It’s not every day that I read something attributed to Pat McQuaid, the head of the UCI. But today is one of those days. Over at CyclingNews.com is a story about McQuaid which features the following:
… McQuaid said, according to Reuters, that Tour de France organizers should invite Astana. He noted the ProTour team’s completely new management, calling it blameless for past problems. “They’re doing everything that is needed and doing even more. They should be given credit for that,” said McQuaid.
In the rest of that particular article, McQuaid expresses some frustration with how the teams participating in the 2008 edition of the Giro d’Italia were picked. Of course, now that the Grand Tour organizers have wrested that power back into their own hands, they’re free to choose whomever they bloody well please. That much has been made clear. How they came by those choices is another matter.
It could have been merely to express their independence of the UCI’s ProTour. Or it could have been due to other considerations, like the organizer’s perception of how seriously a particular team might take their event. No one wants to be told that someone is participating in their event merely to train for something else. That’s disrespectful to the efforts of those who put the event on. (Which may have had something to do with why Astana was left off the list.)
In a week’s time, we may get a glimpse of who will be selected to participate in the Tour de France, when the Tour’s organizers announce the teams invited to participate in this year’s Paris-Nice race. Turns out that one Alberto Contador was the 2007 champion of the race, also known as the Race to the Sun. (You remember AC, right? He also won last year’s Tourus Horribilis, too.) Contador is a member of the Astana team, along with a number of other Discovery refugees (like Levi Leipheimer, who won last year’s Tour of California).
Pretty much, with the change in management and a large number of new riders on the Astana squad, one can expect that things will be a bit different in the year ahead. General manager Johann Bruyneel has contracted with Danish anti-doping expert Rasmus Damsgaard to run Astana’s in-house anti-doping program. Damsgaard’s program is the one implemented at Team CSC last year.
I can see the ASO keeping various teams out of their races during the coming year, for a number of reasons. But keeping out the defending champion will be a tricky matter to spin in the world of public relations. Christian Prudhomme has already said on several occasions that he has no beef against Contador. One can only imagine the PR fiasco that awaits Prudhomme and company as they might try to explain why Astana — Contador’s team — were left out of Paris-Nice or the Tour.
Not that they care, mind you. But in trying to explain it at all, they may not be able to avoid discussing things in terms of the Astana team’s sins (or alleged sins) from years past. If the team were substantially the same, that might carry a bit of weight to it. But with the amount of changes made, from the general manager on down, that’s going to be a tougher sell. Not impossible, but tougher.
It raises the old argument of whether the children (or grandchildren, etc.) should be punished for the sins of their forbears. From where I see things, we shouldn’t be in that kind of business. And neither should the organizers of the Grand Tours. They can invite whomever they please, but they should steer clear of keeping a team out because of the way previous riders and management behaved.
My own guess is that after raking Astana (and perhaps other teams, too) over the coals once or twice, the ASO will choose to let them in. I don’t see Prudhomme courting the kind of PR that will come from keeping the reigning champ from defending his title.
On a slightly related note: Given Bjarne Riis’ persona non grata status at the 2007 Tour de France, anyone got any guesses on whether Team CSC will be invited to the 2008 edition? Riis, in implementing a stringent anti-doping program, could certainly be seen as someone who has learned from his past mistakes. Those are the kinds of people who can help clean up the sport. Just like Saint (as racejunkie calls him) David Millar, who’s certainly been accepted back into the peloton.
I also have a hunch Team Slipstream will soon be getting an invitation to participate in the Tour. If it doesn’t happen this year, then in 2009. And, should Team High Road be at the 2008 Tour along with Slipstream, we might even be able to see two American teams suffering through three weeks around France and environs.
However the ASO makes their decisions (and RCS and Unipublic, too), they should avoid punishing teams for past sins — real or perceived — unless those teams are substantially the same as before. Instead, they should focus on selecting those that will make the races interesting and exciting.
Rant –
Depending on who you read, McQuaid didn’t just say that Astana SHOULD be invited to the Tour de France. He said that they MUST be invited to the Tour de France. See http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=cycling&id=3233888.
To quote from the article: “They have to accept that the UCI set the rules for the sport.” “This is crux of the whole problem between ASO and the UCI. ASO don’t follow the rules. Now it’s ASO’s choice: They either follow the rules of the UCI or get out of the UCI. One or the other.”
If McQuaid wanted to BAN Astana from the Tour de France, he could not have done a better job. Want to force the ASO to do something? Tell them that they can’t do it.
I like your analysis of “the sins of the fathers”, but I think that there are a lot of people in cycling who think that Astana was a dirty team, is presently a dirty team and will continue to be a dirty team. I personally have no opinion on the subject, and I think that Astana deserves a chance to prove that they can and will race clean. But to use the metaphor from the last post, the Tour de France is not my party.
Rant, Larry
The teams and the whole damned cycling world are spending a heck of a lot of money to “prove” that they are “clean.” They have the “ACE program”, they have “blood-passports” – and I don’t know what else – but the question of “clean” seems to be being addressed. Of course we cannot know if these new testing programs actually work or can be applied in a fair manner – but EVERY TEAM has been obliged TO HAVE SUCH A PROGRAM IN PLACE – otherwise they may not expect to participate in the GT’s or the Pro-races.
Shortly after the last “Tdebacle” – Mr Prudhomme stated unequivocally that “no passport-program – no racie! Mr Pound was right in there extolling the virtues and veracity of the “new testing program!
Part of the “reason” for having these new programs in place was to ensure that “accepted” science” is being applied when riders or teams are accused of doping. NOT HOW AN INDIVIDUAL OR A GROUP FEELS OR THINKS ABOUT riders or teams.
We the public – were led to believe that the “blood-passport programs” are a clear and definite solution and alternative to how the innocence or guilt was being determined. Jumping to the present.
Astana and all the other pro teams and now even “continental teams” have had to comply with having a “blood-passport program” in place. Yet it would now appear that ASO and others feel “justified” in EXCLUDING these teams – because of mere suspicion from the past that they were dirty? So WHAT ARE WE BEING TOLD?
Either the “blood-passport” program works or it doesn’t. Do we know that it works or doesn’t – no way to tell – since the question of guilt or innocence seems to be determined NOT BY THESE PROGRAMS- but rather how “people feel and think” about certain teams with a “past.”
So why are we BACK at exactly the same place we were last year? With individuals being able to simply “point the finger” in the media and imply that these teams or individuals “should be considered questionable?” – It seems to me the entire effort by pro cycling and continental teams have come to naught.
The problems in having a “clean race” in professional cycling is once again being used by the organizers as an excuse for not inviting teams. In my view there is no basis for such judgments or assertions!
The reasons being given or “guessed at” are, as Rant puts it, a question of their past. I put to you all that this has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT – except that this “line of reasoning” is “palatable” for the media and public consumption. It plays directly to the “fractured” perceptions of the public at large – who have come to make up their minds about individuals and groups being “clean or dirty.” In otherwords, very convenient for the people making “decisions” about who gets to race and who doesn’t!
Excuse me – I had been under the assumption that the entire cycling world HAS AGREED that the “new blood-passport program” is the way that guilt or innocence will be determined – rather then on how people feel or perceive the teams or riders?
It would seem that I and parts of the public have been “naive” once again! TRUTH cannot be come at – through science! It would appear that we must rely on “individuals” who “know best or better” to tell us who is guilty or not! How simple, how could I and the public have been so mistaken?
Mr P and Mr Z are obviously seeing themselves as people who are “informed and in the know” about such things – and that the public and I should just keep out of it and “accept” their “profound knowledge” and sense of “fair play” – to KNOW BETTER who to invite or to exclude from their races.
I realize that my personal opinion counts very little in this “larger scheme of things perception,” that the “public” knowledge” of cycling is limited to what we are “told” and little to do with what we know. We are after all “childlike” in our thinking. It was a natural mistaken assumption on our part that we could expect a “fair” method to controlling doping and cheating in the ranks of the peloton.
I feel humbled and shattered! I must assume that the public now does too. How naive of us all to think that we could expect the new testing procedures to know when a team or a rider is clean or dirty, or to expect that the millions being spent by the teams to implement the “newest scientific” method to determine “cheating” actually can determine what was being touted as the “fairest”method to come along to the present!
Nope, we were wrong. I was wrong in my assumptions! Mr P and Mr Z and Mr Pound are the “methods” for telling us who is “clean or dirty!” How could we have “missed this?”
One point of interest.
Mr McQuaid seems very determined to point out that ASO MUST invite ASTANA to the TdeF…okay – I have to agree with this.
One important omission here then would be to ask: “Why is Mr M not getting on the case of the Giro?” Isn’t the Giro also UCI sanctioned? One would think that what is good for one must also be good for the other – so what is the UCI doing about “correcting” the problem that the Giro has produced with their “non invitations?”
Mr McQ seems eager to bring up the contentions between the UCI and ASO – letting us know “what he thinks” about the whole thing. YET – neither Mr McQ nor reporter Alan Baldwin seem to think that the “Giro Question” needs to be attended.
Why is that exactly? If the UCI rules are to be “fairly” applied – then the Giro is not following the rules – plain and simple!
The record of Astana:
– many doping cases which tarnished TDF
– new riders with a dubious past
– a dubious manager named the Hog who broke agreement between teams to left doping last year, who signed Basso.
Astana have only acted because they have no choice! And they acted badly by choising a dubious manager and recruiting riders known inside cycling world as dopers. With no Damsgaard program, we would not have this thread.
Has Bruyneel done a conference where he adopts strong stances against doping? No, he just answered to reporters, never took the lead.
Are their riders better than other? We don’t know.
With less PED a new hierarchy will be establish.
Why does Astana deserve an advantage on teams which have cleaned their house earlier?
What would be the sign send to teams and riders if they invite them?
Even if Prudhomme said Contador is not a problem, he thinks that he is a problem because CONI can find something about him so the sworn should be removed before to let him entry. Prudhomme cannot say “Contador is a problem” for the moment that would jeopardize 2007 TDF.
So there is a lot of good reasons to not invite Astana…. but probably for extra political reasons they would be invited if Contadope is not caught before!
Morgan, excellent posts!
I was also wondering why Pattie was only pointing at ASO not following the rules if they didn’t invite all PT-teams, what about Giro that left 4 PT-teams out?
Imagine any other sport where this would be possile (organisor of a major “tournament” leaving 4 top teams out, without any proper reason), I can’t figure out any.
Giro pointing out last years dope prolems with Astana and High
Road is a very weak argument, especially since both teams have changed dramaticly after that. As to Astana sending a “B-team” to Giro; Brajkovic, Levi, Klöden, Gusev, Rubiera-doesn’t sound too weak for me, especially compared to the other teams… Just ridiculous actions from Mr.Z.
I’m starting to get sick and tired of this whole doping and UCI/ASO/RCS drama, everyone withing cycling are doing their best effort to ruin the sport.
And if the ASO won’t allow Contador to defend his title (even if they don’t care about the consequenses), cycling will be destroyed. Who wants to follow a sport where the best teams and atheletes are not allowed to race? Not me for sure.
Sorry for typos.
Jean C, I’m sure if you look at every team like that you can a LOT of dirt there too…
Don’t just cherry pick Astana even if you don’t like the team..
Just sayin’
As a resident cynic, something I have been posting in different forums for over a year. Is Doping really the problem/issue or is the focal point REALLY CONTROL, with doping as the sub-text?
Ludwig, in particular, post’s often of the EVIL of the “big money” in cycling. He see’s this relating ONLY to the athletes. I chuckle because, I seriously doubt that the GT’s are run for charity.
The game is power, cycling participants are just the pieces on the “power” chess board. IMHO of course.
Regards,
Let’s compare this situation with the NCAA for a moment. In college sports, if a particular school is found, after an investigation, to have violated NCAA rules, it may be subject to a variety of sanctions. The severity of sanctions depends on how bad the violations were, the number of violations, how long they went on, whether or not the school cooperated with the investigation, etc. The school and particular team may be punished for several years, even if the offending coach and/or players leave. A recent example is the Baylor BB team following the Patrick Denehy (sp?) scandal: the coach was found to have run a dirty program, was fired, any players involved were kicked off the team, yet the next year, the BB team was not allowed to have any games prior to the start of conference play.
The key here is that such sanctions are only applied after an investigation of the team/school, not merely because of accusations. It is a fact that some riders from Astana and High Road, aka T-Mobile, were found to have doped. However, I am not aware of any investigation which has demonstrated that the team itself was involved, and no controlling body (UCI, WADA, or a national federation) has found the team guilty. As of this time, both Astana and HR are in good standing with the UCI, and as far as I am aware, any rider currently under contract is also in good standing. If they are in good standing, and UCI rules do not permit barring a team or rider in good standing, then the Giro or Tour should not bar them.
Of course, these races could decide to operate without UCI sanction, and thus be free to choose their own rules. UCI would not be happy. I am not familar with the UCI rules, but I suspect they might have a clause which would bar teams/riders from competing in non-sanctioned events, or at least, could soon implement such a clause. Riders would then face the choice between competing in the big tours and being sanctioned by UCI (or their national federation) or skipping the big tours (as well as other races promoted by ASO and RCS). We might end up with 2 groups of teams/riders, sort of like the days of the AFL/NFL rivalry.
While I am not happy with everything UCI has done, I think that there needs to be an international controlling body for cycling. It is, after all, an international sport.
Wow. Lots of responses already.
Larry,
I’ll take a look at that article in a bit, when I get a break from the “day job”.
Morgan,
Good points.
Jean,
I know there are many who believe that Bruyneel has been the most successful at beating the anti-doping system, although the hard evidence for that position is a bit difficult to come by (tests of former members of Postal once they’ve left the fold seem to be used to point towards Bruyneel’s abilities in that regard). How much of a show should he put on about adopting a tough anti-doping stance, and how much should we look at his actions and their results? For me, actions speak more loudly than words. From my perspective, we should give him a chance to prove whether he can successfully clean up the Astana team.
Sara and William,
I see your points about tournaments. I’ll get to those in a moment.
Dragon,
Power? Control? Hmm. Money may be the root of all evil (or not), but certainly the hunger for money cuts both ways — one the side of the cyclists and the promoters alike. And the hunger for power and control certainly seems to affect many of the players in this on-going saga, too.
Now, back to the tournament thing. Here’s what I’m not sure about (haven’t done the research, yet): Do the UCI’s rules even address who should be invited to a non-ProTour event? Being sanctioned by the UCI means agreeing to follow certain rules regarding the structure of the race, how racers shall behave, bicycle specifications and so forth. But now that the Grand Tour organizers have left the ProTour fold, does the UCI have the power to dictate who can and can’t be invited? There are some practical matters, like the stupidity of not inviting the prior year’s champion, to consider. Does someone know where it’s written that these organizers are still bound to invite all of the ProTour teams? Or is this just McQuaid’s bluster speaking?
In the NCAA and similar organizations, as William points out, there are consequences for violating the rules, including being unable to participate in tournaments, etc. In the case of Astana and High Road, what rules have been violated and by whom? Have those violations been proven by actual investigations? And if so, what consequences should result? The new iterations of both teams have embraced blood passports and two very aggressive testing programs. So, I don’t see that they’ve gone against the flow there.
Perhaps (most likely?) this is all about power and control. The organizers have the power and control to invite whomever they want. Clearly, RCS is taking advantage of that to exclude teams they don’t want. Will the ASO and Unipublic follow suit? It’s going to be interesting to see.
Rant & Ludwig,
As per usual I am inarticulate.
First, I was not attempting to discredit Ludwig’s proposition, rather to ADD the other side as having similar and possibly a more critical motivation…POWER.
An athlete does what an athlete does, for good or ill. Rarely, from their activities clean or not do they achieve POWER.
UCI, the GT’s and WADA, are playing a far different game, the goal is POWER and the winner expects ULTIMATE POWER in the sport. Again, just my opinion.
Regards,
Thanks Sara,
I do not see why it is so “complicated?” Last year ASO, RCS, Unibet – all agreed that the way to stop “doping/cheating” was to institute a “blood passport program.” In fact it was made “clear in no uncertain terms” that WITHOUT the blood passport program on each pro team and then later the pro teams demanded that the Continental teams also must adhere to this – AND have done so! All that “data” that has been collected since last season is there. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? Perhaps it is as simple as what Jean C portrays for us.
For certain types of individuals and groups – “scientific proof” is not enough! They want to feel that “their” feelings and beliefs are superior to science and therefore it matters not if an “action” is agreed upon” by the ENTIRE CYCLING COMMUNITY – THEY want to have the POWER to use the “finger pointing technique” or the “media release innuendo” as a means to “combat doping.”
I ask myself then – WHAT ARE THESE INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS “REALLY AFRAID OF?” Is it perhaps that they don’t wish to have scientific unbiased testing? After all – wouldn’t the “blood passport” show that some one or some team are bending the rules and doping? Or are they AFRAID that the science itself can be “manipulated” to hide doping?
I suppose that ANY TESTING PROGRAM may be “manipulated” – if it remains a mechanical process that relies on “average numbers” for individuals. But isn’t this “issue” of treating everyone like a Volkswagon production model being addressed by the “blood-passport program?” So this cannot be it.
Could it be that the various groups – UCI, ASO, RCS, Unibet had discovered that somehow the EXPERTS who interpret the data will not be representing their interests – but ACTUALLY only interpreting the data that is before them? Well, that must be a scary thought if you have been used to the power of cutting riders and teams off at the knee merely by “insinuations!”
IMHO – if we “feed into” this habit of “rationalizing and explaining away” what the combative groups are trying to get away with, the “possible reasons” they may be acting as they are – cycling is soon to be DOG MEAT! We must not let this happen.
The UCI, ASO, RCS and Unibet had all agreed upon the “blood-passport program.” There was no “conditionality” attached to this when this acceptance was AGREED UPON! I don’t particularly care what MR. Z’s “personal beliefs are – nor should any of you. If you do accept such “arbitrary methods” FROM ANY PARTICIPANT IN CYCLING – then what the heck do we have “any rules at all!”
So tell me then – WHO ARE THE “VILLAINS” RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT?
IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT IT IS not those “dope fiend” riders! Most likely because with 8,000 tests being performed on EVERY ONE – the “dope fiends” are more then likely to be falling over from blood loss – let alone be clever enough to be “outfoxing” the tests!
No sir – the “villains” in this drama are the ENTRENCHED old guard who are damned used to be able to manipulate results so that the “cheating” could continue – unabated. Perhaps they “outsmarted themselves” this time – and actually put into place a testing program that has a chance at keeping cycling HONEST! If we let them get away with it – we deserve to lose our lovely sport and the athletes who commit themselves to it.
The solution is not that complicated people – HOLD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE TILL THEY DO AS THEY HAD AGREED TO DO. Simple.
Dragon,
The profit-motive doesn’t just relate to the athletes. It relates to the managers and doctors, as well as the race organizers. What I usually refer to are the vastly unequal salaries among cyclists, and how this frequently corresponds with how much they are expected to dope and/or how much pressure they are under to keep things secret. But that shouldn’t obscure that doing everything possible to win is in the interest of everyone on a cycling team. Regarding the role of the organizers in the doping/money matrix, naturally it was their interest in the past to look the other way. But obviously the problems involving Astana, Rabo, T-Mobile etc at last year’s Tour cost a lot of credibility and future sponsorshp. So if you want my view–its in the GTs interest to do nothing if no one cares about doping, while it’s in their interest to do something if the media and sponsors are on their ass. The latter seems to be the case now.
On the OP,
I’ve of 2 minds on this. On the one hand it’s true what McQuaid says about Pro Tour teams being more dope tested, and it’s true that sponsors might be more reluctant to sponsor teams if they don’t get automatic invitations. Moreover, if you are going to exclude Astana on doping/publicity grounds, then one might as well be systematic about it and exclude Rabobank, CSC, and Caisse as well.
On the other hand, McQuaid has zero credibility on these issues. Zero. I mean, look who he is defending! We are talking about Johan Bruyneel, the most prominent of doping DSes. Granted, Bruyneel has been extraordinarily successful keeping his dirty laundry hidden. But how long can this go on? Remember, this is pretty much what happened last year–the Tour didn’t want Astana last year either. And as Jean C points out above, Astana gave up any right to the benefit of the doubt when they hired Bruyneel to run the team. Hiring Bruyneel does not constitute a fresh start. Need I remind you that Vino only ended up on Liberty (later Astana) because he couldn’t get on Disco….so he went with the next best doping DS Manolo Saiz (who, of course, was Bruyneel’s DS and mentor, and who passed on Contador).
If you force the organizers to invite the prominent doping teams, then you are pretty much chucking any hope that the teams will voluntarily restrain themselves when it comes to doping. That means you have to put all your cards in the testing basket, even though 1) the testing/regulations have been ineffective and couldn’t save the Tour from humiliation last year 2) there are suspicions/allegations that many tests are not carried out ethically, and/or it is easy to manipulate the tests.
Considering all these issues, imho it would be smarter for the organizers to stick to teams that they can trust to carry on a fair race. History has shown that the UCI (under Verdrueggen and McQuaid) is the last organization to make determinations about who is clean or who is honest.
The sooner Pat McQuaid is out of cycling, the better. The same goes for Bruyneel and the rest of the doping DSes.
Morgan,
I don’t know if you are being sarcastic, but if you think the ‘blood passport’ or whatever new publicity stunt is going to stop doping in cycling, or stop the doping DSes and doping doctors from doing what they do best, then you are operating under an illusion. Race organizers and UCI honchos have tried to convince us that dopers can’t get past the tests for years….these arguments ring hollow.
Cycling needs genuine reform and credible leadership if it is to come out from under this mess.
Dragon,
I didn’t get the sense that you were discrediting Ludwig’s position at all. Merely adding to it. Money and power have something to do with the battles going on, from a number of angles.
Ludwig,
Agreed, it does seem as though the media and sponsors are holding the organizers’ feet to the fire regarding doping. At least to the point of making it look like they’re doing something to address the problem. How long either the media or the sponsors will keep their focus on this remains to be seen. Once they’ve lost interest in the story (it could be a long time before that happens, however), it will be interesting to see what happens next.
Ludwig,
Unless we do have an impartial test that actually proves the state of the athletes chemistry – you will never “clean up cycling.”
You can’t have it both ways. either you go with the Passport system or some one better give us ANSWERS why all the hoopla over having EVERYBODY doing it.
NO ONE will trust “human assertions” of guilt or innocence – and to be honest – no one should! If we can’t find a means of “unbiased testing” then we have only two choices –
1) – cut the c#*p and stop with “using all this holier then thou” – evil empire notions. and ACCEPT that we MAY WISH TO HAVE “CLEAN RACING” but we HAVE NO WAY TO MAKE IT HAPPEN! — (I don’t mean you personally)
2) – OR – TAKE SERIOUSLY that the “testing procedure” that is referred to as the “blood-passport program” is reliable and realistic and will give us the means to avoid “human” interference, mostly – and rely on it to determine “doping and cheating.”
This means that NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT to make assumptions or insinuations or conjectures – Get the butts on the bike – and if people are cheating – they will be exposed – to AIM for “ZERO TOLERANCE IN RACING2 AGAINST DRUGS – might sound great as a “sound bite” – but unless you have a reliable means of bringing it about – it ain’t going to happen.
To claim that the “sponsors or public” will walk away from pro cycling if doping is caught is only convenient for people who have not thought it through. SAYING “zero tolerance” – does not mean that we shall get no drug cheating. It means we are able to “catch” the cheaters doing it.
And pardon my naivete in believing that ANY OTHER KIND OF TESTING is as effective as a sieve carrying water – we were told and led to believe that the “Blood Passport” testing will deliver this.
No one is claiming that the ‘Blood Passport’ will show who is doping and who isn’t doping. Even Damsgaard can’t guarentee that CSC riders weren’t doping last year–indeed in all liklihood doping continued. Frankly it may be years before testing becomes a credible deterrent–in the meantime new drugs and new doping methods will emerge.
I don’t have an answer for cycling’s problems beyond owning up to the truth and legalizing the PEDs. That, or actually holding teams responsible for doping. But in ancy case the way towards curbing doping has to be dumping the leadership that has profitted from the omerta policy and has no credibility regarding anti-doping measures. Give the sport a chance to breathe, give it the opportunity for a real fresh start. Call a conference committed to truth telling and allow the athletes to state what they think about anti-doping without fear of retribution or gotcha stories. Because sooner or later, when cycling proclaims a “new beginning” year after year (led of course, by the same officials and doping DSes that created the doping culture), the sponsors and the public won’t have any faith left to spare.
So what you are basically saying Ludwig, is that all the hoopla is, in your opinion, nothing but “press release spin.”
If I continue with this logic – then I must assume that EVERYTHING that has been done to now is nothing more then “window dressing.”
I do not believe that teams like Slipstream, CSC, ASTANA, High Road, etc, are merely “going through the motions” to please the UCI or WADA. If they are – I would fire every one in the management! For wasting time and money.
If Damsgaard states that “he cannot guarantee” no doping – Then what good is his testing? Seriously? Perhaps what Damsgaard meant was that “there is no guarantee” that people will not try to dope – but I would say that it would be the BIGGEST SCAM in cycling history if all these passport programs were nothing more then methods to deplete the teams of their funds and merely to give the public the “impression” that “something is being done.”
If this is so – WHERE THE HECK IS ANY CREDIBILITY? Pardon me if I personally cannot see ANY INDIVIDUAL as having the “power” to SAVE cycling. The doping controls should never be allowed to be based on “subjective” interpretations.
To me there is a big difference between UCI or NCAA or someother controlling organization investigating a team, finding enough evidence of violations, and rendering a sanction, and an event organizer saying “we think team X is dirty and are not going to invite it to our event.” This raises another question to UCI: does it have any powers in regards to a team to sanction a team? Can UCI suspend a team, or levy fines, or whatever, if it finds the team is guilty of infractions? Or can UCI only direct actions against individuals?
And it seems that Brunyel is being “convicted” on the basis on lack of evidence: his riders seldom if ever were caught doping, so he must be the ultimate doping mastermind. Of course, any rider who wins or does well in a big tour also must be a doper. I can see the Tour turning into an Alphonse and Gaston routine, where riders stand around saying “after you” to each other instead of racing for fear they might end up on the podium and be accused of being a doper on that basis.
William,
I couldn’t agree with you more. Alphonse and Gaston – that is very funny. Thanks for reminding me.
Sadly – the scenario that you paint, in my opinion is exactly what is happening now.
Perhaps, the cycling world should hire Bruyneel to run an anti-doping program? If the guy is SO GOOD that he has managed to elude detection – all these years – bet you he could develope a testing method that could be effective against dopers…..I hope you realize I am saying this with tongue in cheek.
Obviously there is something to internal testing programs. I don’t doubt that there are people of integrity working for them. But the idea that such testing programs can definitively determine whether there is or is not doping remains an ideal to be striven for, rather than a reality. Damsgaard admits as much–all he can do is determine whether the values are in the realm of normality. That is, he can only call foul if doping is the only reasonable explanation for the values he is seeing. But the whistleblowers have described many ways to manipulate the results and keep them within ‘normal’ realms. Consequently anti-doping authorities have a tough job keeping up with all these methods, and without substanital cooperation from the pro cycling teams themselves.
So yes, I think it’s hard to escape the conclusion that a great deal of dope testing is indeed window dressing–an attempt to legitimate the sport in the eyes of the skeptics. It is indeed highly, highly unlikely that riders like Scheck, O’Grady, and Sastre (of CSC) were able to achieve the results they did last year without doping. Consequently I can’t conclude that Damsgaard’s program does much besides warning the team when a rider’s values stray into territory where doping is the only explanation.
What good is the testing? A good question. I have argued here and elsewhere that the strongest argument “riders rights” advocates have is that dope testing is not fair because some will get away with it while others become scapegoats–either way the strong incentive to dope remains. But on the other hand, if you suspend the testing completely, there is the danger that riders will be forced to dope at a level where health is seriously compromised. This is why whistleblowers like Jaksche oppose ending testing, even though he also says that only the stupid or irresponsible dopers get caught.
But from a more optimistic perspective, the events of last year’s Tour indicate that the testing is getting better, as they were able to catch Ferrari client Vinokourov (although Vino’s positive may be attributable to desperation–allegedly he used a foreign blood transfusion).
I loathe hypocrisy and deception, and therefore I despise the UCI charade, the omerta code, and the phony ethics pledges–all of which are usually dictated by the UCI honchos, the doping DSes and the doctors. I’ll concede that sometimes this bias leads me to take unreasonable positions–after all there are worse things than lies, and there’s only so much that can be done to stop doping without instituting measures most would find unreasonable. But ultimately what riles the most is that the structure of cycling (ie the way profits are made and the dominance of the old school leadership) forces its main players to lie and cheat incessantly. If more people involved in cycling put in the effort to distinguish between appearance and reality, then perhaps enough light could be shed on the corrupt practices to enable some institutional/structural reform that could, at the very least, allow people in cycling to practice their profession with honor and without being forced to lie.
William and Morgan,
I’m not going to get into the Bruyneel issue, which has been rehashed elsewhere and has been debated on this blog before. I don’t think it’s possible to doubt that Bruyneel encouraged doping within his team if you examine the context and the facts. But for now I’ll only say this–I’m prepared to wager 100$ that within the next 10 years it will be revealed that there was organized doping at Postal. Even die-hard Lance apologists like Martin Dugard seem prepared to acknowledge this now, which says a lot.
Could someone show me any credible evidence that supports the claim that Bruyneel is the most prominent of the doping DS not to be caught? That somehow he was the doping ninja lord.
I don’t want anymore innuendo. I don’t want to hear about that freaky mole you might have that can detect doping. I don’t want to hear about friends he might have had. Remember 6-degrees of separation. . .who the hell can’t be tied to some sort of doping? Especially in cycling. I want facts that somehow separate Bruyneel from all the other DS. Get me the bloody syringe or else let it go, because he is no more soiled than the rest of the clowns running this sport.
Wow! Lots of commotion over here recently!
Programs like the ACE program are a vast improvement over the WADA-UCI style testing, in large part because the ACE people test more often, and also because they’re able to look at trends. But it’s not a foolproof system. I don’t think THEY think they can detect HGH, for example.
In contrast, we don’t know much about the biological passport program yet. They’re probably looking at all the same trends as the ACE folks (though I’m not sure whether the biological passport is looking at both blood and urine), but I don’t think they’re testing as often. It’s worth looking into.
Morgan, it’s not a matter of whether the biological passport “works” or doesn’t “work”. It’s a question of whether a team get to play the game if they follow the rules. At this moment, Astana appears to be doing everything right, they’re playing by the rules, they’ve got the same anti-doping program in house as CSC and they have their biological passports.
The only question is whether Astana should be punished this year because the team had big doping problems last year. Well, that’s a fair question, I think. William talks about what happens in the NCAA if your college football team is caught violating the recruiting rules. That’s a good analogy. It’s OK with me if you want to punish a team for past violations of the rules, so long as there are rules governing the punishments.
Dragon has a good point! There is more involved here than a difference of opinion over how to handle doping in cycling. The Giro seems to want to punish teams that don’t sent their best riders to Italy or who view the Giro as a way to get in shape for the Tour de France. So … the Giro is waging a prestige war against the Tour?
Rant, I spent about 15 minutes in the UCI rules trying to answer the question of who gets invited to what events. I’ve concluded from this research that the UCI has a boatload of rules! Let me know if you find out anything. I’m also interested in the status of the Pro Continental teams, which are kind of the second-tier pro teams (like Slipstream).
Ludwig, I particularly enjoyed your 2/7 2:26 pm post. I stuggled to find something there to disagree with. I can’t go along with the idea that anyone who rides well in a race must be doping, though that’s what a lot of us are thinking even if we don’t say it out loud. I think there may be a bit more substance in some of these anti-doping programs — I’ve been an outspoken fan of the ACE program, for example. But your points about appearances and reality are well taken.
Michael, there’s no credible proof out there against Bruyneel. I’ve looked and found nothing. There’s a ton of suspicion. There’s the connection to Lance, and of course there’s no credible proof against Lance either. There’s the connection to Tyler and Floyd and others who were caught doping (or falsely accused of doping, depending on who we’re talking about and your point of view) when they weren’t on a Bruyneel team. To some, that means that they were doping with Bruyneel, and took the dope with them to a new team. That’s never made any sense to me — the suspicion about Bruyneel is that he ran the most sophisticated doping program in cycling, so if Tyler and the others learned to dope from Bruyneel, why did they do it in such a stupid manner after they left Bruyneel?
I personally think the big issue here in this post is not doping. It’s the organization of the sport. The sport needs stability in order to fight doping or to do anything else. The sport needs predictability. This is why Discovery folded shop last year: the potential sponsors asked for assurances that Discovery would be able to race in this year’s Tour de France, and Lance could not provide those assurances. Lance is looking pretty smart right about now — consider Bob Stapleton at Team High Road, who put a ton of his own money into the team, and now is wondering where his team will be able to race.
If you want to fight doping in cycling, you’re going to need money to do it, and money comes from sponsors, and sponsors want to know what they’re sponsoring. The Giro might think it’s taking a bold anti-doping stand by excluding Astana and High Road, but they’re actually eroding the stability that cycling needs to combat doping.
Let’s hope the Tour de France does not repeat this mistake.
Michael,
I’m not certain that the super ninja lord (:-))) – left any “traces” to be found…Well, at least that is the “assumption” if we are to accept the above “allegations”….
It is exactly such “personal beliefs” that some hold that only reinforces the need for a “scientific method” to “controlling doping.”
My belief is that the real “poison” legacy of Mr Pound of WADA and the scurrilous in-fighting that has been going on ALL AROUND by EVERYONE – is the result that some will hold such beliefs about cycling, because it suits their world view. There is no way other then expressing ones – “personal belief” that ALL OF CYCLING is corrupt and not to be trusted.
I do not agree with this philosophy or outlook. I tend to think that such individuals feel justified in their public stance due to the lack of concrete “proof” that has been placed before the public for consumption. If anything this is the real danger to cycling. And it also mirrors exactly the kind of assertions that have been made by the “governing bodies” to PUBLICLY lynch a targeted athlete, individual or group.
As long as no one or no group is held responsible for such behavior – this will continue. Yes, I agree, it is rather tiring trying to point to the “flaws” in such reasoning.
Personally – I do not think that every individual that plops his/her butt on a saddle in cycling is basically amoral and will take the route of least resistance simply to “win.” But lets be realistic – ISN’T THIS THE VERY IDEA that has been perpetrated by the governing bodies to “justify” their actions?
It would appear now that some are ready to call the newest testing method a complete failure – ignoring the fact that the blood passport program hasn’t even been applied yet in real time or in real application. It is no more then mere convenience for holders of such beliefs to attack and criticize ANY METHODOLOGY that will threaten their perceptions of the cycling world.
therefore the only solution that we can or should aim for is a “testing method” that is ACCEPTED BY ALL. The UCI, WADA, ASO, RCS and Unipublic last year ALL AGREED that the blood passport program was the means to control, read test for – doping. They all agreed TO THIS! NO ONE FORCED THEM – THEY NOT ONLY AGREED BUT MADE IT A MANDATORY CONDITION FOR PARTICIPATION IN PRO RACING.
So here we are, the beginning of the new season and MR Z ignores what was agreed upon – because of some spurious personal belief on his part. The only question that remains, in my opinion then – is do we “allow” such behavior? My vote is NOT TO DO SO! Because as one may easily discern others will use the same “methods” to get around playing by the ACCEPTED RULES, read, Mr P of ASO.
If we do not have a means of “testing” that is accepted by all – which makes me a bit confused since LAST YEAR EVERYONE AGREED – ALL THE PRINCIPLES now on center stage AGREED AND DEMANDED – that the “blood passport” was the solution to this very real problem. Yet at this time – we find that some of the parties now feel different.
Is the “blood passport” just a smoke screen that cycling as a whole threw up in the publics face to give the impression of doing something about doping? Or is it an actual viable method for controlling cheating by doping? To judge it BEFORE it even is applied in real time under racing conditions – serves no one to the good.
I cannot believe that such farce would be made simply for individuals or groups like Damsgaard and others , merely to create a business opportunity for them to bilk the teams of money. To bilk all of cycling for money. I cannot imagine that cycling is populated by such fools. No matter that some will insist that it is populated by fools from the start.
Larry,
I agree with your take on the matter – I simply highlight it by pointing to the fact that everybody had agreed to this and now – people are trying to tap dance their way out of it – using the same old assertions as justification.
Michael, Larry
About Bruyneel and doping, wasn’t he DS at US Postal team when 200 syringes and a lot of medicines like actovegin were found in their rubbish ? Of course you can say there is no evidence that he was knowing what were doing his riders!
It seems that Bruyneel never found a sponsor to replace Disco. He was constantly whining to other DS during races and especially TDF : “Don’t you know a sponsor for me? That’s incredible, it’s the best team and there is no sponsor!”
For some of pro-cycling people, Bruyneel knows the key people for a good doping program: doctors (we know too) but more important were to found the best product with controlled dosage. The last point is very important if your riders want to dope to the limit… Too much testosterone in a patch gel and an athlete can be found positive, timing are important too. Stricness is necessary too, probably the Armstrong effect.
When rider left Disco, they have probably not understand that key points very important near the limits and finally they were caught.
Blood passport is not the final weapon… First it’s not ready, a lot of work needs to be done especially to be able to punish athletes with few doubts. A lot of people are saying that it was enough efficient on CSC, some riders have lowered their past performances. Probably it could be only used to decrease a lot the limit of maximum of doping
Better is the increase of OOC
Yep, that was a surprise that one of the biggest teams out there couldn’t find a new sponsor.
We shall see how many is left after this year…
it’s tile for history:
Before PT, GT invited teams. I don’t remember complain.
There is few years UCI (2005) wanted to add GT on Pro Tour calendar, but GT organizers complaining that there were too many PT teams, and they wanted only 16 (or 14?) PT in their races! UCI agreed to change it they have just to wait the PT licences renewing but it was never done. Worst UCI pulled the plug to have 20 PT teams and when a team left PT, UCI tried to replace it with Unibet!
That is why we have this mess… ever UCI wanted to force GTs to accept their will.
“Michael, there’s no credible proof out there against Bruyneel. I’ve looked and found nothing. There’s a ton of suspicion. There’s the connection to Lance, and of course there’s no credible proof against Lance either. There’s the connection to Tyler and Floyd and others who were caught doping (or falsely accused of doping, depending on who we’re talking about and your point of view) when they weren’t on a Bruyneel team. To some, that means that they were doping with Bruyneel, and took the dope with them to a new team. That’s never made any sense to me “” the suspicion about Bruyneel is that he ran the most sophisticated doping program in cycling, so if Tyler and the others learned to dope from Bruyneel, why did they do it in such a stupid manner after they left Bruyneel?”
Obviously you haven’t looked hard enough. Some might say there is no “physical evidence” (although, as JeanC points out, there is physical evidence). But there is without doubt “credible proof” that doping must have been going on. Start by reading David Walsh’s book–there is more than enough empirical and anecdotal evidence detailed there. Then consider the scientific evidence on the benefits of doping. Can you provide a rational explanation for how Bruyneel could have racked up so many GT wins with Heras and Armstrong in the midst of the blood doping era..without doping?
History will ultimately tell us how it was that Bruyneel and co. avoided positives within the team. The answer is probably similar to how Saiz and co. avoided positves—good doctors (after all, Bruyneel used many of the same doctors as Saiz), corruption at the level of the UCI and testing, culling potential whisteblowers from the team (Walsh gets into this), and strict adherence to omerta. But in the meantime, there is more than enough direct and circumstantial evidence of doping at Postal/Disco to convince anyone going at the issue in good faith.
It seems to me that if you defend Bruyneel and his like on the basis of “innocent until ‘proven’ guilty”, you are also more or less endorsing the practice of omerta and the rewards its confers. You are saying that it doesn’t matter what cyclists are really doing, the only thing that matters is whether authorities can provide “factual evidence” indicating doping. Again, there is appearance (media press releases and UCI spin) and reality (deduced via empirical facts and logic). A common tendency of bad-faith argumentation is to stick to the realm of appearance and to make no compromise with the realm of reality until one is dragged kicking and screaming (in this case, the demand for “smoking gun” proof in the face of overwelming circumstantial and empirical evidence). While fans embrace willfull illusion, cycling sinks deeper into the mud of deception. That’s because the fans demand deception–they demand that thier illusions be endorsed and confirmed. They love omerta and are prepared to condemn any cyclist who strays.
Why did Tyler dope in a “stupid manner”? He wanted to win the Olympics–how much more motivation is necessary? It’s a mystery why Phonak had so many more positives than any other team of its era, but hopefully the mystery will be solved in time.
Someone were complaining that ASO didn’t have paid the riders prices…
Prices are not paid by ASO but by the French Federations who is waiting the official results of UCI…
So the delay is just because everyone is waiting the Mayo’s case end.
Apparently some prices could be pay.
I don’t think the non-invites are about doping, but are statements about power by the GT organizers. They have not been obliged to justify their choices, any more than in The Old Days when teams complained all the time about who was and wasn’t selected.
TBV
Ludwig,
You use “circumstantial evidence” as PROOF that Bruyneel ran a doping operation. Fair enough.
Yet, you defend/dismiss just as damning “circumstantial evidence” that WADA World is corrupt to the core.
While either of us could argue our case before a jury, I think my case is easier and more convincing.
Regards,
Jean C, Ludwig,
In your estimation – how “far back” in time do we need to go before we may look at the results as being “true” – rather then them being the results of doping?
Morgan,
Just before EPO years : Lemond is the last clean winner or with normal performance. Maybe the first victory of Indurain, he had an average output power in 1990 around 390W but then he constantly increased it to raise 450 W in 1995!
The big increasing of power was made in just 4 or 5 years. No one can justify it by pure technical improvement.
That period was the beginning of EPO use in pro-cycling, EPO was ereleased around 88.
When Lemond was dropped in 1991, his power output was the same ( as he said, I cannot verify it) as the precedent years when he won. In 1991 it was not enough to win. He finally was dropped on general by more than 13′ with Fignon.
Strangely, a common rider like Chiappucci finished third in 91. Later a connection was made with Dr. Conconi! Bugno, an other Italian was 2.
Returning to one of the topics of Rant’s post here: whether or not a race organizer should be allowed to pick and choose what teams and/or riders get to participate in his event.
I want to bring up the idea of an “invitational”. In some sports here is the US, at least, we have invitational tournaments. Somebody decides to put on a tournament, invites certain teams, for what ever reason. A good example is all the 4 team college basketball tournaments held around Christmas time, usually promoted by or at least in connection with one particular school. It sort of is assumed that often the other teams are chosen on the basis of providing a “tournament” win for the home team. Even that NCAA tournament is semi-invitational: some teams get in on the basis of winning their conference, but others are “selected”.
What does this have to do with the Giro situation? Well, is the Giro or another race an “invitational” race? Back in my racing days, under the rule of the ABL (dating myself here) I sort of recall there were 2 types of sanctions a promoter could obtain: Open and Invitational. If the race was sanctioned as an open, any properly licensed rider was allowed to participate, but if the race was an invitational, then the promoter could invite whoever he wanted, and of course, not invite whoever he wanted.
I don’t know if the UCI makes such a distinction, not do I know that, if not, do the rules require an organizer to accept any and all teams in good standing. McQuaid seems to think so. Maybe he needs to cite chapter and verse. Or maybe the UCI needs to tighten up the rules.
Thanks for your response Jean C.
Are you aware that LeMond was in a “hunting accident” – one in which he had lost the use of one lung?
LeMond was touted as an individual that was blessed with an extraordinary lung capacity in his best times. After the accident – he had “lost” this capacity. It maybe is something to add to your formula to understanding LeMond’s ability to be competitive.
Thought I would let you know what is general public knowledge.
William,
I think you make an excellent point with your observations. Are the GT’s “Invitationals” or are they “Open?”
In my opinion – if the GT’s are merely “invitationals” then we have been led astray into thinking that we may expect the cream of the racing world to be competing, to establish their dominance. I for one would certainly “watch” the GT’s with another perspective if they are “merely invitational.”
I have no problems with the organizers then “choosing” their race competitors – IF THEY ARE merely “invitational.” But this is NOT the impression that the world viewing public has been handed.
Whether Dickie or Mr P Or Mr Z perceive their races as Invitational or Open – should be cleared up by these individuals as soon as possible – it is their duty to the viewing public.
If they are avoiding marking their races clearly – one or the other – then one can only assume that it is being perpetrated on purpose to mislead their viewers.
An invitational competition is fun to watch – but I would not be thinking that I am watching a competition of the best against each other. Rather, as you William point out, we are all actually watching a “showcase” actively promoting a particular team – which by the way throws out the idea that this is a “real” competition. Since the “choosing” of the participants are with the idea of letting the “favored” team coming out on top.
As I see it – WHATEVER the rules may be – the question is really simple – WHAT ARE THE GT’s? I cannot see where the difficulties arise in actually ANSWERING this simple question. For me, as a viewing public – it would certainly clear up any misconceptions. Either I am watching an “open” race where the only objective is to let the best fight it out for dominance OR I am watching an “invitational” where I know that a “featured” team is being showcased.
So – Mr Z, Mr P and Dickie! What are you “selling us” – can you clarify please? Basically we need an answer – so we may know what the heck we are actually getting all bent out of shape for.
CORRECTION PLEASE!
It is “Pattie” that I meant – Not Dickie in my comment. Sorry. Forgive me – the two are so easily mixed at times.
Morgan,
If Greg Lemond had lost a lung he would have never be able to finish TDF in a such position (7th), and he would not be authorized to start TDF, before TDF riders need to pass medical test.
Even if Lemond was less strong, it was the same for the other challengers : Fignon, Mottet, Delgado, Hampsteen,…
Jean C
I do not “make this up” – this is available public knowledge – see – LeMond after the “hunting accident.”
Lemond was the last clean rider?
Was Anquetil clean (you know, the “bread and water” guy)?
Pollentier? Never would have doped. It was all just innuendo.
Tom Simpson . . .I’ll leave him to rest. But those greenies weren’t doping – not really, because cycling team doctors and soigneur stuffed them in the lunch bags. So it couldn’t have been cheating.
How about Merckx? He did test positive (albeit by those untrustworthy Italians – as opposed to the trustworthy WADA). Oh, and didn’t he introduce Armstrong to Dr. Michele Ferrari?
Of course Delgado never took anything but a glass of red wine. It was just a misunderstanding.
And Lemond’s story as the last clean rider is practically laughable. Didn’t the American’s institutionalize blood doping in the 80s? I love this guilt by association thing. It makes critical and in-depth exploration of the problems in cycling unnecessary.
The products are better today, but I’m not fooled – it’s still the same game.
michael,
This is exactly why we need to have reputable testing TODAY – if we are to have a clean sport TODAY.
Personally – I think it is a “fools errand” to go around “implying” what may or may not have been in the past.
We as a society of the world desire to have “no-doped” racing. Okay – I can live with this – what I have no patience for is people attempting to justify their shortsighted takes on what NEEDS to be done to achieve this, TODAY.
I have never heard anyone on this blog say that they are against “testing.” What I do get to run into an awful lot is individuals trying to “justify” their particular view points that we must completely ignore “fair and proper jurisprudence” and correct “scientific testing,” because the doping is so out of hand that ignoring “fair and proper jurisprudence” and correct “scientific testing,” is the way to solve the problem. And if you don’t agree with this – then you are in some way a part of the “WADA Omerta.”
On the question of doping and Tour history….I’m not a Tour historian but every historian I read seems to agree that drugs have always been part of the sport, but that the rise of EPO in the early 1990s accounts for increased speeds.
On the history of doping and average speeds, see for example this article…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19462071/
This study tries to tie in “socioeconomic factors” such as the commercialisation of sport to explain doping in cycling
http://www.ec.europa.eu/sport/action_sports/dopage/studies-reports/2002-study-socioeconomic_en.pdf
Straight up average speeds (which peaked in 2005, 2007 was actually the lowest average speed since 1995, but I wouldn’t jump to conclusions that this means doping is being eradicated).
http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfstats.html
More on the history of dope and speed stats
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/jul/03/1
More on the benefits of EPO
http://scienceofsport.blogspot.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.html
Jesus Manzano (see the link below for an index of media releases related to his courageous confession)
http://www.tdfblog.com/jesus_manzano/index.html
“If it wasnt for EPO I don’t think the average speed at major tours would be 41 kph,” he said.”
Mark Zeigler also got into these issues in his discussion of the empirical and circumstantial evidence indicating Landis did not tell the truth when he denied drug use.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/20070708-9999-lz1s8landis.html
More links and info here:
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/index.php?showtopic=4889&hl=noticias
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/index.php?showtopic=5041&hl=noticias
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/index.php?showtopic=5117&hl=noticias
Ludwig,
Sorry that your comment got held up in moderation. I approved it as soon as I noticed the problem.
Michael,
The point was not to say that doping is born with EPO, but without blood manipulation Riis would never have won TDF, testosterone, steroids, HGH don’t help enough to allow a heavy rider like him to climb all TDF passes, without oxygene strong muscles became rapidly ( after 2 passes) useless.
JeanC, what you say is obvious. But is it possible for any of the 5-time winners to have won without using? Riis couldn’t have won without doping, but could Bobet have won 5 with doping?
The point is that it is useless speculation.
Michael
We are just discussing the following point:
– with blood doping, no “clean” rider could win against a blood doped rider, and worst just to follow the first speed he has to dope!
– before blood doping there were not a such margin permitting gifted riders to win without PED and/or to be in the leading group on a climb. In the last 15 years, it was not possible!
Jean C,
Real simple solution then. On each climb, immediately ban those in the lead group for 2 years…doping. Next climb, immediately ban those in the lead group for 2 years…doping.
After 20/30 climbs doping issue is solved.
Regards.
YIKES!
Dragon! I think you have solved it!
Nostalgie : The good old days
http://le-grimpeur.net/blog/archives/25