It’s hard to know whether the tentative positive test results that have been announced — implicating Manuel Beltrán, Moisès Dueñas Nevado and Ricky Ricardo … er, I mean Ricardo Riccò — are a measure of how successful the anti-doping warriors are in catching dopers. It could also be that this is just the tip of the iceberg and many more are managing to get away with it. Or perhaps these characters are just a few hapless riders who are a few neurons short of the necessary intelligence to figure out that with increased and targeted testing, it’s only a matter of time before those who are cheating are caught.
And, of course, since none of the B sample results have been announced, it could also be that one or more of these riders may not be charged with a doping violation — if the B sample happens to contradict the original result. That’s a big if.
The funny thing (in a dark humor sort of way), is that my wife and I were talking about who might be the next doping positive at the Tour yesterday. I had a hunch that the next rider to test positive would be an Italian. My wife suggested Riccò, the brash young Italian climbing sensation. Seems like Riccò is the embodiment of the saying, “Pride goeth before a fall.” If his B sample confirms the A sample, and if the gendarmes have solid evidence against the young rider, he’s going to be taking a really big fall.
And not only might he face a suspension from competition for a few years, he might be spending time in a French prison, paying a hefty fine, or both. From what I gather, right now both Dueñas and Riccò are spending time in the company of the gendarmes. This isn’t exactly the kind of summer holiday in France that I’d want. (No offense meant toward the gendarmes, by the way.)
Apparently, a search of Dueñas’ room netted some interesting things. According to South Africa’s Independent Online:
The boycott is over. It ended with the flight of the Saunier-Duval bus towards either the Spanish or the Italian border (depending on who you read).
This has now become the most important Tour since the Festina scandal. There’s a chance that the Tour de France could end with this race. I know that this is an extreme reaction. I will back it up with later posts.
At the moment, all of us who love cycling, and that is all of us, owe it to ourselves to watch this race. We need to understand as much as we can about what is going on.
I could turn my back on a lot of things. But this year’s Tour de France is the race of truth. I can’t turn my back any longer.
Rant, I think I’ve taken on a little of Jean C scepticism whenever I see a ride that is a bit ‘hors categorie’. Ricco’s rides in the Gyro were suspect and so were Sella’s and his teammate. So much so that when Sella won, the Italian media didn’t hail the win as a magnificent achievement but gave it the headline ‘Embarrasment’. The media knows it is too good to be true yet there was (as far as I remember) no one caught for doping in the Gyro.
You mention Ricco’s naturally high hematocrit level. Could it be that it was naturally high because they had not yet found technology to detect the cause of his ‘naturally’ high level? Maybe ASO made a mistake in not inviting Contador et al. Maybe more might have been revealed at this tour.
As for the Tour this year, I have actually been enjoying it and marvelling at the young Cavendish’s accomplishments. I believe he finished last in the last Pyrenneen stage and then comes through next day with a beautiful sprint finish win. And, showed his class by giving the credit to his teammates.
Some reactions after pro-tour, ASO and UCI TDF meeting:
Riis:
“If the UCI doesn’t pick up the glove that has been thrown now, then they are done and then we’ll just have to go on without them while they go off and play with mountainbike and BMX. But we would prefer to have the UCI with us, and have made our position clear to show the UCI that they have to sit down at the negotiating table. But if we can’t solve this constructively, then unfortunately someone will have to go.”
Carsten Jensen (CSC director, and one of the team negotiators):
“It is rubbish [Ed: to say that the ProTour teams are the puppets of ASO]. Finally, the teams are 100% in agreement, and that is why we have tried to mediate between the organizers and the UCI for a long time. But the UCI don’t want to come to the negotiating table, the ASO are willing to do so, and that is why we have started with the ASO. But everyone is interested in getting the UCI to sit at the same table.”
Peter Pedersen (UCI-member, and one of the UCI negotiators):
“Pat McQuaid will come to the table. I am certain of it, and he is willing to do so, as soon as he has had a meeting about the recent development with representatives from all over the world. We will come to an agreement, we need to, for the sake of the sport.”
Pat McQuaid is however not appearing conciliatory in his actions, given recent threats to sue nine ProTour teams who have ProTour licenses until 2010.
The terms from the ASO and the teams is (supposedly) that the UCI give up all ideas about trying to gain economical control of the sport in the form of TV rights, et al. The UCI should concentrate on making the rules, and seeing that the rules are being followed. But the UCI is not unwanted, as the ProTour have brought many good things with it – not least the UCI bio-passport which everyone supports.
Carsten Jeppesen:
“The bloodpaspport will certainly continue, everyone knows it is the only correct way – the riders, the teams, the organizers, the UCI, and the sponsors demand it, and the sport has taken a giant leap forward in the right direction in the last couple of years. But all sides have to compromise in this conflict. The ASO has agreed to support the biopassport economically, the teams have reduced their demands in terms of how many races they must be guaranteed and how far in advance they must have notice; now it is UCI’s turn to reduce their demands. It is necessary.”
All what is happening raises a lot of questions when you look at it from a ASO point of view.
Why is the test not announced? Why hold it back. Now there will be more doping cases than cycling possible can handle.
Is the test really validated? The Dutch newpapers say ‘yes’, but is it a really valid test?
Are the ASO trying to make an impression? Loks like it, but why?
Puzzeld
Karuna,
Your are confusing ASO organizer of TDF and AFLD french agency of fight against doping linked to french ministery!
So AFLD is just oing his job. If they done do it they could be accomplice of doping practice and face to jail!
Larry,
I’m not sure whether I’m sorry to see your boycott ended, or happy to hear that you’ll be chiming in on the new Festina scandal (or so it does appear). It was truly a valiant effort, however, undone by the nefarious doings of various forces beyond your control.
Luc,
When I was writing this post, WordPress hiccuped, and I had to totally rewrite it, losing (among other things) the quotes around “naturally” in describing Riccò’s hematocrit levels. Thus, losing all of the “insinuendo” that I’d meant. I’m getting to be a tad bit more like Jean C in viewing some of these efforts, too. Riccò denies using EPO according to a few articles I’ve seen. But it’s hard not to wonder if he’s taking that hero worship of Marco Pantani just a tad bit too far.
Jean,
Many good quotes there. Where did they come from?
Karunna,
There certainly is a whole lot we don’t know about the test. What I’ve seen reference to is that it is an adaptation of the current urine EPO test, except that the banding in the gels shows up in different places for CERA. What I don’t know is whether they’ve validated that only CERA could produce those kinds of bands. Rutger Beke would be a good example of someone who, apparently through his own metabolism, tested “positive” on the current urine EPO test. Before the CERA test went into use, if I had anything to say in the matter, I’d want to know if any studies had been done to determine whether this version could produce false positives ala Beke — and if so, what test(s) they would use to separate out such cases from actual positive results.
Rant,
Translated quotes are from :
http://www.sporten.dk/cykling/tour-de-france-1-2008/riis-angriber-uci
From the same source:
http://www.sporten.dk/cykling/tour-de-france-1-2008/damsgaard-jubler-over-epo-touren
Duenas seems to have admitted his doping!
And Piepoli caught too, number 4! French TV allegation but surely true!
This may explain Damsgaard’s statement about 20-50 riders on EPO: he is extrapolating from his 5 riders with “suspicious blood profiles”. However, if this is the case, we need to keep in mind his sample population (all the riders in his testing program) is not a random sample; in addition, it may not be big enough too draw any meaningful conclusions from.
There is a lot about this developing situation we don’t know. Again, I would caution everyone to take a deep breath and hold off speculating until things play out.
One more thought: I am reminded of the Chinese curse “May you live in interesting times.” Pro road cycling is certainly in interesting times.
William,
Sage words. This story is developing way too rapidly to draw any really firm conclusions just yet.
Jean,
I’ve seen one article about Dueñas admitting he doped, here. It’s pretty short on info, though there is a video on the page that I haven’t looked at. Have you seen any other stories?
And, regarding Piepoli. According to the Guardian, both he and Riccò appear to have been sacked for “doping practices.”
Rant’s work is never done. When I heard about Ricco, I immediately thought of you and the post you’d be writing!
Larry,
I will think about your decision to end the boycott. For now, we shall not speak of your lack of vertebra.
Regarding yesterday’s post (“new beginnings. . .”) I believe that your Gitmo comment is a straw man, and does not answer the larger comment that I was making regarding the apparent cultural differences that we are experiencing. I think the vast majority of American’s see the detainees as POWs, and as such do not believe that the holding of them is an act of tyranny (right or wrong). When Lincoln suspended habius corpus, that was an act of tyranny, but I would contend that American’s of 1862 were far more libertarian and conservative than American’s of today (prior to the war, slavery was largely an argument over Federalism – the limitations of government authority). While I agree with you that Europeans and Americans are more alike than different, I think that my point regarding a general difference of skeptically with regard to law enforcement and government is true (albeit a gross generalization).
Moving on.
Why did the anti-doping organizations develop a test and not tell anyone? If it was the goal of everyone involved to avoid having a rider at an event taking any prohibited product, why would they hide what they are doing? I cannot understand why it would be kept secret.
Unless they wanted the scandal.
Is this all intended to be punitive? Why? I thought this was just a bike race.
Rant,
there is a lot of stories in the last days, we don’t know what are the grounds … ;D
Ricco denied to have doped.
In the same Gianetti (SD) is saying that after his own investigation he has lost his whole faith that he had in Ricco and Piepoli. I am not ready to believe that he is as blank as snow…
Debby,
Not only that, but it’s quite the job trying to keep up with all the allegations and scandals in order to update the Afterword to my book. I’d expected a bit of scandal to erupt at this year’s Tour (it’s seems almost inevitable), but I didn’t expect so much. And all of the positives have come from the first four days of racing. Who knows what else is lurking in the wings?
Michael,
Wouldn’t it be great if the Tour was just a bike race, and this other stuff didn’t rear its ugly head? That would be a sight to behold.
Jean,
I’m not surprised that Riccò has denied doping. I do wonder about Gianetti and what he knows of his riders’ character and behavior. But, he could be telling the truth. Perhaps Riccò and Piepoli were fooling him. If other SD riders come up positive, the picture will start looking a whole lot different. I keep thinking that this could be mushrooming into another Festina scandal. But I’m hoping that there are no more positive tests from here on out. Probably in vain, but one can always hope.
McQuaid persists !
Michael, I owe you an apology. Sorry. I should not have brought up Gitmo. Gitmo is obviously an important matter, but it doesn’t have anything to do with doping in cycling, or even the national character of the American people. I certainly did not mean to put you and I on different sides of this terrible issue, as if you needed to defend Gitmo to make your point and as if I needed to attack Gitmo to make mine. I did not see where this argument would go, and that was stupid and irresponsible on my part. I’m sorry.
I should have stated nothing more than the cultural differences between France and the United States do not appear to directly translate into concrete differences regarding fairness and due process. IMHO. I do not see the French as being less committed to justice, freedom and the values I hold dear that I am, and for that matter, than you are. IMHO. I think it was OK to point out the high level of U.S. involvement in the Landis case — if Landis got screwed over (and I think he did), the dirty deed had as much to do with Richard Young’s rules and the rules of the American Arbitration Association as it did with anything that happened in France. That’s where I should have stopped. My bringing up other cases where (IMHO) the U.S. has departed from these principles gets us nowhere — it is a cheap argument, cheapened further by the hot-button nature of Gitmo.
I’m sorry I did it, and I hope that you can accept my apology.
Rant, maybe you are right about Gianetti despite his past.
Piepoli could have not tested positive but would be accomplice of Ricco doping…
To confirm.
Grudgingly, the alarm clock gets turned back on. Woke up just in time today to see Sven Krauss play chicken with some road furniture. Hope he’s alright – that bike’s sure to be a display item @ Specialized…
I truly hope that AFLD/LNDD took to heart the reprimand they received in the USADA appeal and have tightened things up considerably. I don’t know much about the French justice system, but if people are going to be put in jail – it would seem that the labs processes could be put under much higher scrutiny in front of a judge that is not 66% pre-dispositioned for the testers.
Having said that, and assuming that they are now running a tight ship (albeit leaky – so that may be a generous assumption with rules being rules and all) I think that handling of this test and it’s use in this year’s Tour is progress. The testers will never be ahead of the cheats – so a solid course of action would be to keep them guessing. Talk about a punch to the solar plexus if you’re using this stuff at the moment… Keeping the cheats and would be cheats in the dark regarding what you know is the only way to level the field.
According Douwe de Boer, doping expert, professor of the University of Maastricht (Netherlands) it will be difficult to keep Ricco and others suspended outside France.
He is of course happy that the new Epo variations can be found. But as far as he knows are there no (international) rules to decide when and if a test is positive.
So in an controlled situation the new variation show themselves, but it is different of course in a urine sample.
The French made their own rules, he doesn’t like it and calls it as “˜having a funny smell’.
It looks to him the French won the battle against the rest of the world (UCI) and maybe that is what it is: the French show off.
It does polish their image. Great French show. Impressive, intimidating.
And who can object? Dopers are being caught. Okay maybe one of two are false positive but heh read Damsgaard, it doesn’t really matter as long as the doping hunters catch dopers.
I Know, I am speculating. Shouldn’t do that. But.
I think rights are being violated here. Even when all of them are guilty I still don’t like it.
@Jean C
I know the difference between the different organizations. I just don’t believe that the AFLD would be in the position they are in now when they intended something that would damage the ASO/TdF in some way.
Larry,
No apology is necessary. I felt that while your argument may have been valid, it was not supported by your examples. Please do not feel obligated to apologize (unless it’s about my cheese).
And with that said. You are correct. Landis was ultimately beaten by the USADA and Richard Young. It was a group of Americans that did the dirty work. I think that Richard Young was a prototypical opportunistic lawyer. He was an advocate for his client. While I can appreciate his motives, I deplore his morals. And you have succinctly repudiated my argument, while simultaneously apologizing for your methods. I feel sufficiently unworthy.
But I will not move off the idea that anybody going to a French jail because of the work of the LNDD is disturbing.
Michael, the apology WAS necessary. Hate to argue with you about that, but as a lawyer, I argue for a living, and I ought to know when an argument is unfair and crosses the line. That being said, I feel like you accepted my apology and I’m happy to move on.
No one goes to jail over the work of the LNDD, or the AFLD, or whatever they’re calling themselves. At lest I don’t think so. Criminal prosecution in France MUST require SOME kind of finding of intent to dope, and the mere presence of dope in someone’s system is not an indication of intent. Someone may go to jail over the results of a police search and/or confession arising out of probable cause stemming from the results of an alleged AAF found by the AFLD. You may ALSO think that this is disturbing, and we can visit a whole line of U.S. case law where the police find good evidence on the basis of improperly obtained evidence (like where a defendant doesn’t get his Miranda warning, confesses to where he hid the stolen goods and the police find the stolen goods). These used to be called “fruit of the poisonous tree” cases.
As for the cheese, just try the falafel first, OK? (Did you READ the NY Times article I cited?) If that doesn’t work for you, I’ll swap your falafel for the cheese of your choice.
I owe you a post on why I ended the boycott. You are of course free to take up my position as the leader of the boycott.
Larry you are correct about my hyperbole regarding jail time for cyclists. And you are also correct that I am disturbed that the original search is predicated on the findings of a sports related drug test. I am not sure of my support of the depth of and breadth of the Miranda decision (without giving up on my support of it’s intent); but I am certain that smuggling EPO and cheating at a game shouldn’t be taken as seriously as smuggling cocaine. But that, of course, is somewhat off topic.
See http://www.reason.com/news/show/127566.html for a somewhat tangential situation.
I have to say that those falafel must be pretty darn good. We have some good falafel here in NYC. I love Ali Babba on Murray Hill and Maha’s on Flatbush Avenue. However the best might be Alfanoose downtown (http://www.alfanoose.com/). But I am compelled by your insistence. While I am more of a sambucca-and-capuccio Giro D’Italia man, I am willing to try Falafel in Paris. But you won’t convince me that the Giro doesn’t have the best podium girls.
And thank you for your apology. I hope to be as gracious.
Whatever our feelings about LNDD or AFLD or whatever it’s called, it is a certified lab, certified by WADA and I believe also by the French government, or at least some French agency. I would think that would give the French authorities basis for a search based on an AAF. Whether or not any evidence obtained from such a search could be excluded if the AAF was proved to be defective, I don’t know, since I know nothing about French law.
Michael, it’s off topic. But when my daughter reached a certain age, I took her to one side and told her two things she needed to know: first, once she walked through the school house doors, she lost all of her constitutional rights. Second, once she entered an automobile, she lost nearly all of her constitutional rights. Obviously, I exaggerated, but only a little.
Here’s why I ended my boycott.
They call the time trial the race of truth, right? Well, this year’s Tour could very well be the
race of truth for the ADAs. This could be the Tour where we find out whether they’re serious about
anti-doping. This could be the Tour where we finally get a picture of how much doping there is in
the peloton.
You all know by now. There’s a new form of EPO out there, one that’s a lot longer lasting than
“classic” EPO. The new EPO was thought to be undetectable. You’d have to figure, any doping
cyclist who was serious about doping in this year’s Tour, would be doping on this form of EPO.
But it turned out, the new EPO may not be undetectable after all. The French lab doing some of the
Tour testing this year, the AFLD, claims to be able to detect the new EPO. The World Anti-Doping
Agency (WADA) supports the AFLD claim. And depending on the report you read, some or all of the
three adverse analytical findings (AAFs) announced by AFLD so far are for use of the new EPO.
If the AFLD claims are correct, then the anti-doping agencies (ADAs) are in a rare position.
Normally, the ADAs complain that they’re one or two steps behind the dopers. First, the ADAs have
to figure out what new drugs the dopers are using, and second, the ADAs have to figure out how to
test for the new drugs. But THIS time, if the reports are to be believed, the ADAs are one step
ahead of the dopers: the ADAs can test for the new EPO and (until a few days ago) the doping cyclists did not know this.
It might be a perfect setup for the ADAs. The long-lasting nature of the new EPO may insure that anyone in this year’s tour doping with this drug will still have traces of the drug in his system, and may continue to have traces of the drug in his system until the Tour is over. If this is the case, and if AFLD can really test for the presence of this drug, then all that’s left to do is for AFLD to test everyone. We will finally have an indication of who is doping, and how many dopers there are. Is it just a handful of dumb guys who dope, like the announcers on Versus would have us believe? Are there more like 20 – 50 dopers, like Daamsgard has indicated? Or is nearly everyone doping, like some have said?
We may never know. Because, it appears, the authorities do not appear to be willing to test everyone.
Not all the facts are in, so it’s hard to say at this point what’s going on and what it means.
This is the reason why I quit the boycott. Here at RYHO, we engage in about as high level a dialog about doping as you can find on the Internet. Well, RYHO and TBV. This year’s race is just too important to an understanding of doping in cycling for me to continue to ignore it.
We could end up with 20, 30, 40 or more AAFs. We could see the ADAs pull back, and because of limited resources (or because they fear that declaration of more than a few AAFs will kill this race forever), declare no more than the three AAFs we’ve seen already. We could watch the ADAs search diligently (and this time, with great tools) for all of the alleged dopers that supposedly dominate the peloton, and find that there AREN’T more than a few dopers.
Gotta watch. It’s must see TV.
Larry,
In reaction at your concern exprimed on TBV about to test everybody and your wish to know the rate of dopers.
Propably Damsgaard is right about heavy doping (improvement of more than 5% of their performance), and a lot of people have a good idea of what is the reality.
Probably too 80% and more are using some light PED, with very few effects of their results.
Sure if AFLD could do it, they would have done. It’s better to clean all the peloton in one time … but :
Probably the problem is not the testing but the collection of samples which can request half an hour for some people, and at least 5mn!
how to collect properly 180 samples when protocol have to be follow? how many locals are needed?
how many agreed people are needed?
how much times does it take? …
What would you do if half of the city is guilty?
that could extremely damaging for the next races (Vuelta,…), what would be done by organisers?
I think it’s not as simple as we would.
I agree with Larry that if you really want to know how many riders are using Epo variations you test everybody.
No matter how long it takes to do all the tests.
Beside that, why is the test validated in France IN SECRET.
Why.
What do you want to prove?
What do you want to avoid? Legal repercussions?
Maybe you don’t want peer labs to have a look at the test?
Is there a motivation like: we must punish the doping riders?
Revenge? What has revenge got to do with “˜going to a clean sport’?
Why is WADA going along with the strategy (doing it secretly) used?
What is the use of that?
More questions.
Why is cycling going along with such a harsh approach? It is not like there is no doping in other sports.
Could cycling be used by the WADA and the ASO/TdF for their own benefits?
Both for different reasons. WADA maybe to shock the sport in general. ASO/TdF because of France and the image of the TdF: look how good we are.
No matter what reason, the riders and cycling seem to be USED.
Skepticism about cycling and doping is not going to be less, that looks as “˜pretty sure’ to me.
I don’t think this is the only way. There are other ways, as always.
I feel tempted to start a lifelong boycott. 🙂
Jean C –
One of the reasons why I ended my boycott is because I started thinking about some of the questions you’re raising. I’ve discussed some of those questions over at TBV, but not here, not yet.
I’ve been arguing for a long time that, if our goal is for clean cycling, we have to know the extent of the doping problem in cycling. I’ve expresed frustration that the powers that be in cycling, and in international sport, do not come forward and share what they know with us: how much doping IS there in cycling? How widespread is the problem? Do we even KNOW whether there are just a few guys doping (and if you listen to the reports from the guys broadcasting the Tour in the U.S., there are only a few dopers spoiling the race for the rest of the riders), or 20 – 50 guys as suggested this week by Rasmus Damsgaard, or whether 80% of the peloton is doping as was suggested last year by Saugy (the WADA lab chief in Switzerland). Does anyone truly know the answer?
You cannot solve a problem without understanding the nature and extent of the problem. If, for example, you wanted to fight crime in your home city, the first thing you’d want to do is to learn all you could about the crime in your city. Is it violent crime, or just petty theft? Is it widespread, requiring a massive response, or are things pretty safe and you don’t need to do very much. You’d want to have that information in hand, not only so you’d know how to attack the problem, but so you could see in a month or a year whether your crime-fighting efforts had been effective or counter-productive.
Of course, it’s not easy to know the extent of the doping problem in cycling. You could take the attitude that the race organizers seem to be taking, which is that you can tell the extent of the doping problem from the number of AAFs reported during the race. Of course, that’s like determining the extent of the city’s crime problem by counting the number of people arrested by the police. If you define the doping problem in this way, you are in essence saying that there really is no doping problem: a few guys dope, we catch them, end of story. What we’re worried about, of course, is the full extent of the problem. In our city, we want to know the extent of the crime rate, not the extent of the arrest rate. In cycling, we want to know the extent of doping, not just the numbers of AAFs.
How can we tell the nature and extent of doping in cycling, other than by merely looking at AAFs? This is a difficult question! We understand that the anti-doping authorities THINK they can look at a doping test result, and determine whether the cyclist is doping, even if the test results do not add up to an AAF under the WADA rules. This is, I think, what Saugy meant last year when he said that 80% of the peloton is doping. We KNOW that this is what Damsgaard means when he says that 10% – 30% of the peloton is using EPO this year … because Damsgaard has said so explicitly. See http://www.sporten.dk/cykling/tour-de-france-1-2008/damsgaard-jubler-over-epo-touren. With help from Google’s translator, I THINK Dr. Damsgaard said the following:
“As I said before the Tour, there are probably hundreds if not thousand of samples taken at WADA laboratories which are deemed negative but which in fact are positive.”
(The whole Damsgaard article is worth translating and reading.)
Of course, we can’t be entirely comfortable with this kind of analysis. The whole purpose of the WADA rules is to determine which results are positive and which are negative. The criteria for a positive test set forth in the WADA rules are supposed to be based on scientific study, so (in theory at least) results are not deemed positive because Damsgaard (or anyone else) merely thinks they’re suspicious. However, if we’re determined to look beyond the handful of AAFs at a race like the Tour de France in an effort to understand the full extent of the doping problem, we’re virtually forced to consider statements made by people like Damsgaard and Saugy.
Until now.
In this year’s Tour, we may have the opportunity to gather some truly good data on the extent of the doping problem in cycling. Because if my suspicions are correct, most of the doping cyclists will have used this new form of EPO before or during the Tour, thinking it was undetectable. Owing to the long-lasting nature of this new EPO, it will persist in a cyclist’s system for a long time. So, if the AFLD will get serious and TEST EVERYONE, we may be able to obtain some seriously good data on the extent of the doping problem, something that goes past the suspicions expressed by Damsgaard and Saugy.
I understand the problems with logistics. It takes time to test all those samples. So, take the time! Have AFLD run the tests through the end of the year if they have to. I also understand that there would be great time and expense in following all of the protocol required to prove AAFs against a large number of riders … but all I’m asking for is for AFLD to do the study and report the results, so we can know more about the nature and extent of the doping problem! If they can prove an AAF based on some or all of the positive results, then so much the better, but if they can’t, I’d still like to learn all we can about the nature and extent of the problems they could see in these test results.
Remember, Jean C, this is a rare opportunity, where the ADAs are one step ahead of the dopers. Well, actually, they WERE one step ahead. Now that the dopers know that the ADAs can detect this new form of EPO, the dopers will certainly stop using it. It’s not a smart PED for any doper to take: it is reportedly easy to detect, and it stays in the system for a long time. So, for example, while we might have expected that a lot of dopers would have used this drug for the Olympic Games, now we know that no doper in his or her right mind will utilize this drug during the Olympics. The only time and place to catch dopers using this drug is probably right now, at this year’s Tour.
Finally … yes, I’ve considered what would happen to the Tour if the AFLD announced 20 AAFs this year, or 30, or more. It would be terrible for the Tour. We had three in-competition AAFs in last year’s Tour (plus Rasmussen, plus Sinkewitz …), and look at the damage that the Tour suffered. What would happen if we multiplied the 2007 AAFs by a factor of 10, or more? If 30 AAFs were announced, how many teams would have to withdraw? Maybe half of them? What would be left of this year’s race? Would the Tour even survive? I’ve thought of this.
But if the Tour pulls back, and does not TEST EVERYONE, and purposely limits the number of AAFs to something more acceptable and less damaging … then they forever lose their credibility in the war against doping. Then we know that the authorities don’t really want clean sport — that all they want is to scare a few riders away from doping and maybe target a few other riders (like Ricco — the obnoxious, loudmouth kind of riders who act like outlaws and ride in a way that the authorities find “unbelievable”) that they want to be rid of.
It’s a very tough choice. One reason I had to end my boycott is that I need to see what choice they are going to make. If they TEST EVERYONE, we’ll learn much more about the nature and extent of the doping problem. If they do not TEST EVERYONE, then we’ll learn something we need to know about the people in charge of the anti-doping effort.
Karuna, great post, you’re raising questions I’d like to get to in future posts of my own. But you should read the article I cited above with Dr. Damsgaard’s recent statements, as he addresses some of your points about test validation (though maybe not in a way that you’ll agree with). You might even be able to give me a better translation!
If by “test everyone” you mean test all 180 riders everyday, then yes, the logistics are enormous and very well not realistic. However, if you mean “make sure every rider is tested at least once during the Tour” this becomes much more doable. There are 180 riders, and around 20 stages, to use round numbers. 180/20 = 9 riders a day to be tested, not all that much more than current levels of testing.
And if what they say about CERA is true (it is detectable for a long time), you don’t necessarily need to grab riders right after the end of a stage. Visit the hotels at night, one rest days, etc.
Then prioritize the testing, so that the top riders in the different competitions are tested first, so that if there is to be any changes in the top standings, it will be done as soon as possible. Then do all the domestiques – who cares that much if the 98th place rider is DQed in December, and everyoe who finished after him gets moved up one place?
As I write this, I am listening to an interview on NPR of a journalist covering the Tour. He says that so far, over 200 tests have been conducted. I assume he means that many samples have been collected, not necessarily that all have been tested. If this is true, and continues through the end of the race, perhaps we will have a better idea of the nature of the problem. Unless they are just testing a small set of targeted riders many times.
What will be interesting is to see how much of the results will be released. Will they say whether or not they tested everybody? Will they make some sort of claim that they “know” so many riders are doping, but can’t produce an AAF because of those pesky WADA rules. How about showing us some examples (with riders’ ID protected) of results they think are evidence of doping which can’t be used as an AAF so we can see if there is any validity to the claim.
William, great posts!
By TEST EVERYONE, yes I think that everyone in the TdF should be tested at least once.
I am trying to absorb as much scientific information about CERA as I can. “M” has posted some good information on TBV, and OMJ has done the same on DPF. You are right, CERA has a reported half-life in the body of about a week, and it’s supposed to be easy to detect because it is a much larger molecule than natural EPO. However, the size of the CERA molecule means (apparently) that not so much of it passes into the urine. So there may be a need to collect multiple urine samples to do a single test, or maybe a need to test for CERA at precisely the right time while the maximum amount of CERA is still in the system. It’s not clear at this point.
I agree completely with your testing plan.
The NPR journalist, like so many journalists at this year’s Tour, is giving us vague and unsubstantiated information. I’ve seen nothing conclusive on who is being tested and why, and how many riders are being tested each day. On TBV, “M” speculates that they’re testing the top 2 finishers each day, plus the yellow jersey each day, plus a certain number of random tests, plus the so-called targeted tests. Bonnie Ford (a writer I trust) seems to agree: she wrote that they’re testing the day’s top riders, a “true random or two” and the targeted guys. According to Ford, after day 1 AFLD tested the top 3 finishers, plus Beltran, Daminano Cunego and David Millar, among others. Ford counted 13 tests after stage 4, a number she calls “almost unheard-of”. She counted 8 tests after stages 6 and 8. “M” guessed yesterday that AFLD had completed 60 tests and found 3 AAFs, but we have to keep in mind that the lab is completing tests some time after they collect the samples.
From the information, we can guess that AFLD is taking about 10 samples a day, which from the sound of Bonnie Ford’s reporting, is a lot more testing than they’ve done in prior Tours. So credit where credit is due. In any event, since stage 14 is in process as I write, we can guess that AFLD has taken about 130 samples, so the NPR report must be wrong — no way that AFLD could have taken over 200 samples at this point. Or maybe the NPR reporter is including in his/her count the number of blood tests performed just prior to the Tour start.
You speculated that the authorities might be testing a small set of riders many times. To be certain, there’s some of that going on. Again, we have no hard data on who is being tested. There’s an unsubstantiated report on DPF that Cancellara was tested 4 stages in a row prior to the time trial and hasn’t been tested since, and that Frank Schleck has been multiple tested. Obviously, Cadel Evans (yellow jersey) and Mark Cavendish (4 stage wins) have been multiple tested. I think I read that Ricco was multiple tested. So, no way does 130 samples equal 130 riders tested. My guess is that they have samples for no more than 60 riders, probably less than that, but of course I’m guessing.
We can be confident that no information will be released, other than the vague pronouncements we’ve received in the past. The only hard information we ever see is for the relatively few AAFs that end up with published decisions based on scientific questions — that’s the Hamilton and Landis cases, to the best of my knowledge. I agree with you, I think that the public is entitled to know a lot more than this. When a guy like Saugy in Switzerland stands up and says that 80% of the peloton doped last year, you presume (since he DOES run a WADA lab) that he bases (or claims to be basing) his pronouncements on documented evidence. If he (and others) want to make such claims, they should be prepared to back them up.
Ok, to test everyone at least one times during the TDF is different to test all riders in one day.
Without accurate information about CERA EPO detection and its window of detection, I speculated to detect it in the first day(s) only.
There is already sometimes we have here a post were we wrote about Donati’s report which give a good idea how doping is widespread
Larry
I have a translation in a Dutch newspaper I read of the interview with Damsgaard.
It is one of the reasons of my post.
I don’t have much more to offer though than the post of Jean C at 6.40 am.
What to my opinion is crucial here is that the AFLD ignores the WADA rules.
As I said before, they probably kept the test a secret because they knew it would not be possible to declare the test “WADA proof” or “legal proof”.
Because the AFLD have the French government behind them the AFLD can do this IN FRANCE right now.
In my opinion the French are playing “˜I am the man’.
Your way with trying to do research is a fair and honest way. It could even be done without making a fuss about it. Test every rider twice: 360 tests. Doable I think.
It would give the LDNN the chance to show how good the test is. It would give an idea if there a riders who don’t have an all that high HcT but still are using.
The whole of sports could benefit from it.
It could be a way to a more open communication. When many riders are confronted with a result they didn’t expect some will open up. It could give the possibility to learn more about the routes of the Doping: where is it bought, who helps etc. The opening of the omerta Rant suggested lots of posts ago.
The Damsgaard/AFLD way is that not.
Damsgaard says that he doesn’t think the rider is to blame; it is the organizations that don’t want to take the risk to be involved in too many legal cases which might mean they lose funds.
He forgets that riders are being cuffed and treated like criminals. The organizations congratulate themselves.
I am against doping but I suspect the riders being used and the goal not being cycling or even anti doping.
That’s my opinion. I don’t like operations where the goal justifies the means (I hope that is the expression).
I always think there is a lot of ego involved by that way of problem solving.
According to a Dutch newspaper 8 riders are tested every day.
The one that wins the stage and the yellow jersey. The other 6 are targetted.
The journalist followed one of the persons that need to accompany the ones that need to go for a doping test.
I have a probably stupid question.
What I don’t understand is why is blood not being used for Cera.
It is a bigger molecule than natural epo. Probably to make sure it doesn’t pass the kidneys so easily.
But with a halflife of a week in urine, it is probably detectable for 3 weeks in blood.
Is the blood epo test not an option?
Karuna:
One reason is that for a blood test, you obviously need to draw blood, and that requires a person with a certain amount of medical training. While it doesn’t have to be a full MD, you need at least some sort of certified lab tech or nurse or the like. I would think that collecting a urine sample would require far less, which equals less money.
As I recall, the original EOP test was blood based, and then last year LNDD came up with a urine test.
Here on RYHO, we’ve often speculated on whether doping REALLY provides a significant performance advantage in cycling. We’ve even wondered whether it’s possible to do well or even survive in a race like the Tour de France if you’re NOT doping. We’ve concluded that, at least according to the scientific tests, performance-enhancing drugs like EPO DO confer a significant advantage. However, we’ve also acknowledged that many other factors enter into race performance, such as strategy and skill. So some have argued that it’s possible for a clean rider to win a race like the Tour, even against competition using performance-enhancing drugs.
This year’s Tour features three teams with heralded in-house anti-doping programs: Garmin-Chipotle (formerly Slipstream) and Columbia (formerly High Road), with the ACE anti-doping program, and CSC-Saxo Bank, with a program run by Rasmus Damsgaard. I am calling these teams the “clean” teams, with “clean” in quotation marks, because Of course we don’t know that these teams are doping-free, nor do we know that their competion is doping. So when I say that these three teams are “clean”, I’m just saying that they’re reputed to be clean and that their internal anti-doping programs have received a great deal of positive publicity (probably well-deserved).
With this caveat in mind, let’s do some quick analysis. Let’s go with the assumption (one that is subject to question, as I’ve explained above) that the “clean” teams really are clean and that there’s a significant amount of doping going on in the other teams in the peloton. If this is the case (and as I’ve caveated, it may NOT be the case), then based on our earlier speculation that doping might be a signficant performance-enhancer, the “clean” teams should be riding at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the teams in the Tour. Can we detect any such disadvantage in the results so far?
We’re two weeks into the Tour, so we can draw some preliminary conclusions.
I like to look at the team competition first, as that’s not a bad way to see how the teams are doing relative to each other. I looked first to see where the team competition stood after stage 6 — about 1 week into the Tour. Many of you probably know how the team competition has gone, but given my boycott, I was surprised to see how the “clean” teams stood after stage 6:
They stood in first, second and third places. Garmin-Chipotle, CSC, Columbia.
Wow.
Clean or not clean, doping or no doping, THAT is impressive. Particularly by Garmin-Chipotle, a first time Tour team with a bunch of first-time Tour riders.
OK. One of the things we’ve discussed here is that performance-enhancing drugs are particularly effective in a long race. During the three-week course of the Tour, we’d expect a rider’s physical condition to deteriorate and his performance to suffer. However, performance-enhancing drugs have the ability to allow a rider to maintain his conditioning through the Tour. So if we wanted to see whether the “clean” teams are at a disadvantage in a race like the Tour, we’d look most closely at the latter part of the race. Also, doping products like EPO are reported to be particularly effective in mountain stages, so again we might expect the “clean” teams to suffer most against the field on mountainous stages. The second week of the Tour featured three tough mountain stages.
So, how did the clean teams do during the second week of the Tour? Not as well. Team Columbia has fallen in the team standings from third to eleventh, and team Garmin-Chipotle fell from first all the way to 15th. And remember that we lost a team during this period, so the fall of these two teams is a little bit sharper than the numbers would indicate. But which team is currently in first place? “Clean” team CSC-Saxo Bank, which is clearly having a terrific Tour so far.
And if we look past the team competition for a moment, teams Columbia and Garmin-Chipotle are ALSO having terrific Tours! Columbia’s Mark Cavendish is the talk of the Tour, with 4 stage wins — he is obviously the fastest guy in the sprints this year. And team Garmin-Chipotle’s overall performance may be affected by the fact that it has a GC contender to protect! Christian VandeVelde is currently riding in third place overall, just 38 seconds out of the lead.
Overall, even through week number 2 of the Tour, we’d have to say that the “clean” teams are doing very well. CSC is in the team lead (and we should also mention that THEIR GC candidate, Frank Schleck is in SECOND place, just ONE SECOND off the lead). And while Columbia and Garmin-Chipotle have slipped in the team standings, this may well be due to the fact that these two teams are young and inexperienced.
So, if you wanted to take this analysis to a logical (if aggressive) conclusion, you might say that riding clean is NOT a disadvantage in the Tour, or at least not a significant disadvantage … or that it’s possible to enjoy success in a Tour even if you do ride clean.
There are other possible conclusions to reach, one of which is (despite all of my speculation to the contrary in other posts) that there just might not BE that much doping going on in the Tour.
This is an analysis worth revisiting at Tour’s end. After all, the “clean” teams haven’t seen the Alps yet.
(Karuna, I will try to get to your points next. jrd is raising similar points over at TBV. But to answer your question to the best of my knowledge: blood tests are generally a lot cheaper than urine tests. This is one reason why UCI was able to figure out a way to afford the cost of a biological passport program — either they didn’t test urine, or they rarely tested urine. So then, why so many in-competition urine tests and so few in-competition blood tests? It’s just that athletes don’t like giving blood. It’s considered more “invasive”. If you read the articles written by Bonnie Ford and others, you’ll see that the athletes don’t much mind giving urine, but they hate being constantly poked by needles. William is right, EPO testing in blood is supposed to be easier and more accurate, but the ADAs went through great trouble to find a way to accurately test urine for EPO — and of course they may not have succeeded.)
Larry and William
Thank you for the answers.
And Larry
Great observation about the “clean teams”.
But I would like to poke on a little.
The targeted riders are targeted because of their high (or suspicious) Hct levels. That is from a blood test!
As I recall correctly the UCI did blood tests for the biological passport and the AFLD for the “˜health test’.
So there is already blood.
AND.
An article in the newspaper said that the French team Francaise des jeux complaint about the blood tests being performed by the AFLD DURING the Tour. The person who did the blood test was inexperienced and it took 4 hours to draw blood from 8 riders. Paperwork was not ready etc.
So there are blood test being done. Maybe not from every team but enough I would say.
The blood test for the Epo variations has a much bigger chance to get a positive result with the halflife and the bigger molecule etc.
Maybe the blood test is not being used because, like is already said, the AFLD wants more samples then one. Maybe not for now, they seem to declare a AAF on one test, but for legal reasons later on.
When you can say that you found epo variations in several urine samples your case is a lot stronger. It is more difficult to ignore the result they bring forward.
Karuna –
I knew that the Tour took blood from all of the riders on July 5, before the start of the Tour. They then announced that “around 20 riders have results a little high, right on the limit … There are no infractions, but some figures are very close to the limit, particularly as regards the level of hematocrit.” We’re guessing that these 20 riders are the ones being targeted for special testing, though we don’t know for certain.
Yahoo sports reported that the riders on Teams Lampre, CSC, Columbia and Saunier Duval had blood tests performed before the SECOND stage of the race. http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=ap-tourdefrance-tests&prov=ap&type=lgns. This doesn’t make sense! Why would the AFLD take blood from all of the teams on day 1, and from 4 teams on day 2. Maybe these 4 teams didn’t have blood taken on day 1, maybe the AFLD spread the blood testing over 2 days.
The reports I’m reading indicate that these tests are to be used to measure the riders’ blood markers “against tests taken later in the race”, so it appears that more blood tests are planned.
I don’t have any other reports on blood testing, and I cannot find a cite to the situation you mentioned regarding Team Francaise des Jeux.
It is an interesting question, why the AFLD does not test these blood samples for CERA.
Some stuff about EPO automate translation from french newspaper (nouvel observateur), but seems a reuters news!
Karuna,
So french riders are still tested…
What about
http://www.telegraaf.nl/telesport/wielersport/1519693/___Drie_renners_Saunier_Duval_positief___.html?p=2,1
Confirmation?
Larry,
There is a good reason to take blood after or before stage 1… the cheaters would inject their PEDs after the health check.
But it seems it was more hct test than taking blood
My impression is the test for CERA used by AFLD is a urine test. There may not be a blood test yet at this time.
Sorry Larry
I can’t give you a link either. I know for sure it was in the newspaper: het algemeen dagblad.
But it is not on the internet and I threw the newspaper out.
It must have been though before last monday. So in the first week.
Maybe it was about the health test. The tests were, according to the newspaper, done in the hotel of Française des jeux.
Jean C
the article in de Telegraaf is confirmation about what>
Sorry I don’t understand what you are saying.
I think the health test are taken out of the arm. Of course you have to take a little bit more blood when you want to perform an extra test.
It is a possiblity that the AFLD only took blood from the finger. It is possible to do a Hb and Hct test out of capillair blood, but it is less reliable.
As I understand it the capillair blood testing was used by the UCI during the Tour when they were testing.
Nothing of the above explains though why a blood test is not being done on CERA.
Maybe like William says there is no blood test for CERA, but I doubt that.
Jean C,
Sorry your post got bogged down in moderation.
Everyone,
Good discussion. Unfortunately, I’m bogged down with my day job right now, so I haven’t been able to quite keep up. Makes me glad to see everyone carrying on in my absence.
I don’t want to scare anybody but I found a reaction on an article in ‘de Telegraaf’.
Ik was in 1960 een veelbelovende amateur, toen ik als 18 jarige voor het eerst werd uitgezonden door de KNWU. De door de wielerbond meegezonden soigneur had toen al een koffer met spuiten, ampulen en pillen bij zich. Nadat ik in dat jaar kampioen van de provincie Utrecht was geworden, kwam de toenmalige consul en befaamd verslaggever mij “medische begeleiding” aanbieden. Er werd naar hartelust geslikt en gespoten en naturel rijders zoals ik werden daar de dupe van. Daar moet een einde aan komen; hard aanpakken dus
Bert Osendarp, Herten | 12:07 | 19.07.08
It says:
I was in 1960 a promising amateur when I was, being 18 years old, for the first time send for races by the KNWU (Dutch cycling federation). The soigneur of the KNWU had then already an suitcase full of syringes, ampoules and pills taken along. After I became champion of the province Utrecht (central part of the Netherlands) the consul at that time, a well known reporter came and offered me “medical help”. There was freely taken pills and injections and natural riders like me were the ones to fall out.
It has to stop.
The guy is easily traceble because a person with that name is a fysiotherapist.
And the championship he refers to is also to be found on the net.
When he is who he says he is AND of course the story is true it is a disturbing one.
Larry,
At this point we cannot assume that Columbia, Garmin, CSC et al. are clean. All we know is there is a testing programme…not that they are any cleaner than the competition. There is no basis to conclude that their success indicates doping isn’t effective. Indeed the success of the riders who have been caught doping attests to doping’s effectiveness.
The Tour and the AFLD should be applauded for having the courage to announce the positives and shame the dopers. But there’s certainly a long way to go.
Ludwig, I was very careful to say that we don’t know if the “clean” teams are really clean, or for that matter if there’s any doping going on in any of the other teams. This is nothing like a double-blind study! So I agree with you, we can’t reach scientific conclusions based on the performance of the “clean” teams. What I’ve written is strictly anecdotal stuff. If you see no significance in the success of these three teams, then I won’t be able to convince you otherwise and I will certainly respect your opinion.
Of course, we don’t have ANY iron-clad scientific proof one way or the other on whether clean cyclists can compete with dopers in real-life situations. We only have the controlled experiments, which are inconclusive about any PED other than EPO (and perhaps blood doping; I don’t recall seeing a scientific study on blood doping). We know that if we control everything other than EPO, then we’re going to see significant, scientifically measurable improvements in an athlete’s performance when the athlete takes EPO. I resisted coming to this conclusion, but it’s unavoidable from the science stuff I’ve read. I will freely admit that this is the only hard scientific data we have on this subject, and it favors your argument that doping is effective.
What we cannot tell for certain is whether these performance improvements translate into success on the road in real-world conditions, when all of the factors that go into successful team cycling come into play, and when a clean rider takes advantage of all of the legal means available to keep up with the dopers. You simply cannot conclude that, just because you’ve isolated one factor that translates into performance advantages, that this is the only factor that matters. The strongest boxer will not win every boxing match, the guy with the highest vertical leap won’t necessarily dominate the basketball game, and the smartest guy won’t win every chess match.
Again, I’ll grant that you have the advantage when it comes to anecdotal evidence. You have the reports from the experts about whose cycling performances cannot be believed (unfortunately, most of these reports are issued after the AAF and not before), or about how this cyclist or that cyclist felt that they were being left in the dust until they started using EPO and were able to keep up with the peloton. I don’t dismiss the importance of this anecdotal evidence, but that’s all it is. Problem is, we’ve had no anecdotal evidence on the other side — if a cyclist claims to have performed successfully without doping, we tend not to believe them. All we believe are AAFs. If all you have are dopers and suspected dopers, then it’s impossible to generate much evidence about the viability of clean cycling.
I fully expected to look at the evidence and come to the conclusion that the “clean” teams were getting their clocks cleaned! Honestly, my greatest hope for Garmin-Chipotle (arguably the “cleanest” of the “clean” teams, since the team was built “Clean” from the ground up) was that they would not embarass themselves. I am pleased to see that they’re doing a lot better than that. My impression is that the ASO is also happy to see this. They seem to be holding up these three teams as examples of how to do cycling right.
I won’t argue that these three teams probably get more credit than they deserve, and that they cannot stand pat if they hope to combat the doping culture and the “omerta” that you write about.
But we MIGHT have a positive development here!
The stuff I’m reading about the new forms of EPO, the ones developed and the ones in development, do NOT give me confidence that the ADAs and the labs will be able to keep up. The only hope that I can see is to instill a new culture in sport, with clean performance at its heart. It’s a long shot, but everything else I see is a “no shot”.
I mean Ludwig, as often as we’ve locked horns in the past, isn’t this an area where we agree?
No doubt that EPO has a positive effect on a cyclist’s performance. How much improvement, and where the athlete starts off from in terms of pre-EPO ability are also factors. If we believe his story, Joe Papp doped to the gills, including EPO, and (and I mean do disrespect to the guy, but I will call a spade a spade), he was never more than a minor-league pro. I don’t think EPO will turn a back of the pack rider into podium material. It might turn top 10 or 20 riders into candidates for yellow, providing others are clean. If EPO makes you x% faster, a rider that was (x 1)% faster than you were clean could still beat you.
Good point Larry about “see, I told you” when a good performance turns out to be doped, but that a good performance absent any evidence of doping is still considered to be doping. It is hard to prove a negative, maybe even impossible. Hell, I couldn’t even prove I rode clean during my illustrious career, when I rose to the lofty ranks of a class C also-run under the old ABL of A. I did ride hung over once.
William, I’m glad you finally ‘fessed up to that hangover business. I bet you feel better now.
There is one truly unbelievable performance in this year’s Tour, and one pretty damn remarkable performance, and I choose to believe them both.
Hi Guys,
I’ve obviously missed a LOT of recent discussion yesterday and today, and I have to admit that I’ve barley skimmed through it, but I wanted to throw out a couple thoughts … forgive me if they’ve already been covered …
Truth is, there are still a lot of things bothering me about what’s going on right now, both with the recent AAFs, and the (self-)destruction of the Pro-Tour, but I haven’t been able to wrap my head around all of it enough yet to articulate what’s really bothering me … but at least a part of it resonates with 2 things touched on by Jean C earlier: the logistics about testing everyone, and “what do you do if half the city is guilty?”
It seems to me that there was a perfect opportunity to hit every single rider with the “new & improved” EPO test, before the race even started … or at least there *would* have been: if I remember correctly, there’s always been a medical exam required of every rider before starting the Tour, but this year (because it seemingly served no real purpose anymore), those exams were done away with … couldn’t/shouldn’t that exam (which, no matter how it was previously organized, would have involved setting aside a certain amount of time with a rider and a medical professional of some kind, who could have handled the sample collection. Instead of taking advantage of that opportunity to test everyone for CERA before anyone even knew CERA could be detected, they cancelled the exams. Seems odd to me — at the very least a HUGE missed opportunity.
As far as what happens when half the city is guilty, well, I guess it depends on what your goal is … and I think that’s why this question bothers me so much … If your goal REALLY is “clean cycling”, then the answer is “If half of ’em are guilty, then half of ’em get sent home. Period.” If your goal, on the other hand is simply to LOOK like you’ve made a mighty effort to clean up cycling, then I suppose the answer would look more like, say, 3 or 4 AAFs (and DQs) over the course of the race, so that it appears that most of the peloton is clean, and you’ve caught the (very few) riders who are still dumb enough to cheat.
Again, I apologize if these ideas have been covered already, or if they’re too random for anyone (but me) to make sense of … Like I said, there’re a lot of these rattling around in my brain, just waiting for me to make them coherent somehow … OK, off to actually READ what you all have been discussing to see how off base I am 😉
RobW
Maybe it’s my bad reading but you seems to say that pre-tour health check has been canceled. Where have you find that information?
About CERA use probably WADA and AFLD have prior TDF an idea about it’s use inside peloton. If you have read the statement made by Gerard Dine (there is a copy in one of my post, around 10 post earlier), you can assume already that many riders are using others EPO similar to DynEPO!
CERA seems 4 years old so probably others companies are producing or testing similar EPO which are too “undetectable” for a while.
A last important point is the schedule, it’s alleged that the CERA test was ready just a few (1-3) days before TDF, difficult to change the schedule.
Difficult job EPO hunter!
Larry
I found the article about the bloodtests I spoke about of Française des Jeux: http://www.sportwereld.nl/wielrennen/2421730/Peloton_woedend_om_bloedcontroles.html
It is published on Saturday the 5th of July.
It says that Marc Madiot of Française des Jeux is furious about the way the drawing of blood was handled by the AFLD.
Hendrik Redant of Silence Lotto agrees with Madiot and says literally; “In some cases the doctor had to try 3 times IN THE ARM before he actually draw blood.
It looks like there were bloodtests taken AND there was the possibility to take enough blood (out of the arm) to do a CERA blood test if that one is available.
I agree with RobW that it would have been a great opportunity.
Jean C,
It took me a while to find it again, but what I was referring to was reported by cyclingnews.com on 16 June: “No more medical visit prior to the Tour de France”
According to the story, the main reason that is was cancelled was because the public (mistakenly) believed that it *was* a pre-race doping check … so instead of actually using it to that end, they decided to get rid of it. The comment is made in the story that canceling the check “will avoid confusion from people thinking they gave the green light to riders proven to be on drugs.” Of course the flip side is that they gave up the chance to give a RED light to “riders proven to be on drugs.”
Maybe I’m WAY to cynical right now, but that sounds to me like the conversation went a something like “Well, people think we’re testing the riders before the race starts, and we *could* do that, but then we’d look like fools if we let them race but they test positive later. We’d be better off just canceling the medical.”
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/jun08/jun16news2a
I wonder, the Tour is in Italy now. Can the AFLD test the riders on CERA now since they are outside France?
Thanks RobW, I had missed that point earlier.
In Italia testing will be done under CONI management but I don’t know what lab they are using.
We keep hearing about the time and logistical constraints involved in testing the entire peloton. Assuming this to be true, it would apply just as much to pre-race testing. This would make any attempt to vet riders as clean very problematic. If you collected samples just a few days prior to the start, testing wouldn’t be completed until after the race had started, and you’d be faced with the possibility of DQing riders for pre-race violations. This happened last year when Sinkowitz was DQed based on results from a test collected prior to the start. If you time collections such that all tests can be completed prior to the start, then riders can simply take PEDs after the pre-Tour collection. So it is highly unlikely there every will be the possibility of effectively vetting riders prior to the start.
William,
Your point about logistics is valid, but I’m not sure about the issue of the timing …
Let me say up front that I’m certainly no expert on doping practices, or the specific drugs used in doping — maybe someone else will add info that make my post here moot — but I do have personal experience with (older generation) EPO, namely ProCrit taken for medical reasons. In my case, I hit a point during chemo where my hemoglobin and red cell counts dropped below a certain threshold, so my Dr. prescribed ProCrit for me, one injection weekly, as needed, until my counts came back up. He told me in advance, and other friends who’d used it too confirmed, that it would take a couple weeks to see an improvement, and that’s exactly what happened. There was no real change in blood values one week after the first injection, so I used a second dose. By the end of the second week (with two doses in me now) my values were back up over the threshold and I was able to stop using the EPO.
Like I said, doping practices are, I’m sure, different than medical usage, probably wildly so, and I’m no expert on exactly what those practices might be … but *if* it still holds true that the benefits of using CERA are felt on a similar “time-delay” from the onset of use, then it seems to me that the only time it makes sense to actually inject any EPO is in the weeks just prior to the race (and maybe into the first week of the race itself) — but using the drug DURING the second and third weeks of the Tour would seem to only kick in after you’d already hit Paris.
As a side note, based on my (admittedly limited) experience, I find it REALLY hard to accept that any team could NOT know if one of their riders was using EPO … for example the procrit has to be kept refrigerated until 1 hour before use, and then allowed to come up to room temp … it was even SHIPPED to me in a cooler so that it wasn’t rendered useless by temps in transit. Then of course there’s the transport & disposal of the vials, syringes and needles require to inject oneself. Lastly, I can’t even begin to imagine the expense of such use, especially in a grey/black market. I paid only a fraction of the cost of the Procrit out of pocket, but the cost to my insurance was, I believe, just over $2000 USD for 4 (legally obtained) doses. If any team REALLY doesn’t know their rider(s) are doing all that, it’s only because they CHOOSE not to know.
Sorry William, I should also have included the thought that since CERA supposedly provides a much longer-lasting effect than earlier EPOs, then it makes even more sense to me to use BEFORE the race (where I’ll only get caught by a random out-of-competition test?), rather than during … the only real question is how long it takes to kick in.
-Rob
Good points, RobW. Of course, use of EPO to boost RBD when it has been lowered by a medical condition or treatment may be different than use of EPO by a healthy person to boost performance. And of course, there are other PEDs. Some, like amphetamines, would probably only be used on a day by day basis, and undoubtedly would not be caught during a pre-race check.
There seem to be differing opinions on the window available for detecting CERA. Some are of the opinion that there is a very short window, and if that is the case, it would be relatively easy to avoid detection in a drug test a few days before the Tour despite using CERA. There is a lot we don’t know about all this.
I am not a doctor but I know this much.
Epo puts your bone marrow to work to make red blood cells.
It takes almost 3 weeks before a red blood cell is completely “˜grown up’ or “˜ready to do its work’, so to speak.
So it is normal that you don’t see a result from the Epo before the third week.
In the case of Epo use when you in fact don’t need it, like cyclist, there is “˜the problem’ that when you want to keep up a Hct level higher than your natural level you will have to keep taking Epo.
The body has for hormones a feedback system. It “knows” when it needs to make Epo and when it can stop making Epo (your level is your natural level).
So when you use synthetic Epo to make your Epo level higher than normal, your body will stop making as much Epo as it would when you were not on the synthetic Epo.
Which means that when you stop taking synthetic Epo your body will wait before making Epo until the level dropped to your natural level.
The effect of synthetic Epo lasts then about two weeks. After that the whole effect of the synthetic Epo is gone. Your Hct level will drop until it is on your natural level.
So the story is that cyclist need to take at least some Epo if they want to uphold the higher Hct level.
Of course, when they use Epo before the Tour, they will enter with a higher Hct level. The level lasts for 2 weeks and goes down to the natural level which is still the level (theoretically) you would have entering the Tour without Epo.
Since it is usual that the Hct levels drop during such a heavy race for 3 weeks, there is an advantage any way.
For CERA it is probably a little different. CERA is supposed to stay longer in the body, it has a bigger molecule.
I suspect that to the Epo molecule is a molecule attached that does not disturb the information the Epo molecule gives to the bone marrow. The bigger molecule either makes that the Epo is not broken down as easily or makes sure the total molecule does not pass the kidneys that easily as a normal Epo molecule does.
So, when the Epo molecule keeps on circulating in the blood stream it probably will give “˜the message to the bone marrow’ , lets say: more often. Sort of recycling, so to speak.
I don’t know, but I assume it is something like that.
Any way, when the CERA stays in the blood longer than the feedback system will not come at work before the TdF has ended also when there is no Epo taken during the Tour.
This is also the reason why I don’t understand that CERA is not tested in the blood. Since it comes in the urine much slower than normal Epo, the concentrations will be much lower.
But in the blood stream it is to be found in it’s original doses.
I hope my explanation makes sense.
I see what you’re saying, Karuna. One speculation I have seen is that cyclists can use EPO during training and under its benefits train much harder and acheive a higher state of fitness than otherwise possible. This then, so the story goes, can carry over even after the EPO is gone from the body. How true this is, I don’t know, but it kind of makes some sense. I also don’t know if either EPO or CERA could be in the body in enough concentration to be of benefit, but not high enough for positive detection.
As to why they are not testing blood for CERA, it very well may be that there is no blood test for this. Remember last year with the flap over shopping Mayo’s B test around until they got the results they wanted? Part of the situation was that LNDD aka AFLD had developed a urine test and they were the only ones who could do the test at that time.
EPO like AMGEN product were used in training period to train harder than everyone or at least more than the idler !
From the studies I read there is a few years, even on short term (1day), effect were efficient 1to 3% of power improvement and increasing of endurance for a single injection! After 2 weeks 5-8%, and to reach the around 10-15% of improvement a long period is needed, 3 or 6 months. With other PED like Testosterone, IGF, HGH,… it’s possible to have 20-25%!
Today stage was a big surprise, the spanish rider Arrieta would have “destroy” the other riders in other circumstances… maybe he was “ill”, he lacked some medicine !
To focus on CERA EPO would be a fault because there is other EPO, blood transfusin and others drugs.
Amphetamine or cocktail like aspirine, ephedrine, are effective for one stage but are extremely damageable for the body, and probably easy to detect. I don’t know if there is good agent to mask its.
Jean C, maybe today’s stage was “clean” racing, with the leaders all appearing to struggle, or maybe what we’re seeing are riders too smart to ride to their best ability, out of fear that they will stand out and be targeted.
As you know, it’s relatively rare for a rider to win a Tour de France without also winning a stage. The last guy to do this (I think) was Greg Lemond in 1990. Part of the lore of the Tour is that the maillor jaune is supposed to win a stage, that the victory is somehow less glorious if the Tour winner is not also a stage winner. To be certain, it doesn’t happen very often (anyone know how often?). But this year, you have the bizarre situation that NONE of the 6 GC contenders has won a stage. None have come even close!
The following are my unofficial statistics, subject to correction of course.
Probably the best GC contender’s performance in a single stage is Frank Schleck’s third place in stage 10, 28 seconds behind wnner Leonardo Piepoli. Piepoli and stage 10 second place finisher Juan Jose Cobo Acebo have both since been pulled from the race along with the Saunier Duval team (though neither has been accused of an AAF, not yet), so if the Saunier Duval team had been forced to leave a little earlier, maybe Schleck would have won on stage 10. Or maybe not, given the apparent unwillingness of the GC contenders to win stages.
Look at the others. Kohl’s best finish was 4th in stage 10, Evans 4th in the time trial, Menchov 6th in the time trial, VandeVelde 8th in the time trial and Sastre 6th in today’s stage 15.
Given the nature of the testing in the Tour, it is possible that of the GC contenders, only the two guys who’ve worn or are wearing the maillot jaune (Evans and Schleck) have been tested at doping control.
This looks REALLY odd. It’s unusual for a Tour to be won by a rider without a stage victory, yet unless the situation changes on Alpe d’Huez or at the last time trial, it’s likely that the top 6 finishers will all be guys without a single stage victory. (At the moment, it’s the top 8 guys without stage victories, but stage 1 winner Alejandro Valverde could easily move up to 7th place). Coincidence?
It is as if none of these guys wants to stand out, the way (say) Ricco stood out. If you stand out, you might be targeted for doping testing.
It’s remarkable. In years past, the French would CELEBRATE the riders who showed some guts, some combativity, some elan. In fact, it used to be the case that you were suspected of riding doped if you raced TOO consistently. The thinking was that a clean rider would have good days and bad days. Under the old assumptions, the top 6 guys this year would all be under suspicion, as none of them have had a bad day. (Well, today was not a great day for Evans, but it wasn’t THAT bad a day — given his time trialing ability, he’s still a solid favorite to win.)
The good day/bad day theory seemed to lose its popularity with the AAFs for Landis and especially Vinokourov, who raced with entertaining inconsistency. Now racing consistently is OK, it’s racing “unbelievably” that’s suspicious. So for this reason, we should not be surprised that we’re having such a “believable” race. So believable, in fact, that it’s kind of unbelievable.
Tonight on one of the network evening news (I am not sure which network – I wasn’t paying attention when my wife switched over) they had a piece on EOP use as a PED. While geared to the Olympics, there was of course much about the events in the TdF this year. Don Caitlin was on and some banned US pro named Bergman. It was specifically mentioned that the effects of EPO could last for some time, much longer than the window for detection, so that it would be possible for an athlete to time use so as to avoid detection while still getting benefit, it was claimed. I forget if it was Caitlin, Bergman, or the reporter who mentioned that idea. (We were in the process of fixing dinnner.)
William,
Interesting point. I didn’t see that story, but what that story suggests is more true for the urine EPO blood test. The blood-based testing developed in Australia, which is the granddaddy of the current biological passport concept, is said to be able to detect the changes brought on by blood doping or EPO use for some time afterwards. In the case of the so-called OFF-Model, I believe that it can detect those changes for several weeks or a month after EPO has been administered. Now, given that blood cells typical live for about 120 days, at some point it’s not possible to detect its use. But for a doping athlete to escape the window, he or she would have to quit using at least three weeks or a month before competition — and possible somewhat longer.
Jean,
You said in a previous post:
Could you point me to where you saw that? I’ve been so swamped the last couple of days that I missed that bit of information.
Shameless plug:
For anyone who’s interested in how the WADA rules address doping testing with new and unaccredited tests (such as the one being used by AFLD to detect CERA), I’ve published at TBV an analysis of this issue, focusing on the case against Tyler Hamilton. You can read the analysis at http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2008/07/larry-news-cera-test-looking-at.html.
Rant,
I will try to find that information about the validation of CERA test. The 1-3 days period is just an extrapoliation of me because I recall to have read something like just before TDF or few days … and coherent with the fact taht testing are alleged done in 3labs (Lausanne, Barcelona and LNDD).
About the validation, is it a WADA validation, or just a scientist validation? There is still a lot of questions.
A very good report about EPO:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7516484.stm
Great work Larry!
As you know, it’s relatively rare for a rider to win a Tour de France without also winning a stage. The last guy to do this (I think) was Greg Lemond in 1990. Part of the lore of the Tour is that the maillor jaune is supposed to win a stage, that the victory is somehow less glorious if the Tour winner is not also a stage winner. To be certain, it doesn’t happen very often (anyone know how often?).
Hmmm. I don’t know how many times it’s happened. Lance almost did it one year, finally winning the next-to-last-day time trial.
In the local race where I live, the Tour de Toona, the women’s stage race has twice been won without a stage win – Dede Demet in 1997 and Genevieve Jeanson in 2005. Interestingly Jeanson was stripped of the 2005 win for a doping violation.
MMan, I remember that Lance almost repeated Lemond’s feat. I remember the commentators all discussing that Armstrong hadn’t yet won a stage and asking if his Tour victory would really be complete without a stage victory. And I remember Armstrong himself busting his butt to win that stage and then expressing relief that he’d done so.
In contrast, do you see any of the GC contenders this year acting concerned that they might not win a stage? It is as if they don’t WANT to win a stage. And while I haven’t listened to every minute of Versus, do you hear any discussion of this question this year, the way we did when Lance almost failed to win a stage, and when Lemond actually did fail to win a stage?
Of course, I’m not a mind reader, I don’t know what someone else thinks. But this is strange, that’s all.
Roger Walkowiak did it in 1956, and at the time it was felt he just lucked into it. I thought Henri Cornet might have done it in 1904, when the top riders were eventually DQed, but he did win one stage. However, I don’t know if he won “on the road” or if the original stage winner was originally DQed.
This is not an exhaustive search, so there may have been others. I don’t think it has happened very often, in part because such a win is in fact held to be less worthy. Look at the scorn heeped on Contador after this year’s Giro win.
In contrast, do you see any of the GC contenders this year acting concerned that they might not win a stage?
Why should they? To win is to labelled a cheater now. It’s almost that straightforward.
William, thanks for the research.
Just to be clear, I’m not heaping scorn on anyone. Winning is winning.
I’m just pointing out that it’s unusual to win this way. Meaning that it must be highly unusual to have no stage wins among the top 6 guys in the race.
Couple this unusual circumstance with the mantra that we want ‘believable” races, and I think we’re dealing with something more than just a coincidence. Is it that the GC riders are actually reluctant to win stages? Or that the GC riders who might be capable of winning stages have all been AAF’d or otherwise excluded from the race? In fairness, the guys competing for the GC have been cautious riders throughout their careers — you just haven’t seen Evans or Menchov contestng stages — but it can’t be a coincidence that everyone rides this way nowadays.
Personally, I’d give the maillot jaune to Cavendish, who raced clean, believably, with elan and won stages … but I can see a number of practical problems in doing so, most notably that he’s dropped out of the race.
MMan, I agree with you, except that by this time next week some poor bastard will have won the GC, and the speculation on whether the poor bastard rode clean will be well under way.
All this being said … I love this damn race. I really do. No kidding, no tongue in cheek, no winking emoticon. Vive le Tour!
About winning, we must not forget that 3 victories were stolen by Ricco and Piepoli.
Valverde could have been not dropped without the 2 guys and could have been in a better position to win GC.
With less PED riders are more cautious with their efforts, few of them would try to refuell thier bodies on french soils, maybe they will try in Italy…
Even in breakaway there is less different teams than in the past.
New conditions requiert for many to learn.
Or simply a tactical decision. No defending champion or big pre-race favorite, so hard to tell who to attack and who to ignore. The top 7 are all within one minute, anyone could take over the lead if those ahead falter a bit, even without attacking. Two more big mountain stages, so why not bid your time and then, if necessary, attack on Wednesday (assuming you still got what it takes)? Then there is the final TT on Saturday, if you fancy yourself there.
It seems no matter what a rider does or does not do, there will be those how impute nefarious reasons for it.
Opps, meant to say “those who” not “those how”.
Rant, you may in particular be interested in this:
Tonight in the sports section of the Columbia Tribune is a short column by the sports editor. The gist is that cycling is probably no dirty than the NFL, NBA, etc., but since it is taking public steps to clean up, is taking the hit in PR.
Here’s the link:
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2008/Jul/20080721Spor006.asp
William,
Thanks for the link. Cycling is certainly in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. No matter what the sport does, it’ll get lambasted for doping — even when cycling is arguably doing much more to get rid of doping in its ranks than certain major sports I could name.
LeMonde newspaper is reporting that Ricco had tried to escape the antidoping test of Cholet ITT. His act has been written in the AFLD report.