Back when I was a kid, in primary school, my teacher (Mr. Bristow) was very big on the idea of thinking before one speaks. To the point that someone who blurted something out without a fully formed thought could expect to be berated with a comment like, “Mr. Smith, you should think before you speak.” Which would, in extreme cases (someone who was a serial-offender, that is), be followed by a caning.
I’m no fan of corporeal punishment. But Mr. Bristow’s approach certainly got our attention. (And for the record, we all knew how to get through a caning without suffering any ill effects. Let’s just say it involved the creative use of those blue exam booklets.)
Well, over the past few days, a couple of people have come out with things that just plain don’t make sense, and in a certain case, thinking before speaking.
To start, there’s Pat McQuaid, who wins this week’s “Mental Non Sequitur” award. McQuaid is quoted on VeloNews.com, discussing the possibility that Alberto Contador or his team would take legal steps to get into this year’s Tour de France:
“If Contador decides to take legal action in Spain or internationally myself and the UCI will give evidence in his favor and I will be a witness,” McQuaid told the daily El Mundo.
“I know Contador and the people around him and I know that he is a clean and honest rider,” added McQuaid of the rider who has had to fend off questions regarding his alleged links to Spanish blood-doping probe Operation Puerto.
The UCI president has already slammed the ASO’s decision, stating he “would do everything” he could to ensure Contador was at the starting line. The UCI and ASO are locked in a bitter battle over the control of the sport, with McQuaid threatening to suspend or fine UCI-licensed riders taking part in ASO’s Paris-Nice race, which is continuing this week in France.
The 25-year-old Spaniard has however not indicated that he intends to take legal action, saying he wants to concentrate on the Olympics and Tour of Spain.
As Larry points out in a comment over at Trust But Verify, this really is amusing. Let’s see: The ASO is probably going to run the Tour under a French Cycling Federation sanction — at least by all indications right now. That’s been the a bone of contention between McQuaid and the ASO’s head honchos for the last few weeks in relation to the first major ASO event of the cycling season, Paris-Nice. And under McQuaid’s current threats, he would sanction any team that participates in events not sanctioned by the UCI.
So, lemmegetthisstraight, McQuaid is saying to Contador that he will support the Spaniard’s decision to fight to get a shot at racing the Tour. But if Contador and his team show up at the start line, McQuaid would then threaten to sanction them? As Larry said, you just can’t make this stuff up.
Obviously, McQuaid hasn’t been exercising his mental muscles lately. (Of course, that begs the question, “Has he ever?” But we’ll leave that alone for now.) Mr. Bristow, if he’s still alive, would be champing at the bit to give ol’ Patty a swat on the posterior for speaking before he thought.
And then, there’s the other, “Say what?!” moment that occurred a few days ago. Wednesday, I had a deadline to meet, which meant I had precious little time for actually writing a post. Not that there wasn’t a good reason to do so, however. Martin Dugard provided one heck of a lot of grist for the mill with his article published in Orange Coast Magazine, and also on their web site.
Dugard is a good writer, but this article (at least as presented on orangecoast.com) is not one of his better efforts. In it, he asks and answers the question “In your opinion, did Floyd Landis dope during the 2006 Tour de France?” Up to now, Dugard has publicly supported Landis, as recently as the announcement of the initial arbitration decision in September.
Over the past few years — perhaps longer — he’s gotten to know Floyd while covering the Tour de France, and while writing about cycling. And over the past year and a half, he’s defended Floyd. At least, that was the impression I’ve gotten from occasionally reading his articles.
Not coincidentally, given that the CAS hearings will begin next Wednesday, Orange Coast asked him to write an opinion piece on the case. Fine, so far. And he certainly delivers at the end of the article, telling us what he thinks. (He’s changed his mind, he thinks Floyd did dope.)
My problem with the article is not so much that Dugard changed his mind. I’m disappointed by that, but he’s certainly entitled to do so. What disappoints me about the article is what it leaves out. Which is precisely how he came to that conclusion. In the article, he says that:
I’ve heard Floyd explain how and why he is innocent so many times I can quote the arguments verbatim.
OK, so if I’m following him at this point, the question becomes, “Do you understand those arguments? Do you understand the controversy behind the evidence used to convict Landis?” If so, how does your understanding inform your opinion?
Joe Lindsey, over at The Boulder Report, does an excellent job of taking the article apart from a journalist’s point of view. I’d recommend taking the time to read it, if you haven’t done so already. In the end, Lindsey suggests that the article says as much about the failings of journalists as it does about whether Dugard thinks Landis is guilty or not.
Dugard has also been a vocal supporter of Lance Armstrong. So, when he mentions a conversation he had with Floyd, he offers up a real humdinger of a quote in this snippet, describing how he interacts with people in a local bike shop:
So I don’t tell them that Floyd once offhandedly told me over burritos at a Chipotle near his home, “Just so you know, Marty, Lance doped.” Or that Floyd said it casually, as if it was common insider knowledge.
Just as offhanded as Dugard recounts this conversation, he throws this tidbit out in an offhanded way. But he leaves something out, as well. Someone telling a journalist — one who covers cycling, no less — that Lance doped, is handing that person one heck of a story. And any responsible journalist would pursue the story, because even though it’s been suggested and written about more than once, it’s still news. Especially so when it’s a former rider from Lance’s team.
So, we have to ask, “When did this conversation take place?” And, “Why haven’t you said anything about it before now?” And, “What did you do to follow up?” I’m not doubting that the conversation took place. I’m wondering about the context. Was it really said as Dugard describes, or was it a joke, told with dead-pan delivery? Or was it somewhere in between? We don’t know. We’re left to trust the writer’s description, but he doesn’t give us much to go on.
Most puzzling and troubling about that quote is that, if it’s accurate as Dugard describes, why did he stay silent? Was it because it was told to him in confidence? If so, it says a lot about his character that he betrayed that confidence — even though some would argue that maintaining that kind of confidence is what perpetuates the “omerta” that exists in cycling. And one does have to wonder about the timing. Something doesn’t quite add up. Something is missing.
That’s the whole thing about Martin Dugard’s article to me. Something is missing. In any story, journalists have to determine (or choose) what to leave in and what to leave out. We aren’t blessed with unlimited space — at least, not in print. (On the blogosphere is a different matter, however.) He’s left out the real story. The end result is only a part of the story. It’s the transformation from a supporter to a doubter, and how that transformation took place — that’s the real story. Given that he’s done a 180 on his opinion of the Landis case, he owes his readers an explanation of how he got turned around.
And that’s exactly what he left out. Even though I don’t agree with his conclusion, as a writer, Martin Dugard could have — and should have — done better in telling us how he got there.
Dear former “cained,”
Being that you are familiar with the methodology of the abusive — perhaps you also remember some oft-repeated quotes favored by such individuals?
“THIS! IS! FOR! YOUR! OWN! GOOD!!!”
Or that old favorite,
“THIS HURTS ME MORE THEN YOU!”
Or how about this one?
“I HATE IT WHEN YOU MAKE ME DO THIS TO YOU!!!”
You know — Rant, I have long suspected that there may just be a co-dependent relationship thing going on between Pattie McQ and the rest of cycling”¦
Pattie actually loves us all — especially the riders! It must “break his heart” when the riders are being bad, needing a good caining!
Pattie must be in absolute conflict — especially when he is “forced” to point out all our faults — heck it can’t be easy for old Pattie!
Poor Pattie — think of the “disappointment” — the sense of “abandonment” he is feeling — all those “ungrateful riders” — letting him hang out all alone in the breeze.
Rant — I do hope that ol’ Pattie has access to professional therapy — I have heard that these type of “inner family issues” don’t get better all by themselves”¦
Now as to Mr Dugard — I shan’t go putting much effort in further comment — let us just say that Mr Dugard obviously has issues of “intimacy.”
Of course — these are merely my personal opinions”¦and I am afraid that I am also beginning to feel — well, an inner sense of “I hate it when you make me do this!”
About McQuaid, he is just acting as usual… to create controversies and dissensions inside procycling to build his own and personnal advantage. He has no limit in baseness.
There is a few days, he stated acting fot the good of cycling! What a crock!
About how clean is Contador and his team, I just have to quote from the Boulder report :
This quote is not adressed to McQuaid who knows exactly the real state of doping as everyone involved in cyling. He as everyon involved in pro-cycling would never bet 1$ about how clean was Contador or his old/new management !
So — what have I learned this week from cycling news”¦March 16, 2008″¦”¦
Given that the current belief runs along the line that anyone who is wearing “yellow” is suspected of being a “doper” — I find myself somewhat curious about the type of doping it takes to descend better then the current leader? I’m not buying the “convenient” explanation that “familiarity with the roads” is an adequate “explanation.”
Are the 70’s and 80’s coming back? NO — “it” is not a question of doping this one — rather wondering if the French have gotten hold of all those “self-help” books released? Quote – Chavanel: ‘Free your mind, and the rest will follow’ — maybe it is drugs after all?
Under exchanging “love letters” – The president of the French Cycling Federation (FFC) Jean Pitallier — sends a “personal love note” to the UCI executive board President Pat McQuaid, and Vice President Ray Godkin and Hein Verbruggen. It is becoming apparent that “counseling” is not an option in this relationship.
If you can’t nail the one you love — bite the one you can? UCI suspends contact with teams’ organisation (AIGCP) — but perhaps realizing he may be “reacting” to something else, he states: — “I hope that this situation will only be temporary. Meanwhile, the UCI will continue its work by inviting directly managers and sports managers as observers at its meetings.” Oh that clever McQuickie — another “divide and conquer move?
In the “category of black humor” and “absurd situational series” — we get — “Belgian cyclist Kevin van Impe raised strong objections to being visited by anti-doping controllers while he was making arrangements for the funeral of his infant son this week.” All viewers not on Prozac panned it.
Italians learn from the UCI – as with “OP” — “CONI asks for more ‘Oil for drugs’ bans” — never mind that most of the racers are now not in cycling. Some fans are beginning a movement to change the nickname of Di Luca from “the Killer” to “Mr Teflon” — the nickname change is not a “populist movement.”
Hey if Dugard, McQuaid, Tygart etc., can comment freely — why can’t I?
When this whole war between the UCI/ASO (including Pitallier who is said to be up to his elbows in the ASO and Boyer whose behavior also raises question marks) really is a struggle for power (As I think it is) then there is no –being right- in this matter.
The reasons given are weapons to fight each other. But the fight itself is about other things, about who is in control. Who is having the power.
Most people treat power as if it is something rational. As if it there is any rational reason why you want to be in control.
In personal relationships is mostly about –not wanting to be wrong, not wanting to be humiliated, fear of rejection etc-.
In this case with the UCI/etc is might also be about that but up front it seems to be about money.
Most people see –wanting to earn as much money as possible- as something logical.
Well it’s something that is very much accepted, but it not rational.
When enough money to live a good life, making money has other motives and I don’t think they are rational.
From my point of view everybody in this power struggle has irrational motives. So when seen as a crock or ridiculous, than everybody in this fight is a crock or ridiculous.
I heard on Dutch television yesterday, during P-N that French media came up with the following concerning Robert Gesink: How can he be such a good climber, he is from the Netherlands and they don’t have mountains.
I think it’s a good example about how far this whole situation in cycling is from objectivity or rationality.
I assume they are implying that Gesink used doping. I don’t have a clue if he did. But hey, neither do they.
Taking it on the words they use, I understand that I could send the newspaper an email with the explanation that we in the Netherlands have cars that can take us to the mountains, trains, hey even airplanes. 🙂
Pfffffff
Hey Karuna –
At least one thing is true – the more absurd and idiotic this whole situation gets – the more clearly we can see just how egocentric and self promoting most of the 2players” tend to be…it is definitely not a pretty picture – but at least – the power to “brand it” as a problem of the racers” merely doping – is being put in perspective…
I don’t know about you – but with each days passing – it becomes easier and easier to differentiate between “the best cycle racing” and the governing bodies that are involved. Maybe there is hope – maybe the governing bodies will – like the cannibals they seem to be – eat each other and we can get back to watching cycling WITHOUT THEM!!!
The bottom line is that cycling has a doping problem. It’s had a doping problem for years. If it’s anyone’s job to deal with the problem and stive for solutions, it’s the guys in charge of the UCI (McQuaid and Verbruggen). But these are the men under whose leadership the doping culture has blossomed, who have routinely denied the problem, and who have enabled the presence of doped-up teams at cycling’s most prestigious events. Ultimately, there isn’t much of a difference between their rhetoric now and their rhetoric five years ago. Consequently, their presence adds to cycling’s “credibility problem”. And it doesn’t help that McQuaid is shilling for Johan Bruyneel–doping DS par excellence.
When cycling gets a genuine regime change at the level of the UCI, then maybe sponsors and organizers will take notice.
I hate to do this, as this may SEEM like a shameless piece of self-promotion.
http://www.bicycle.net/2008/what-i-would-say-to-the-cas-panel-if-i-were-in-maurice-suh's-shoes.
OK, this IS a shameless piece of self-promotion.
Larry,
Yeah, yeah, yeah. A likely story. 😉
For those who haven’t seen it yet, Larry’s piece is very well done. Definitely worth a read.
Karuna –
Are you up for a part 4 of my take on the evidence in the Landis case?
OK, first a recap. In part 1, we talked about the required precision for testing for exogenous testosterone – the test is very sensitive, and must be done exactly right. In part 2, we considered the importance of sample preparation, and looked at evidence that questions the quality of the sample preparation. In part 3, we introduced the MS and IRMS portions of the test for exogenous testosterone, and discussed the need for the lab to maintain identical chromatographic conditions from the MS test to the IRMS test – something that the French lab did not do.
In part 4, let’s return to the MS and IRMS portions of the test, and consider a question that was hotly debated during the Landis arbitration: the quality of the chromatograms produced by the French lab.
To start, take another look at the MS chromatogram for Landis’ “B” sample, at http://ia331327.us.archive.org/1/items/Floyd_Landis_2006_Doping_Case_Documents8/USADA_348.pdf.
Why is it important for the labs to produce high-quality chromatograms? The critical measurements taken by the lab for this test, the measurements that determine whether an athlete will or will not be accused of doping, is the measurement of the area underneath the various peaks in these chromatograms. So, we want the labs to produce chromatograms that allow for the accurate measurement of this area.
(For those of you who are sticklers, the Landis test results are based on the area under the IRMS peaks. I’ve chosen to look at the quality of the MS peaks because the USADA exhibits provide us with a higher-quality picture of the MS chromatograms. It’s easier to see what’s going on in the MS chromatograms.)
Ideally, what we want to see are nice, clean peaks, beginning and ending at the bottom of the graph, with good separation between peaks. If peaks run together, that makes it hard to measure the area under each peak, because it becomes tricky to figure out when one peak ends and the other begins. If peaks overlap each other, the calculation of area becomes even more difficult.
Another problem is the baseline from which the peak begins and ends. If this baseline is flat (as it is for the 5b Pregnane peak to the far right of the graph), that’s good. If the baseline is sloping (as it is for the 5a Androstanol peak on the left hand side of the graph), that complicates the measurement of peak area.
There are many other characteristics that the experts use to judge whether a chromatogram is of good quality: for example, whether peaks have “tails” or “shoulders”. You can find some terrific discussion of these characteristics on the Trust But Verify blog site (look for the “integration for Idiots” series, which appeared in November of last year).
How good are the chromatograms in the Landis case? Predicatably, the USADA witnesses thought that the chromatograms were terrific, and the Landis witnesses thought they were terrible. About the only witness to vary from this predictable pattern was Don Caitlin, a USADA witness and the ex-head of the WADA lab at UCLA. He gave the Landis chromatograms a grade of “C-“.
So let’s say that at best, the chromatograms were “C-” work. In my book, a “C-” is barely a passing grade. Floyd Landis lost his career and his reputation on the basis of work that even a USADA witness characterized as barely passing.
Let me know if you want me to go on with this. There’s more to tell.
Larry, I would appreciate it if you would continue your summary. I really am thankful for your diligence on this. I remember long ago when you first started, and my frustration was that we could not come to a summation (did LNDD prove he doped on that fateful July afternoon?). I have followed your learning curve (to accelerate my own), but to this day I have not come to an adequate summation. I read all the stuff over at TBV; however it occurred over many months and, while I have come to the same conclusions as you, I have not been able to distill it as clearly as you. It seams that here it is being put together.
I liked your piece over at bicycle.net. If your looking for ideas, I have always wondered what inspired WADA to write such cryptic and circular rules regarding doping testing and enforcement. Is there a legal reason? It seams that if a professional sport were to write rules that could cause the ultimate catastrophe (the posthumous negation of an event result) the rules would be very concise and careful. And why would they eliminate the B-test? It seems that it is there to protect the sport as much as the athlete. Honestly I know the answer to these questions, as I think everybody does, but knowing the answer hasn’t made these facts seem any more reasonable.
I have always thought that part of it is that WADA is not a sporting agency and has no interest or concern in promoting sports or sporting events. Their job is to catch dopers, by any means they can put at their disposal. And of course stacking the deck is the easiest first step. The astonishing thing is that sporting bodies (with the notable exception of the ultra-successful North American sports) have gone along.
Sorry Rant for passing over your rant. . .it so thoroughly speaks for itself it seems unnecessary to further the rant. Pat & Marty spoke before thinking – that is the most gracious way to put it.
Michael,
No need to apologize. Not every comment has to be specifically about the topic at hand.
I certainly hope Larry keeps going with his posts. When he’s done, perhaps we’ll paste it all together into a single post, to make it easier for everyone to access the full analysis.
Larry,
Keep posting your presentation – definitely not boring! A lovely clear recap! Thanks
Michael, thanks! I’ll work on Part 5 as soon as I get the chance.
I’m glad you’re pushing for a column about the WADA rules for anti-doping. I think that would make for a good column.
@Larry
Your posts are clear, comprehensible and very interesting.
I am actually astonished. Let me admit that I did not dig into it very much at the time it all took place. I was shocked when the news broke a few days after the Tour.
I only followed the Dutch news at the time. And there was nothing even close about what you are giving us now.
What I knew was this: the A sample was compromised by a worker who worked there because of the holidays. Because of that “˜messing up’ there was this test for the exogenous testosterone which came out positive.
That made me wonder.
But then there was this story that they tested the other 7 available urine tests for exogenous testosterone which came out positive too.
That more or less convinced me. Although I wondered if they were legally justified to test the other 7 samples.
So you can see that I hardly knew anything.
And since the others seem to like your summary too I am eager to say: yes please go on.
Since there is so little in the Dutch spoken press/internet sites I wonder if you feel comfortable with me passing your summary on to my side of the ocean.
Just let me know.
I will surely wait with doing that until you’re finished. Rant (maybe) making this into one post will make it easier.
I liked your article on bicycle.net.
What came to my mind is that I come across a lot of comments on other (Dutch) sites that makes very clear that people don’t have a clue about the doping tests being performed.
Getting into that is maybe an idea?
Karuna,
A lot of people don’t take care about the doping test because a lot of people following cycling know the real truth now. No one believes the stellar performances since all the doping affairs revealed by police investigation, by many confessed riders , by Voet, by press (Italian doctors,…), by Donati,…
The stupid repeated denials in many doping cases have broken the patience of people… Just look at the last Jones, Vino, Kasheskin,…
The majority of doping cases involves suspicious athletes…for example in the recent cycling cases, only Moreni was strange.
So if an athlete is innocent he has in first to prove to the public that he could be innocent… by only questionning the test he would have a lot of difficulties to convince people who are now looking at the extern observation to have a better idea of the truth.
It’s the end of the conmans able to sell stupidity like weighting their food and hard work responsible of miraculous performance to naive people, relayed by people who wanted to exploit the myths.
The last Paris-Nice showed what was human performance without major doping. Everyone has seen a different cycling, making more unbelievable the dubious performance of the last years.
Martin Dugard has understood that fact and has changed his “mind” now before to be seen as an idiot.
Jean C, I agree with much of what you’ve said above. The repeated denials of athletes who are later proven to have doped have eroded the credibility of all athletes. And I think that most fans are willing to conclude that Landis is guilty, regardless of the quality of the evidence produced by the testing lab. If you’re questioning whether many people care at this point about the quality of the evidence in the Landis case, you’re not alone.
I have a question for you: you’ve said repeatedly, here and elsewhere, that this year’s Paris-Nice was “different cycling”, a cleaner and more “believable” race. How do you know? How can you tell? I think about the racing styles of riders who have been accused of doping, and I don’t see many points in common. What did Ullrich’s “diesel” style have in common with, say, Marco Pantani? Yes, both were winners during an era where we assume that doping was commonplace. But there were winners in this year’s Paris-Nice, too.
How can you look at a race and say, this looks natural? By definition, you’re looking at extraordinary performances.
Hello – I’m one of the “idiots” that don’t believe in your presentation of the situation Jean C.
I have no problem with you having a belief that you know when someone dopes – – but- you know what “pal” – if you make that “accusation – I expect that you be able to back it up with more then just repeating your personal beliefs.
Perhaps what is lost to you in “translation2 is that some of the “issues” have nothing to do with the question of doping as to Are they or aren’t they – RATHER IT HAS ALL TO DO with PROVING THAT SOMEONE who is ACCUSED – the accusation is backed up by SCIENCE not personal “feelings” or the oft repeated – “everybody knows he’s a doper” – “or arguing Data with data that is not necessarily based on facts.”
Sorry but that ain’t good enough. No matter how you or anyone who opportunistically would like to turn Dugards’ warped sense of friendship with another human being – Dugard cannot be more then an overwhelming low life opportunist…even if he does – at least in your eyes seem to have come to some “enlightened conclusion!”
I don’t know how to tell you this – but “cleaning up” Pro Racing is going to actually take having rules that are impartial and a a governing body that is not “open to manipulation” OF ANY SORT.
Free Landis – the 2006 Tour Champion!!!!!!!!
Larry, Morgan
I will make an answer later some reading for the waiting room
http://www.velonews.com/article/73408/julich-we’re-on-our-last-leg
Jean C, I’ve always thought that Bobby Julich is one of the really good guys in this sport. He’s written a diary for ESPN.com during one or two of the TdFs, and they’re always great reads. Bobby J has always been on the right side of the doping issue. But even Bobby J can’t tell when one of his friends and teammates is doping, as he has freely admitted. See for example http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/tdf2007/news/story?id=2947750.
I’m happy if Bobby J thinks that this year’s Paris-Nice was clean, but unfortunately, he’s been wrong before.
And if Bobby J could not spot Vinokourov and Basso — friends and teammates — as dopers, how can you tell if a race is clean?
Morgan,
You don’t have to be put in the idiots because you seems to be far of the sport and especially from pro-cycling.
Apparently it’s not the same as Martin Dugard who seems to be a sport reporter… and have access to inside confidences. I doubt that MD has just recently showed the truth, I do think he is seeing that his job is in jeopardize, doping has destroyed the credibility of cycling and medias have less interest to report about it… as we say follow the money… During the EPO year, a lot of reporters, organisers, UCI, … became blind for the same reasons…
For Landis’ case, it’s not only my beliefs, it’s the beliefs of everyone involved in cycling, it’s the beliefs of scientists working on human performances,…
Since the begining of Landis’case, the extern clues and evidences are all against Landis. Day after day it becomes stronger, for example the peloton is “miraculous” less strong this year after the reinforcement of doping fight.
Larry, on last Paris-Nice speed decreased, and the team managers, riders, reporters, TV advisors like Jalabert, … have agreed that something have changed. Jullich’s interview is a good resume of the current state of cycling and shows a part of the concern of teams which are interested by beating doping now, their surviving is linked with it.
By looking at breathing we can detect blood manipulation, less breathing is needed because more red celluls available in lung blood at the same time are loaded with O2 … athletes can attack repeatedly… They have more power so they struggle less during efforts, riders performance are more similar ( the 50% hct limits ).
With extra power used body needs more cooling so more water so there is more dehydration risks, and IV are used after stage (there is other reasons too)… The lack of performance resulting of dehydration is largely balanced by the extra power… (If there is something similar as a stage 17, it’s an unfortunate coincidence… no real intention of the author ;D )
Pantani was a leight rider and of course could climb better than Ullrich or Riis on steep slope. Armstrong or Floyd have medium weight…
Heaviest riders could not climb well without blood manipulation.
Heaviest riders are more diesel, just one or 2 attacks on a long time, they attack on low slopes (4-5%).
Ligther riders can attack more time but on short time. They attack more on steeper slope ( > 7%).
With blood manipulation or not, the gravity law is still right!
Larry,
I hate to burst your bubble but it is highly unlikely that Julich achieved the results he did dope-free. His signature accomplishment was a podium place in a Tour that we know was rife with EPO doping. And his later resurgence was with a team whose accomplishments were fueled by doping (Riis’ CSC). Can we finally disgard the illusion that CSC’s success had to do with its team spirit and acknowledge the fact that its chief riders have been engulfed by doping scandals?
I’m not interested in arguing about whether associations constitute deductive proof—no one is saying the guy should be sanctioned. Rather, it’s highly unlikely that Julich didn’t have to juice just like the rest of his colleagues. And it doesn’t seem realistic that Julich’s faux-shock over doping at the Tour is sincere.
Larry,
Everyone has some trends to protect his livelihood… Probably Bobby has done that last year because I can’t believe he was not able to recognise doping like Vino, Contador or Rasmussen last year. He probably has a little prettied up the current situation but some clear improvements are visible.
Doping today is very risky, especially before TDF… so I bet it will stay clean or clearly more cleaner than precedent year especially on french soils…
Jean C, your report sounds pretty subjective to me. That’s not a criticism, just an observation. Jalabert’s report is nice, though obviously there was a French interest in reporting how well Paris-Nice was doing without the UCI.
(And yes, Paris-Nice did not seem to miss the UCI at all. Whatever one might think of the UCI-ASO split, congratulations to ASO and FFC for running what was by all reports a terrific race.)
If cycling has turned the corner on doping, that would be great. We can hope. However, I don’t recall any doping scandals coming out of Paris-Nice in the past. The year is still young.
One matter you should consider is, if Paris-Nice was a relatively clean race, why was this the case? If you give credit to the biological passport, then you have to consider what happens to the biological passport if UCI is pushed out of Grand Tour cycling. If the UCI is not going to coordinate the passport program on an international level, who is going to do it?
a team whose accomplishments were fueled by doping (Riis’ CSC)
Other than rumour and speculation, how many cases and confessions have come out of CSC? There’s Basso, and, um, who else?
TBV
Larry,
Jalabert has always been a doping apologist, since his beginning as commentator, he repeated regurlalrly that Frencg riders were not doing what they have to do as riders. So his comment has more weight now even if it was not a direct acknoledge of doping… that would have been an admission of his doping past!
About doping scandal on Paris-Nice, you forget last year when riders clearly pointed out the full DISCO team after their became suddenly so strong for the last stages! For all other team managers that was the end of their agreement to stop blood doping, and that is one of the reason why ASO has no confidence in Bruyneel yet, he was seen as responsible of the “cessfire” end.
Biological passport should be run by WADA, less confict of interest! ASO and other organisers need a extern entity like UCI but they have no confidence to McQuaid and Verbruggen’club so there is 2 possibilities:
– removed McQuaid
– or disconnect from McQuaid’s UCI, and creat a “pro road cyling entity”
What I am going to say is probably said here already many times.
But Forgive me for saying it again.
Let me start with saying that I am against doping.
But.
When I stay with Landis I can say that when it seemed to me last year that he might had doped I felt betrayed. I had been locked to the television, watching him riding that great stage.
I was a not great fan of him but was very impressed. Seeing this I did get involved.
So I was very disappointed when it seemed it was with the influence of something on the doping list.
I am telling you this because I think it is important to say that I am not a “˜distant bystander’. I feel the disappointment too that made lots of people turn against the riders.
So, back to the “˜but’.
Since I digging a whole lot deeper (last Tour: Rasmussen) I came across what is now called “˜the old cycling’:
The riders having the opportunity to dope (we spoke a little about that before, I called it “˜the compromise’ and probably the absence of good tests), the pushing sponsors and team (leaders), the demanding press and fans, the lack of accompaniment, the sloppy way the anti doping efforts were given shape etc.
All factors that helped create the “˜omerta’ which kept the doping in place AND created the possibility for “˜the compromise’ to stay in place (for too long).
Since I know all this (better) I asked myself the question: what would I have done under such circumstances? Would I have fallen for the seduction?
Well I can’t tell but I got a hell of a lot less judge mental. I think I have some understanding why they did (and probably do) dope.
That does not make it “˜right’ but it makes it “˜less wrong’.
IMHO. They are not the villains and when they are, then there a lot more villains in the cycling world who do not ride a bike in the peloton.
Karuna –
In reply to your 2:23 a.m. post:
I barely paid any attention to the Landis hearings when they were going on. I am a cycling fan and not a cyclist. But I had a friend invite me to coffee during the arbitration, and he told me that he thought Landis was innocent. I started digging into the facts to prove my friend wrong! Needless to say, I too was surprised by what I found.
There was very little in the U.S. press either, and the stuff they printed wasn’t helpful. I’m not a scientist, not a doctor, but Rant, TBV, Swim You Idiot, Ali, Duckstrap and others have been great teachers.
Yes, we DO have to deal with LNDD’s testing of the 7 “B” samples. That is probably the most difficult collection of evidence to address. If I can persevere and finish writing up my “takes” on the evidence, I WILL try to address those additional “B” sample tests.
As far as passing on my summaries to “your side of the ocean”, my preference would be for you to wait until I can finish the series. As you pointed out with the “B” sample testing, there’s a lot to this story that I have not addressed yet. You may feel differently about sharing this information by the time I’ve finished. Also, to be honest, I’m not an expert, just a somewhat obsessive amateur. And I’m trying to give you “my take”, which admittedly does not reflect all arguments on the other side, not even all the ones with which I am familiar. I’m mostly trying to explain why I believe what I believe about the Landis case, so I’m not sure how well this would translate to a larger audience. But let’s revisit this question when the series is through.
Karuna –
Here we go, part 5 of the series that just won’t end, describing my take on the evidence in the Landis case.
In part 1, we talked about how precise the lab must be when it tests for exogenous testosterone. In part 2, we considered the importance of sample preparation, and we questioned how well the French lab did the sample preparation for the Landis samples. Part 3 contained our first discussion of the MS and IRMS machines, and we saw that the lab failed to maintain chromatographic conditions from machine to machine. In part 4, we considered what it means to produce “good” chromatography, and we learned that the quality of the French lab’s chromatograms was substandard at best.
Here in part 5, we’ll dive deeper into how the MS machine works, and we’ll address how the lab uses the MS machine to identify chemicals in an athlete’s sample. Warning: this will get a bit technical! (And a warning to those with good technical knowledge of mass spectrometry: I’m going to provide a simple explanation below that glosses over some of the fine points.) But first, let’s revisit the discussion in parts 2 and 3 of how the GC machine processes chemicals in a mixture.
As we’ve discussed, the lab test for exogenous testosterone requires the lab to hook up a GC machine to a MS machine and then to an IRMS machine to produce chromatograms that are used to analyze the athlete’s urine sample (after the urine sample has undergone the sample preparation we described earlier). The GC machine separates the chemicals in the athlete’s urine into separate blobs, or “peaks”. If all goes well, the GC machine will spit out the chemicals in the urine, one chemical peak at a time, with a nice time gap between peaks to make it easier to measure the area under each peak.
We’ve previously said that the MS machine is used to identify the chemical in each peak. But how does the MS machine determine which chemical is which?
There are two ways for the lab to identify chemicals in the peak. One way is to look at the time at which each peak emerges from the MS machine, and compare these “retention times” to the retention times for chemicals in an artificial sample mix.
Let’s say that the lab wants to analyze three chemicals in the athlete’s urine sample. Let’s call these chemicals “1”, “2” and “3”. The lab could purchase those three chemicals from the lab supply store, and then make up an artificial mix containing just those chemicals. The lab would then hook up the GC machine to the MS machine and run its artificial mix through the two machines. Let’s say that chemical “1” emerges from the GC and is measured by the MS 10 minutes after the mix is injected into the GC. We’d then say that chemical “1” has a retention time of 10 minutes. Let’s also say that chemical “2” has a retention time of 12 minutes and chemical “3” has a retention time of 13 minutes. When this process is complete, the lab should have an MS chromatogram showing three peaks: one at 10 minutes, one at 12 minutes and one at 13 minutes.
The lab would then turn around and inject the athlete’s urine sample into the GC. At the end of the process, the lab would have a second MS chromatogram, this one showing peaks for the athlete’s urine. The lab would then look to see if this second MS chromatogram has peaks with retention times corresponding to the peaks for the artificial mix. For example, if the athlete’s urine had a peak with a retention time of 10 minutes, the lab would conclude that this peak contains chemical “1”. The lab would hopefully also find peaks on this second chromatogram with retention times of 12 minutes (chemical “2”) and 13 minutes (chemical “3”). If so, the lab would have successfully identified the three chemicals it was seeking to measure.
In order for the lab to identify chemicals using retention times, the retention times from the athlete’s urine must closely match the retention times for the sample mix. It’s probably OK for the retention times to be off by a little bit — possibly 10 seconds one way or the other would be OK. But if there’s more than a small difference in retention times between the artificial mix and the athlete’s urine, then the match is no good, and the lab has failed to identify chemicals using retention times.
The LNDD used this retention time analysis to identify MS peaks in the Landis samples. How did it do? On this score, the LNDD performed well. Its retention times had consistently close matches. We can’t fault the LNDD on this measure.
The second way for a lab to identify MS peaks is to take advantage of the fact that the MS creates a unique “fingerprint” for each chemical it analyzes. The MS does this by blasting each chemical with a powerful stream of electrons, breaking the molecules of each chemical into pieces. These molecule pieces are called “ions”. Strange as it may seem, a chemical molecule is easier to identify once it has been “blown to bits” (or “ionized”)!
If you browse to http://www.unsolvedmysteries.oregonstate.edu/GCMS_06.shtml, you can see how the MS machine uses ionization to identify the molecules making up a particular chemical. In the example shown on the top right of this web page, the MS machine has ionized a chemical (let’s call it chemical “4”) made up of molecules, where each molecule originally consisted of 5 atoms. After the ionization process is complete, there is still a small fraction of molecules with 5 atoms, but the process has produced a large percentage of ions with 1 atom and 4 atoms. It is the relative abundance of each kind of ion that is measured by the MS machine. If the lab finds that a chemical is ionized in this way, with 32% of its ions having a mass of 1 and 4, and 12% of its ions having masses of 2, 3 and 5, the lab knows that it has found chemical “4”.
The graph shown on the top right of this web page is a “complete mass spectrum” graph. This is a graph showing all of the ions for a particular molecule. Of course, when an MS machine ionizes a complex chemical such as testosterone, the resulting pattern of ions is more complex. For example, you can see a complete mass spectrum graph for testosterone at http://www.osha.gov/dts/sltc/methods/partial/pv2001/2001.html (skim to Section 3.6 on this web page, and look at the graph on the bottom right). A complete mass spectrum graph is like a chemical “fingerprint” — if analyzed correctly, it uniquely and accurately identifies the chemical in question.
Did the LNDD analyze the complete mass spectrum data for the MS peaks on the Landis chromatograms? Well, while it’s not 100% clear from the evidence, it appears that the LNDD did NOT analyze this data. Instead, it appears that the LNDD did a partial analysis, looking only at the THREE most common ions in each peak. However, what the LNDD did might have been good enough to determine that the chemicals it wanted to analyze WERE contained in the Landis MS peaks. The WADA rules allow chemicals to be identified by a partial analysis of the mass spectrum data, so long as the lab looks at each individual ion making up 10% or more of the ions in the chemical signature.
But wait a minute! If the French lab only looked at three ions per chemical, couldn’t it have missed an ion that consisted of 10% or more of the ions for that chemical? Well, yes. The analysis MIGHT have overlooked one of these ions. In other words, the French lab’s partial analysis of the ions in each of the Landis MS peaks was probably NOT good enough under the WADA rules to identify the chemical.
However … remember that the lab performed both a partial examination of the ions for each peak AND an analysis of the retention time for each peak. Arguably, the retention time analysis ALONE was good enough under the WADA rules for peak identification. Arguably, the lab did not NEED to do the additional analysis of the ions in each peak.
So, for this portion of the evidence, we can give LNDD a passing grade. It probably DID determine that the peaks in the Landis chromatograms contained the chemicals that the lab needed to analyze.
You may ask at this point, why did I drag you through this complicated technical analysis, just to tell you at the end that this portion of the LNDD testing was probably OK? Am I trying to be fair to the French lab? Well, maybe! But this analysis is an important part of the story told by the evidence in the Landis case. More importantly, this portion of my analysis contains information that you’ll need to understand in future parts of this series, where I’ll point out some things that (IMHO) the LNDD did NOT do correctly.
Stay tuned!
“Other than rumour and speculation, how many cases and confessions have come out of CSC? There’s Basso, and, um, who else?”
Uh….. Hamilton (he was already working with Fuentes while on CSC). And of course Jaksche’s major successes were on this team. CSC’s initial success was with Jalabert as team leader, who like Riis was a prominent doper in the glory days of ONCE back in the 90s.
Riis has been a proponent for keeping Operation Puerto quashed–ie there are probably more CSC riders involved in that scandal.
Power calculation on Paris Nice :
Machine translation
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=fr_en&url=http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=4036
Original in french : http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=4036
Jean C, you and TBV are the power calculation guys, so I defer to you. But the Paris-Nice power calculations show plenty of rides over 400 watts. I thought that was the hypothetical line between clean and doped. I also thought that Landis rode the TdF S17 at around 380 watts.
Can you explain? Obviously I’m missing something.
Larry,
What you are missing it’s along and difficult are the stage, and how long is the race.
At the first days of TDF or Paris-Nice a lot of rider can easily produce an equivalent power of 400W for 30mn on a single col …. few after a race week or after 2 cols in the same day.
So day after day, col after col, rider becomes more and more tired, and so average power decreases.
The 2007 Landis time and 2004 Ullrich time on Alpes d’Huez are similar but Ullrich did it on a TT, a single climb, and Landis did it after a full mountain stage, he should have been tired! If you add that Ullrich was blood doped (Fuentes and TMobile), there is a uniq conclusion.