that I’ve seen Jean write, I take his point of view to be that there was a sea-change in doping when EPO came on the scene, making it easier for athletes to blood dope without having to go through all the fuss of drawing blood, storing it, and losing a performance edge while their bodies made blood to make up for that which was put in storage.
I don’t take his position as being in favor of the old style of doping, pre-EPO. Just that EPO was a huge change in the equation. In some ways, it is. But it’s also a dangerous change, as no doubt Joe Papp and others who’ve inadvertently gone too far with it might attest. At least, those who didn’t go so far as to wind up dying from blood the density of porridge, might attest to its dangers. The fate of the others speaks for itself.
For what it’s worth.
I’ll be posting something new later on today. But first, I need to go spend an hour or two watching the black line at the bottom of a swimming pool …
Thanks Rant.
With my lack of english skills sometimes I am too focused on english (with lack of success 🙁 and forget to see if my point is clear enough.
Just to make my point clearer.
Level of rider could be measured by their power output : maximum power output and ability to sustain a max power on a long time.
On a clean field, 2 categories of riders like Pro-Tour and Pro Continental are separate by around 10% of power.
A “good” managed doping program with blood doping, EPO, HGH, Testosterone,… gives an improvement of power output in a range of 15 to 25%. Everyone do’nt react the same.
Voet, Festina’s “doctor”, explained in an interview that the most gifted of his team were Brochard and Moreau, but Virenque had more capacity to support doping program so he became the team leader.
The heaviest riders need a lot of oxygen on long climbs so blood doping is a bigger improvement for them than small riders. In the “old days” we have never seen riders so heavy as Indurain or Riis able to climb so well and contenders for winning a GT were identified since their first years!
I hope that could help the reading of my precedent post.
JeanC,
Regarding your previous post and our discussion on Marian Jones, you missed my point. My point was that regardless of the allegations, it has never been proven that she ever took HGH or EPO. Those were just claims made by her ex-husband and a former boyfriend. The only thing that has been proven is that she took THG and that was by her own admission. Her use of anything other than that is purely speculative.
Regarding the death of sport due to EPO use; keep in mind that Eddy Merckx twice tested positive about 20 years before EPO for doping and he is arguably one of the best cyclist ever. While I agree that EPO has the ability to turn a domestique into a GT contender, I still hold that IF doping killed cycling, it did it long before EPO was available.
That being said, I’m not claiming that Merckx was or that I believe he was a doper, simply pointing out the possibility and noting that doping has been influencing races since long before EPO but never received media attention until Simpson died in the ’67 tour. I think the media has also had a lot to do with it as over the years the ability of the media to find and publicize these issues has increased with each new scandal.