What an interesting few days it’s been. Riccardo Riccò became the latest casualty of the anti-doping wars. And, we find out that he and the other doping positives at this year’s Tour de France may be due to the use of continuous erythropoietin receptor activator or CERA, for short. Riccò has denied using the drug, but he was fired by his team anyway. In days gone by, this might not have happened until after the B sample came back confirming the A result. But with the ProTour — and presumably the ProTour’s code of ethics, too — gone the way of the dinosaurs, Saunier Duval team manager Mauro Gianetti is probably not bound by those rules anymore. (As a refresher, under the ProTour’s code of ethics, the A sample result should have triggered a suspension. The B sample confirming that result would then require termination of employment.)
More bad news on the SD front: Leonardo Piepoli, Riccò’s roommate at this year’s tour, was fired last week for violations of the team’s ethics policy. Somehow, it’s connected to the Riccò situation. But the latest version of events from the team director, Fernando Matxin, is that the Italian rider was let go because he couldn’t give “convincing answers” to questions management had. Whatever that means.
Saunier Duval are in trouble, though, as their title sponsor is threatening to pull the financial rug out from under them. So they’ve gone into a defensive PR posture. Firing Piepoli, who’s also been the target of rumors, appears to be either: a) housecleaning, or b) setting up a fall guy in case the Riccò’s B sample counteranalysis confirms the original finding. I can see the story now: “That nefarious Piepoli conned the poor, naïve waif Riccò into using the bug juice. It’s all his fault our golden child fell from grace.”
In today’s CyclingNews, there’s a story about a number of Saunier Duval’s riders issuing a statement in which they stand behind their directeur sportif.
“We do not accept, and we strongly condemn, the choice made by riders seeking victory through deception.” the statement continued. “Therefore, we would not like this incident to stain the team’s impeccable reputation, or ours, or the management’s.
“We are not ready to pay the price for the mistakes made by others, so he hope we can still rely on the trust society has always had in us, stemming from our serious, honest image.”
“We cannot and do not want to ignore the facts: cheaters need to be punished. But we also believe that those who have always fought honestly to defend the honour of the team should be protected.”
Whatever’s going on at Saunier Duval, team management seem to be scrambling to hold onto their main sponsor. Can’t say that I blame them, especially after what’s happened to Barloworld. Just a couple of days ago, word came that the title sponsor is calling it quits after the Tour. For Robbie Hunter and his mates, that’s got to sting. I’d imagine that Moisès Dueñas Nevado would not be safe if he suddenly found himself in a dark alley with his former compatriots. Word has it that Dueñas has admitted to using EPO. If true, he’d really not be safe around the soon-to-be-former Barloworld team.
Not much word about Manuel Beltrán in the last few days. Interesting to note that no B sample test results have been announced in any of these cases. Seems like we should have at least heard about Beltán’s counteranalysis results by now. And it’s been only too quiet since the Riccò revelations burst forth, as far as new doping scandals goes. If it’s true that CERA is being widely used by those who would cheat, then what are we to conclude from this lack of news? No news, to me, is no news. From my perspective, we can’t read too much into this little tidbit.
It’s been said that about 60 riders have been actively targeted for testing during the Tour. If all three of these results came from that group, then we could say that so far, only about 5 percent have been caught cheating — that is, if the B samples agree with the As. Are the other 95 percent smarter than these three? Or are the others who are doping within that 95 percent just much smarter about their “technique”?
One question that’s come up about all of these tests (first postulated by William in a comment on Trust But Verify, I think): If the AFLD (France’s anti-doping agency) prosecutes these cases, would any sanctions handed down be enforceable outside of France? If the Landis case were any guide (and it may not be), the answer would be “no.” When the AFLD ran their case against Landis last autumn, the sanction issued merely barred him from competing in sports (any sports) on French soil. Conveniently, that ban also ends the same day as the AAA/CAS ban. Was it a quirk of France’s previous system, under which Floyd fell, or is this the norm for AFLD cases? (Jean C, answers in his comment, below.)
Meanwhile, Larry posted a very well done piece analyzing the Hamilton case and how it relates to the new CERA test. What’s especially interesting is this: Somewhere I saw it suggested (and dog only knows where at this point) that this new test is merely an adaptation of the previous urine EPO test. The trick is that the bands which supposedly represent CERA show up in a different, but distinguishable pattern than in the original test. That being the case, exactly how much validation does the test have to go through? It’s based on an existing, and presumably validated, test. The panel’s decision, if I’m understanding what Larry says about the Hamilton case, gives the arbitrators pretty broad latitude to accept this test as valid.
But that still leaves open a number of questions that Riccò or one of the others might pursue in attempting to clear his name. One that comes to my mind is whether or not the validation looked for any confounding variables. Rutger Beke turns out to be someone whose urine can test positive for EPO without a drop of the artificial variety entering his system. Is that also possible for this new adaptation?
How, exactly, should labs proceed to determine whether or not an athlete is a false positive? Before declaring an AAF, wouldn’t it make sense to rule out other possible causes for a given test result? How has this been addressed in the case of the CERA “test”? Has it been addressed?
Meanwhile, Rasmus Damsgaard is speaking out about the EPO tests, and is not too convinced of the rightness of WADA’s approach. He suggests that a lot of athletes have gotten a free pass when they should have been prosecuted for doping violations. Give the man his due, however. At least he’s offering some suggestions for improvement along with his criticisms.
A number of riders on Team CSC found themselves on CONI’s (the Italian Olympic Committee’s) dance card once yesterday’s stage to Prato Nevoso yesterday. Seems that AFLD had arranged with CONI to do a little bit of surprise testing at the end of stage 15. This morning, CONI was at it again, testing 15 riders. They are supposedly processing the samples at the anti-doping lab in Rome. Which raises the question, if anyone tests positive who gets to prosecute the poor, hapless bastard(s) — AFLD or CONI? And, where would the rider be sanctioned? France? Italy? Everywhere?
One thing about this brave new world of the Tour de France. Even if it’s not meant to be the beginning of a whole new governing structure for cycling, the ASO (with a little help from the FFC and the AFLD) is certainly finding ways to piece together a working (after a fashion) system. This could be a real threat to the long-term viability of the UCI. Unless the soon-to-be-former ProTour teams are serious about wanting the UCI involved in whatever new structure emerges.
And, amidst all the racing action on Stage 15, one rider ran into a bit of incredibly bad luck. Oscar Pereiro crashed out during the descent of the Col d’Agnel, reportedly running into Robbie Hunter, who’d already hit the pavement. Pereiro then went airborne over an embankment and wound up (according to the latest reports) breaking an arm and perhaps a leg. Unfortunately for Oscar, he’s going to be off the bike for two months or so. Which means that he won’t be representing Spain at the Beijing Olympics. I may not be the most fond of Pereiro, but that’s a tough break (so to speak).
The stage into Prato Nevoso was quite exciting, especially as Frank Schleck managed to grab the yellow jersey at the end of a hard day of racing. The top six riders are all within one minute of each other, however. Depending on how things play out, any one of those six riders could wind up on the top step of the podium in Paris next Sunday. The next two stages will really work the peloton over, I expect. Especially Wednesday’s stage that finishes at the top of L’Alpe d’Huez.
One thing is certain about this year’s tour: Between the doping scandals and the racing on the roads, there’s no shortage of drama. And there’s still six stages to go.
About the worldwide validity of the future sanction.
Landis’case was different because it’s occured in a time window were USADA was under the new WADA rules, and France was still under the old WADA rules, delay caused by the french parlement.
The current case is completely different. For me TDF is under WADA agreement, so probably any sanction would be accepted by all federations linked to WADA.
Jean,
Thanks. I figured you’d know the answer about the AFLD’s case vs. Landis. Most appreciated.
Re the 95%: another possibility is that what Damsgaard and others are saying, that many test show indications of doping (at least that they can see) but those pesky WADA rules won’t allow declaring an AAF.
One question: are there races that a pro cyclist can enter as a privateer, not on any team? In other words, is a fired who has been let go by his team but not banned, or a rider whose team folds, totally out of luck or are there some races he would be able to enter?
William,
I seem to recall that Michael Rasmussen participated in one or more races last year in Denmark, after he got the boot from Rabobank. So I think that the answer to your question is that as long as a rider holds a valid license, and that rider isn’t under any bans, he or she could enter a pro race as a private individual in the situations you mention. Of course, in doing so, any expenses incurred getting to the race, etc. would be the rider’s responsibility.
Thanks for that info, Rant. I think we could see, especially with the team testing programs, riders being fired without being formally banned.
As an interesting aside, go to the Velonews homepage, scroll down a bit to where it says “Bike Tech”. Third item over is captioned “Saunier’s Secret”. Follow the link and it’s actually about the wheels they used, but considering recent events, the caption could take on other meanings, if you’re so inclined.
Rant, the “afterwards” of your book is on pace to be longer that the original “volume 1.” 🙂
Your comment about “meeting up in a dark alley” isn’t too far off the mark. If you’re Robbie Hunter, and you wind up in the unemployment line because a “teammate” doped and the title sponsor dropped you like third period French (!), you might want to review the viability of a claim in US Court (jurisdictional issues aside for a moment) for tortious interference with contract. Recall this tort at one time resulted in the (then) world’s largest tort award of $10B.
OK, so maybe Robbie wins an award from Duenas; BFD you might say. But think about other people that might be condiered codefendants. The doping doctors (all doctors are rich, right?) And try this one for some crafty lawyering – the drug manufacturers themselves. After all, they made the bug juice, maybe didn’t disclose how to test for it or put warning labels on it (a 402A action anyone?). I really, really, can’t wait to hear the reaction of the Livestrong Foundation when they hear a drug manufacturer that makes drugs for the treatment of cancer is being sued by a cycist for damages. Yikes!
Work this one backwards as well: suppose a “B” samples *don’t* confirm the “A”s reported by L’Equipe. Has the disclosure of false information defamed the rider (a tort) and interefered with his team’s contract? Shove that complaint in L’Equipe/ASO face. I’m not sure what first amendment privileges are enjoyed by French newspapers, but this might rise to “NY Times v. Sullivan malice” in the US. The jurisdictional issues are significant, of course.
I wonder if any ex-Phonak riders cosidered claims against L’Equipe or USADA? Yes, truth is a perfect defense against defamation, but in the case of Landis, would an arbitration award (either the AAA or CAS one) hold up to real scrutiny in a US court? And now of course, there is a statute of limitations clock running out.
eightzero,
Actually, the Afterword is weighing in at just under one-quarter the word count of the finished book. But at the rate these Tour scandals have been going, and with possible stories from the Olympics coming up, the Afterword could well turn into Dope: The Sequel, or Son of Dope or Dope: Bigger, Badder and Better than Ever. Got to get to work on the TdF update to the Afterword, though it’s tempting to wait until the Tour is well and truly over to make sure that any upcoming revelations get covered, too. 🙂
Those are a bunch of interesting scenarios you paint. Very interesting. As far as what “first amendment protections” French newspapers enjoy, my understanding from a close friend who is a French photojournalist (and who was a classmate of mine at Mizzou’s J-School eons ago) is that their papers enjoy a similar level of protection as ours do. Jean C might be able to enlighten us further on that question, too.
COLLATERAL DAMAGE
Perhaps it is that I am myopic in my vision of the world of pro cycling — not that it is any less fascinating” to watch the “melodramas” unfolding in this years TdeF.
Watching an entire sport being turned into a “popularist witchhunt” with na’ery a voice raised to point out that apparently the actual issue is that WADA — ASO – AFLD — USADA — UCI — IOC have managed to turn a “politics” driven issue into the latest in “tres-chic crusade” to “save all those damned infidel dopers!”
That the entire set of “governing rules” has been turned into a “travesty against justice” and is being completely swept under the proverbial rug! Under the justification that we may ignore “fairness” in the fight for “fairness!”
Well — it is understandable — after all — it’s not like PART OF THE PROBLEM we all are facing is that there appears “no way” for FAIRNESS to be had in the world of cycling. It is much easier to forget about this — it is easier to forget that Floyd Landis allowed us all to have a “peek inside” how the governing bodies “govern.” It is much more interesting to “guess” who will be “outed next!”
Yep — maybe Jean C had it right all along — “they all dope!” Along with his apparent willingness to “sacrifice” JUSTICE and FAIRNESS in the battle against the cheaters! Hey Jean — if “everybody in pro sports” is doping — then where exactly has there been an “unfair advantage” for the dopers?
So we should conveniently forget — that the ruling bodies have a “stacked deck” to play “pin-point poker” or “we don’t have conflict of interest gin rummy” after all — we are all on the same page of the WADA RULE BOOK — and we KNOW that this set of rules is completely FAIR!
Okay — the WADA RULES are not “exactly fair” — they – JUST ARE – and we “have to live by it!” Yeah, right. I get it.
And as Jean C shows us — it is a “justified” because — the dopers are ruling the world — and we have to stop them! WHATEVER THE COST!
Right”¦doping has always been an “individual” problem in the Tour de France”¦.yeah”¦.right”¦there are no Teams who are crooked – there are no indications that there has ALWAYS been groups who have “controlled” the outcome of pro racing”¦.and oh yeah — how can anyone even think that the “publicity hungry” Sponsors would ever been involved?
Yep — those damned doping fiends — the pro racers — “Who’s got that rope people? Let’s just hang a couple of them — that’ll learn the bastids!”
Meanwhile — lets get into “forgetting mode” — the lynching that Floyd Landis got is probably no more then part of the “collateral statistics” — it is justified — we are “nailing the bastids!
Morgan,
You know, Versus’ “Take Back The Tour” adverts (you’re lucky not to be seeing them, actually) ought to be turned on their collective ears. I’d like to take back the Tour from all those who — through their myopic management of their respective agencies — have “helped” to throw one of the most spectacular events and one of the truly toughest sports to excel in into disrepute. Even if all the cyclists are doping, some of these other dopes haven’t done our sport a lick of good. That includes various team officials, federation officials, promoters, doctors, and the list can go on and on and on and on. But that’s a whole other Rant™
As for forgetting, not me. Not by a long shot.
The other day Ludwig said: “At this point we cannot assume that Columbia, Garmin, CSC et al. are clean.” If we cannot assume it now, given the level of oversight that these teams perform, and their stated goal – a mandate even – when will ever be able to assume it?
I am not disagreeing with Ludwig. In fact, I totally agree with his statement. But I question its importance. When will we ever be able to assume riders are clean, if we can’t with these three teams?
It seems reasonable to believe that we will never be able to assume that anyone is clean. If an anti-doping program as rigorous as theirs is not enough to raise our trust to an assumption of innocence, then what do we expect of future programs? I am left wondering what should be the goal of an anti-doping program? What should be our expectations? I know the talking points: fair play, level playing field, and etc. But I do not see how these goals can be achieved utilizing any of the contrivances developed by the ADAs.
Cycling tests it’s riders before, during, and after events, at funerals, vacations, weddings, and at a child’s birth. Cycling relishes the fact that the police raid it’s teams. Cycling finds pride in the fact that it can spring unannounced, un-validated, tests; then cycling crows to the press that they have caught another rider who will be banned for years to come — or better yet, for life. Then cycling insiders tell us that most riders are doping and getting away with it. Am I the only one who finds this to be a crazy business model?
What other sports have a rule that if broken exempts an athlete from ever competing again? I know baseball has the gambling rule (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1512122), but I can’t think of any other. Baseball felt it could not sell its product with the hint of players throwing games — this seems reasonable (oddly, cyclists buy and sell victories all the time). What is it about doping in cycling that is suddenly so heinous? Especially after being largely neutral on the subject for most of the last 100-years.
I’m not exactly sure what my point is. I just can’t get beyond that cycling has crossed from rigorously testing riders into madness. The race is less news worth than the doping controls. Larger than life personalities come under scrutiny because of their greatness. Epic used to be a word used to describe a great race. Now it is a reason to believe that a rider is juiced. Today Mr. Merckx would be treated with the same disdain as Mr. Armstrong — I find that depressing.
The wheels have come off the bus.
Michael, great post! But in fairness to Ludwig, his comment was made in response to one of my comments, where I tried to use the performance this year of Columbia, CSC and Garmin-Chipotle to argue that clean riders CAN compete in the peloton. Ludwig pointed out, correctly so, that it’s hard to say anything conclusive about clean cycling versus dirty cycling by comparing ACE and Damsgaard monitored teams to other teams.
Where the pro tour teams are heading, IMHO, is to a system where ALL teams are monitored using an ACE – Damsgaard type program. In the long run, it makes sense for all teams to have strong programs in place, because all teams suffer when any team has a doping problem. Of course, I’m sure if a team like Garmin-Chipotle wants to have a stronger program than required, then they’ll be allowed to do so. Certain teams may need unusually strong programs in order to attract sponsors.
We can be cautiously optimistic about these programs. From what I know about both Damsgaard and ACE (and you have to figure that one or both will have a lot to do with the anti-doping system adopted by the Pro Tour teams), they’re less concerned about punishing riders with long sanctions, and more concerned with keeping riders with suspicious values out of races. This is something that TBV and others have been arguing for — to deal with the uncertainties around drug testing, lessen the penalties.
The BBC articles about Damsgaard cited at TBV a couple of days ago make very good reading.
The biological passport, at least as run by UCI, is probably dead. And that may be a good thing. UCI and WADA seemed to be trying to fit the biological passport into the existing testing framework, where bad passport values would result in 2-4 year bans. THAT was a big problem, because there’s no scientific study (at least, none that I am aware of) to indicate when a change in a person’s blood or urine profile is proof of doping.
My understanding is that blood and urine markers can only be used to show that an athlete’s current readings are anomalous — both in reference to the population at large and with respect to the athlete’s previous readings. So, you can’t use this system to replace, say, the T/E and CIR tests used to determine the presence of exogenous testosterone. But you can use these markers to say that a rider’s measurements are out of whack, and that the rider needs to stay out of competition until the rider’s readings return to normal. You can also use the readings to (fairly, I think) put the rider on a watch list.
Yes, agreed, drug testing at this year’s Tour does not inspire confidence. But don’t give up yet. My guess is that AFLD planned this year’s drug testing around a model where they would do focused target testing based on results from the UCI biological passport, and when these results weren’t made available by UCI, AFLD had to scramble to put together a proper target list. The result is what we’ve seen so far, where there doesn’t appear to be any real rhyme or reason to the target testing. Also, without the biological passport data, AFLD had no ability to give “Do Not Starts” to anyone with strange biodata. And to be honest, even if the UCI data had been made available, it’s probably not good enough yet to accomplish its purpose.
Things COULD get better. Guys like Stapleton from Columbia and Vaughters from Garmin-Chipotle COULD lead cycling into a new era, where drug testing would not be a distracting side issue.
Michael,
Nice post. As it is said—“You can’t make a silk purse out of a sows ears!”
One cannot expect “a trust in the sport” when the governing bodies cannot be trusted. You cannot expect any form of “fair play” or a “level playing field” when the governing bodies are creating “unfair” practices! And apparently getting away with it!
Larry,
If you think that my post was based in a grey despair – think again! I’ve never been so pissed off in my life! I am glad that the smart teams who wanted to “prove their innocence” started their own anti-doping programs – about time!
Does this practice make me “believe” these teams are now “clean” – sadly no – nor should anybody.
Cheating is not only in pro cycling it is a “bad” that exists in almost all human endeavor.
So if we are to have a “trusted” – “cheating-catcher system” – then that system better be transparent, fair, bulletproof as humanly possible! Otherwise – what’s the point. Time to actually get a movement to get rid of the “entrenched!”
And Larry – you really can’t make a silk purse from a sows ears – I know – I’ve tried, it don’t work!
Before you can run a successful system, you need to define a definite achievable goal. If the goal of an anti-doping program is to prove that cycling in general, or a particular race, or a particular team, or even an individual rider is clean, you are fighting a losing battle from the start. If your goal is to catch a rider here or there, hammer them with a sever penalty, and thereby hope that other riders will be deterred; well the first part is well in place, but the deterrent is seemingly lacking. But if you are running a team anti-doping program, maybe your goal is to sort out riders whose values seem to be out of whack and keep them out of competition until either the values return to normal and/or until a satisfactory explanation for the anomaly is reached, then you have a chance of achieving that goal. And, if in addition, you have to goal of lowering the chances that someone on your team gets an AAF, you have a chance of that too.
Another benefit of a team program, for the team at least, would be if, in spite of the program, a rider was AAFed. There are suggestions that team be sanctioned when their riders are caught. A team testing program would provide some evidence that the team exercised some degree of due diligence to determine if their riders were doping. May help avoid or reduce any sanction.
Michael, Larry, Morgan, William,
Great discussion you have going there. Keep it up. I have an interview to transcribe…
Larry,
You are correct, and I agree with your post. I was aware of the context of Ludwig’s comment (and aware that I took it from its proper context). I was merely thinking of the broader meaning of the question.
I totally agree about your thought regarding the passport. And the team managed system. I wonder though, if cycling continues down this self destructive path, will it be enough to pacify the crusaders? It should be enough, but I doubt that it will, because there will always be people more concerned if a rider is clean, than if he rode with class and heart.
Re Piepoli and Saunier…
According to Cyclingnews (who use El Pais as a source), Piepoli confessed to EPO use.
For me, the Saunier Duval story is actually suggestive of how there is NOT a witch-hunt mentality in cycling. For years, Saunier Duval has displayed all the characteristics of a team where doping exists–and they’ve garnered acclamation and respect through dramatic and frequently amazing performances. Piepoli, in particular, has been the team’s star and performed extremely well—perhaps most notably in the 2006 Giro, where he decimated riders later implicated as Fuentes blood doping clients. He came back and did the same thing in 2007 (those were strange years–he was riding for Simoni, yet Simoni himself suggested that Piepoli was stronger). Fortunately for Piepoli, he was apparently able to evade suspension, partially due to residence in Monaco.
I don’t think anybody who knows anything about cycling didn’t suspect something. Here was Piepoli, who at 36 appears to be the best climber in the world, yet who never contests any Grand Tours, but is rather content to take prestigious stages. But there were never any public accusations (beyond various suspicious tests) because…well according to the prevailing mentality that would be unfair. In the end it’s quite conceivable that if Piepoli had skipped this Tour he might have retired without a doping suspension of any kind. And out of politeness, no one in cycling would have voiced any suspicion.
I think the case indicates that the fight against doping in cycling is as far from a witch-hunt as you can get. On the contrary, it indicates the continued popularity of omerta—-if Piepoli was cheating his colleagues, then everyone being cheated sure kept a tight lid on their resentment.
If there was a genuinely clean culture in cycling, then it doesn’t seem likely that clean riders would sit back and watch the dopers stomp on them in respectful silence. Indeed such a culture is far away if the testing can’t catch guys like Piepoli–in that case, any clean rider who opens his mouth can be accused of resentment and shamed by their colleagues.
Maybe this is already old news to you.
I heard on Dutch television that Roche (CERA) added a certain molecule to CERA.
THAT molucule is easy to detect.
That is also the way Ricco etc is caught.
I haven’t read it elsewhere and they didn’t tell where they got that news from.
But when it is true we will hear from it from several sides.
From my training as a law enforcement officer, I remember there were situations where an officer was entitled to stop a suspicious person for questioning, and even conduct a brief “pat down” to search for weapons, all without warrant. In order to do so, the person’s behavior had to not only be consistent with guilty behavior, but also inconsistent with innocent behavior.
Recent discussions about riders’ behavior in this year’s Tour have focused, IMO, on the first: behavior that is consistent with guilty behavior but which is not necessarily inconsistent with innocent behavior. Larry speculates that riders near the top of the GC table may be dogging it so as to not attract undue attention to themselves, and I am sure that some will believe this is because the riders in question which to avoid the doping controls which would come if they won a stage or took over the Yellow Jersey, hence they must be doping. This could be true, but it is also certainly possible that these riders have simply made a tactical decision to not attack at this time, or perhaps it is the case that they are performing to their full ability. This seems to have been perhaps the case for Vande Velde, based on his time lose yesterday.
Ludwig seems to make a similar argument about Piepoli: he was content to merely contest “prestigious stages”. The history of stage racing in full of riders who, for one reason or another, were content to merely contest for stage wins, and many of these rode before there were any doping controls to worry about.
On the other hand, if a rider makes a big attack, or otherwise rides strongly, he will be suspected of doping.
A pro cyclist’s job is to train hard, be in the best shape possible so that he can perform up to his full potential in support of both his individual as well as team goals. Those goals may be to win the GC (or at least do well), win one of the other jersey competitions, simply win stages, etc. Or those goals may be to ride in support of other teammates. There is a wide variety of strategies and tactics which can be enployed in reach of these goals. Therefore, it is almost impossible to decide who is or isn’t doping based on performance and tactics/strategy. Sure, it is easy to construct a case post facto to “show” that a rider who has been caught should have been suspected long ago. And there is no crime for Ludwig, Larry, or anyone else here to speculate in this manner. But such logic could be applied to an cyclist who ever rode a bike, in formal competition, informal competition, or otherwise. Who hasn’t know a rider in your local club that seems to ride above or below he or her potential? Who themselves has not had to occasional ride where you seem to be hitting on all cylinders and perform apparently well above your usual level? Evidence of doping, evidence that WADA, USADA, or the local authorities should be summoned to investigate? I think not.
Spoiler alert: this post discusses today’s stage of the Tour de France.
William, you’re right to be critical of the implications behind my speculations. I’ve received some non-internet criticism for my speculations as well. One friend pointed out to me that, with the elimination of time bonuses for stage winners, the need to compete for stage victories is a lot less than it used to be. The loss of a small time bonus could have a great effect on a rider’s strategic thinking: do I risk not have the “legs” to compete in tomorrow’s stage, just for the glory of winning today’s stage?
In any event, the current wearer of the maillot jaune is also a stage victor. And no coincidence there!
But with all I’ve learned since I ended my boycott, it’s clear that the lack of any stage wins among the GC contenders was ALSO no coincidence. It is clearly the strategy of the GC contenders who are strong time trialists (Evans, Menchov, VandeVelde) to try and keep up with each other, letting the race be decided in Saturday’s time trial. It’s a very cautious kind of race strategy. I understand why VandeVelde would be this cautious — his presence near the top of the GC is a new thing for him, and he’s probably unsure of what he can do. There’s no similar excuse for guys like Menchov and Evans not being more aggressive.
In prior races, there were strong climbers not too far off the GC lead who were willing to attack and shake things up. This year, that role is being played to an extent by Valverde, who seems to me to be the most aggressive of the top riders. He has slowly regained some ground in the GC classification by riding the way he’s riding. But for the most part, this strikes me as a Tour being dominated by cautious riders.
Until today, the GC contenders who aren’t strong time trialists appeared not to be strong enough in the mountains to shake off the time trialists. And again, I can learn things by watching the race. Watching Team CSC control the maillot jaune group up yesterday’s climb was marvelous! It reminded me of the Postal “Big Blue Train” from years gone by: Lance Armstrong would put his assembled team of climbers at the front of the leaders group and have them set the fastest possible pace, to tire the rest of the group and drop a few stragglers off the back. When each of these riders was spent and Lance had done the maximum possible damage to his competitors, then (with exquisite timing) Lance himself would attack, to see who could follow.
The difference yesterday was that Schleck and Sastre never attacked. What was up with that?
I haven’t seen today’s stage on TV, but it sounds like Sastre just said, “what the hell”, and attacked the last climb on his own from the beginning. If he had team help for what he did, I haven’t heard about it yet. So, we’ll probably hear speculation about a rift in Team CSC (Schlecks versus Sastre?). We might even hear about Sastre’s ride being “unbelievable” — who ever heard of a lone breakaway succeeding from the foot of Alpe D’Huez? Let’s hope that Satre’s ride can be believed. I wouldn’t mind believing in the unbelievable, once again.
Larry:
Speculation, or playing “what if’s” here is one thing. I think that your thoughts on the GC leaders lack of aggression was more just examining possibly scenarios rather than any attempt to label them as dopers.
When I started following the Tour in the early 60s, the time bonus for a full stage was a full minute, and appropriately, for a half stage, 30 seconds. For those of you not familiar, in those days, the ITT were conducted as a half stage, usually in the afternoon, with the other half stage being a short (100 k or so, as I recall) road race in the morning. So even someone like Anquetil (my original hero), who was well known for his ability to calculate just what he needed to do to win, and then doing exactly that, no more no less, went for stage wins at times. Imagine being able to go on a break with your closest rival in the mountains, nip him at the line and pick up a whole minute on him! So I think your idea that the lack of time bonuses has a lot to do with it. Not strategic value in a stage win, unless you also have dropped rivals by a goodly amount. If this is the case, will bonuses come back in next year in order to stimulate more aggressive riding?
Lack of time bonuses hurt the Tour this year. Time bonuses makes the fight for the yellow jersey more dynamic in the first week, and it motivates riders to attack in the final km of mountain stages.
According to Cyclingnews (who use El Pais as a source), Piepoli confessed to EPO use.
Ludwig, cyclingnews is quoting that El Pais stpru that SD-DS Joxean Matxinas said [1] that Ricco confessed to him, which Ricco seems to be denying; and that [2] Piepoli said he did the same as Ricco, which was then withdrawn and been reported as Matxinas not having gotten satisfactory answers from Piepoli.
I think it is exaggerating the known facts to say that Piepoli has confessed to anything at this point.
And we still have no test results back for him, despite the “marker” that WADA has been crowing about.
What we know now is not making for a consistent story.
TBV