Watching the TiVoed version of this year’s Tour de France, Stage 17, was a sight to behold. Nothing better than seeing a cyclist display some real guts and panache, the way Carlos Sastre did as he stomped up L’Alpe d’Huez to win the stage and rip the yellow jersey off the back of — wait — his own teammate? What’s up with that?
Hard to say, exactly, but Team CSC has been relentlessly working over the peloton on the last few stages, and the Schleck brothers seemed to fall right into line as far as disrupting the chase up the 21 fabled switchbacks of L’Alpe d’HueyDeweyAndLouie, as one of my racing buddies from back in the day used to call it.
Sastre damn-near flew up the mountain, or at least it seemed that way whenever the cameras focused on the race leader. Best part of watching the recorded version is skipping the endless cycle of the same five commercials over each break. VCRs and DVRs are a wonderful way to compress time, as it were, and to avoid those annoying commercials for headache medicine, pills of dubious repute, and lame slogans.
With Sastre in yellow and Frank Schleck camped out in second spot, Team CSC is going to have to work hard to control the peloton between now and Sunday. The next two days should be interesting, as the other contenders and their teams are going to have to put some effort in to try and seize control of the race. No more conservative racing if they want to be on the podium in Paris. Sure, Evans can hold out for the time trial and hope for (and quite possibly pull off) a come-from-behind win. But with about 100 seconds standing between him and the maillot jaune, he’s betting that Sastre can’t rise to the occasion and eke out the win.
He and his team may want to consider other tactics between now and then, as their current approach is gambling on whether either Sastre or Schleck can put in a good enough ride to hold on for the win. Letting it go down to the wire, though it might be good theatre, is a risky proposition. All it takes is a mishap or bad day on Saturday to keep Cadel as a bridesmaid and not the bride, so to speak. Same for some of the others. That’s a whole lot of pressure. How things shape up tomorrow and Friday may well have an impact on who stands on the top step on Sunday.
Kudos to Sastre, too, for his humility and his emphasis on the contribution of his team — and especially the Schleck brothers –in his interview with Frankie Andreu after the stage. Frankie’s doing better and better work in his coverage at the Tour this year. He’s sounding more relaxed on camera and as an interviewer, and has vastly improved over the last couple of years as a Tour reporter.
Secret Molecule? What Secret Molecule?
Apparently, no secret marker or molecule is inserted into Micera, the new form of EPO that three riders may have used at this year’s Tour de France. The International Herald Tribune and CyclingNews.com are both reporting that despite a statement by WADA head honcho John Fahey that such a marker existed as was responsible for the ability to catch users of this latest form of doping was merely a misunderstanding. As the IHT reports:
“The information that a special molecule has been added to Mircera is wrong,” [Roche spokeswoman Martina] Rupp said in an e-mail.
WADA issued a statement Wednesday saying that Fahey’s remarks had been misinterpreted. The agency said the drug can be detected because Roche and accredited sport-doping laboratories worked with the agency early.
“WADA received the molecule well in advance and was able to develop ways to detect it, including through the current EPO detection method,” the agency said in the statement.
Over at CyclingNews.com, Laura Weislo reports:
A Roche spokesperson confirmed to Cyclingnews that the WADA president misspoke, and that there was nothing added to the drug to help its detection. However, news of a collaboration between the company and anti-doping authorities are true. “Roche has provided samples of Mircera and assay reagents to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) to help ensure that WADA laboratories will be able to carry out reliable anti-doping testing.”
…
“Mircera can be differentiated in samples from both naturally occurring erythropoeitin and from all other traditional ESA products [Erythropoeisis Stimulating Agents -ed.],” a Roche spokesperson stated. “The molecule is designed to assist in advancing the management of chronic kidney disease, not detection of illegal use.
Roche is to be commended for working with the anti-doping agencies to assist in developing a detection method for the drug. But the new test, or the new variation of an existing test, is the product of good, old-fashioned cooperation and not any fancy molecular footwork. Adding special markers to drugs may be problematic, in that it runs the risk of further unintended consequences. All drugs have side effects. Any drug maker worth their salt would want to minimize the possibilities of those side effects. Adding extra stuff into the drug, merely for the convenience of the anti-doping agencies could, conceivably, expose legitimate users of the medication to extra risks. Not a good business model, especially in our litigious age.
Providing the drug to the anti-doping agencies ahead of time, to help them develop detection techniques, is a much better idea. Fewer risks to the patients, and fewer risks to the drug makers. Especially if someone sues a drug maker because a loved one died as a result of abusing a medication with the intent to improve athletic performance. I’m sure that being able to show, in court, that the drug company was aware of the possible illegal uses and helped to develop tests to catch those who might do so would go a long way towards mitigating their responsibility for the results of improperly using a medication. Not a guarantee that they wouldn’t get hit up for damages, but certainly a good defense.
Saunier-Duval Pull Sponsorship
Predicatable, I think, given the uproar over Riccardo Riccò and Leonardo Piepoli. Still, it’s a shame to se a sponsor abandon our sport. Somehow, the IHT (same link as above) got the story a bit mangled. Unless their reporter knows something that hasn’t been broadcast far and wide, only one of the two riders on Saunier-Duval tested positive (on an A sample, no word on the B) for doping at this year’s Tour. Exactly what Riccò and Piepoli may or may not have admitted to seems rather unclear.
Some stories say that both admitted to their directeur sportif that they’d been doping. Other stories say they didn’t. And if Piepoli was doping, how is it that no test results have come back positive for him? Did he know something that his young protege didn’t? Like how to beat the vampires at their own game?
Meanwhile, CyclingNews.com (same link as above) reports that the two riders have been summoned to meet with CONI regarding their current situations.
Riccò is scheduled to appear on July 30 at 12:30 pm regarding his positive “A” sample test and subsequent judicial activity following stage four at the Tour de France. After his positive test for third generation form of the blood boosting drug EPO, Riccò was fired by his team. He has denied using EPO.
Piepoli has been called to appear on July 29 at 11:30 am to report on recent news relating to him. Although no positive doping control was announced for Piepoli, the winner of stage 10, he confessed to his directeur sportif Joxean Fernandez Matxin to using EPO.
No positive doping control has been announced yet for Piepoli, but the team’s manager, Mauro Gianetti, pulled the entire squad out of the race.
Coming Soon to a PodCast Near You…
This morning, I taped an interview about my book, Dope, with WUWM for their program Lake Effect. The segment is currently scheduled to air on August 5th, and will be part of a series of stories on sports and sports authors during the week leading up to the Beijing Olympics. Once they’ve posted a file on the program’s web site, I’ll provide a link where you can listen to the interview.
Well, no shake ups in the top GC places, so it looks like if anybody is planning on knocks Sastre off, they put their hopes on the TT on Saturday. Tomorrow is a flat stage; CSC should be able to control things.
I wonder if Fahey mis-spoke out of ignorance or if he was trying to pull a bluff on the riders?
William,
Interesting question you posed. If he was trying to bluff, then he must not have counted on the people from Roche contradicting him. If he spoke out of ignorance, that makes me wonder what kind of person is heading up WADA. Nothing wrong with owning up to some cooperation between the two. Not sure where he got the idea of a secret molecule added in. It may have scared the crap out of a few riders for a few hours, but that’s about it, I suspect.
Hey Rant,
Fahey is just like his predecessor – an ignorant idiot – sorry – I don’t see why we should give him anymore “breaks” then they give the riders, doped or not! Personally – I think he was doping.
Morgan,
You’re not saying Chauncey Gardener is running the show — are you? 😉
Has it occurred to anyone that Fahey might have been telling the truth … but wasn’t supposed to?
More likely the poor guy just got the idea of a marker molecule mixed up with a molecule that WADA had “marked” for identification.
Larry,
The idea did occur to me that Fahey might have been telling the truth. But like you point out, I think he just got confused.
What makes me lean towards the latter is that the trick to inserting a marker into the drug is to find something that wouldn’t alter the function of the drug, and at the same time wouldn’t cause any side effects or harm to the user. It sounds simple enough in theory, but in practice, it’s a different matter. It seems more likely to me that Roche would volunteer some samples of the medication to assist in developing testing techniques. Easier for the drug company and less to worry about in terms of side effects or harm to real patients.
There’s a reason AMGEN didn’t add markers to their original EPO products way back when. Partly, they didn’t want to go through the FDA approval process again. And partly, they didn’t want to screw up something that’s working. As the old saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
I wonder what is taking so long with the B tests. Could it be they are having to rerun the tests because they came back negative????
Dave,
It does kinda make you wonder: Are these B samples going to be earning the same kind of frequent flyer miles at Iban Mayo’s? And, will they be tested so much that the ADAs version of a coffee card will get enough punches for a free test?
Of course, we don’t know when the B sample tests were formally requested (though if it had been me in that situation, it would have been immediately). Still, we ought to have heard something by now…
File this one under the “only half paying attention anymore” category, but do we know for a fact that B samples *are* being tested? Since the UCI’s out, and ASO’s making the rules, do we really know for certain that the WADA code is still in play? I’ve been assuming that it is, but not sure I’ve seen that stated definitively anywhere … anyone here know for sure?
Rob,
I’ve seen various stories where the cyclists have been quoted as saying they were going to ask for the B samples to be tested. No word, yet, on if or when those tests are taking place. I think that the WADA code is still in play, given that the testing is being done at WADA-accredited labs. (Which would imply that no real sanctions can be issued before either a confession by the accused or the B sample result matches the A. But there’s an old saying about when you assume.) But with the way this year’s Tour is being organized, who really knows for certain what rules apply?
I asked that question over on TBV, in the thread under Larry’s post re CERA and Hamiltion’s HBT. Considerable discussion on this and related issues, but no answer.
But some things to consider:
There is French law that comes into play here, any riders with an AAF or other evidence of doping on French soil may be subject to criminal prosecution, with fine and/or jail time. I don’t know how that would all play out now that the riders in question have left France. Perhaps they had to post bond before they were allowed to leave. Whether or not the French judicial system would need a B test or be happy just to accept the A test, I don’t know. But I think the French system operates under the guilty until proved innocent principle, which would put the burden on the rider to prove he hadn’t doped.
FFC could ban the riders on French soil, like they did for Landis, while the riders would still be allowed to race elsewhere (as Landis would presumable have been able to do, if he had won at CAS). Again, whether FFC would require a B sample is unclear, by the time they moved against Landis, all the B sample tests had been done anyway.
What appears to be happening is that the results have been turned over to the Italian federation, which then handed off to CONI. Now the Italians are still members in good standing in UCI, so I expect there is some pressure to comply with UCI and WADA rules. If they didn’t, any rider banned would have a good cause to appeal.
But then there could be a problem. Presumably, AFLD or FCC has possession of any B samples. If CONI asked for a B test, they could say “the A test is could enough for use, we aren’t doing any B tests.” Suppose CONI then asked for the B sample, proposing to do their own tests on it. Are other labs able to test for CERA at this time?
But apparently, the riders have requested B tests and haven’t received a flat out denial, else we would have heard from them. The labs may be dragging their feet, hoping the riders will confess or at least accept the A results and spare them the cost. Or they may be putting priority on A tests from the Tour, and are waiting until after the Tour is over to do any B testing, since B testing would not affect results.
Landis’ case was important because the TDF title was in stake. So UCI didn’t want to wait too long Landis’resquest for B sample testing.
For the current case, there is less emergency especially when rEPO seems to be enough stable with time in urine.
Thanks guys … it makes sense to me, too, that B sample testing will be a lower priority than A samples, and that might just be the only reason we haven’t heard anything yet.
William, your comment about B samples not effecting the results sparked another thought though, that I’m not sure I’ve seen discussed yet …
One of the reader letters on Cycling News this morning was calling for compensation for riders kept from the podium by “cheaters … but what about the flip side? Hypothetically at least, would a rider have any grounds to seek compensation from ASO if they were removed from the Tour by an A sample that *wasn’t* confirmed by the B? I know if I was in contention for the GC or any of the other jerseys (I can dream 😉 ), and I got booted for a NON-AAF I’d be more than a little upset …
WADA’s International Standard for Laboratories Rule 5.2.4.3.2.1 states:
“In those cases where confirmation of a Prohibited Substance, Metabolite(s) of a Prohibited Substance, or Marker(s) of the Use of a Prohibited Substance or Method is requested in the “B” Sample, the “B” Sample analysis should occur as soon as
possible and should be completed within thirty (30) days of notification of an “A” Sample Adverse Analytical Finding.:
Larry,
Thanks for pointing that out. So, what do you think would happen if the B sample testing wasn’t done within 30 days? Let’s say it took a bit longer to get a definitive (or definitively undefinitive) result. Sounds, on the surface, to be an ISL violation. But I could see the argument ala Landis that it didn’t cause the AAF (which is the new standard, come January, that athletes have to overcome), and thus they’d allow the B sample data. Meanwhile, has Iban Mayo ever gotten a clear answer about his status? I’m just asking …
Rob,
I don’t know what would happen in your scenario, but consider that the money awarded to Rasmussen included the bonus he would have received for winning the 2007 Tour. I don’t know that the decision would be held as a precedent outside of Holland, but …
Rant, the 30-day limit was discussed in a CAS case I read recently – might have been Landaluce. In that case, the 30-day limit was exceeded, an ISL violation was found and the arbitration panel had no difficulty finding that the ADA met its burden of proving that this ISL violation did not cause the adverse analytical finding against the athlete. In other words, in that case at least, it didn’t matter that the 30-day limit was violated.
In a different case like Mayo’s, where the 30-day limit was exceeded so that UCI could test his B sample all over Europe, the CAS might reach a different result. My understanding is that Mayo’s case was argued before the CAS in May and that the decision in that case is overdue.
Larry,
Thanks. Up to a point, I suspected that there’s some wiggle room on that 30 days. The thing I’ll be interested to see is how the CAS will rule in the Mayo case. I can see some flexibility, like a few days or maybe even a couple of weeks past the 30-day limit. But surely the limit exists to to ensure that the athletes get a timely hearing. Mayo’s situation seems like one where his B sample traveled hither and yon over a period of months in search of a matching result. That kind of “flexibility” in the 30-day limit shouldn’t be allowed, in my estimation. If it is, then they might as well take the 30-day time period out of the section you quoted. And, it will be very interesting to see the panel’s written opinion explaining their decision.
I find little motivation for FFC or AFLD to proceed expeditiously with any further “B” testing. The interests of ASO are protected by quick disclosure of “A” samples. ASO doesn’t care if any further testing is carried out: they can easily play the “Astana Card” any time they want to exclude those individuals and organizations they feel jeopardize their grand spectacle and their profit therefrom. ASO controls L’Equipe, so the timing of press releases regarding Who Is Guity can be controlled. The warning “A” shots have been fired; the whole process has been engineered to assure that top riders are tested, their samples put progressively at the front of the line for analysis, and if those “A” samples had come up positive, “justice” would have been swift and terrible. This is done to protect against a repeat of 2006 and 2007.
To expect AFLD or FFC to not acquiesce to ASO demands is unrealistic. We need to embrace the terrible truth that Le Tour is purely, purely about profit. Anyone claiming the race is about purity of sport, fairness or other such foolish notions is being delusional.
The Olympics is only slightly less so. Caveat Emptor, my friends.
Rant, I’m also interested in how the Mayo case handles the 30-day limit business. If I remember Mayo’s case correctly, the first B test came back more than 30 days late and came back negative, or inconclusive, or non-negative but not positive (the labs appear to be grading these tests on something other than a pass-fail system). The UCI may have had his sample tested at another lab and again did not get a positive. Then they shipped the sample back to LNDD (the same lab that found the positive on the A test) and they found a positive on the B test.
There is a problem here with the idea that under the WADA code, the athlete wins only if (1) he/she proves an ISL departure (and under the 2009 WADA code, that (1a) the departure could have reasonable caused the AAF), AND (2) the ADA fails to prove that the ISL departure “did not cause” the AAF.
The “did not cause” standard is a difficult standard to understand, both logically and legally. It’s hard enough to understand when something DOES cause something else. But at least when you’re looking at cause, we’re dealing with common sense notions: the hammer causes the nail to be driven into a wall, the push causes the rock to tumble down the side of the mountain.
How do you prove that A is not the cause of B? Consider the hammer and the nail, and the B test performed 31 days after the A test. If the hammer drove the nail into the wall, is it possible to say that the hammer did not cause the nail to be driven into the wall? You would think not. if the ADA uses the period beyond the 30-day limit on B testing to complete its B testing and find the AAF, is it possible to say that the unauthorized extension to the 30-day limit did not cause the AAF? You would think not. If not for the hammer, the nail would not be in the wall; if not for the extension to the 30-day limit, the B test is not completed.
This was NOT the reasoning used by the CAS in Landaluce. In Landaluce the B test was not completed within the 30 day period, but the CAS panel noted that “the group of experts present declared that the delays had no effect on the analyses results.” The panel concluded from this that the delay “could not be at the origin” of the AAF.
We can debate whether the Landaluce panel interpreted the WADA code correctly on this point. But note a small jump in the logic used by the Landaluce panel: the experts stated that the delay HAD not affected the analysis, and the panel concluded that the delay COULD not have affected the analysis.
That may not seem like such a leap! But let’s try a small exercise in logic. Strictly speaking, when the panel hears an AAF case, the panel does not know if the AAF is correct or not. The AAF may be correct, and it may not be correct. If the AAF is correct, then no worries. But if the AAF is incorrect, do we know why it is incorrect? Not necessarily. There could be something wrong with the lab method, or in the way the method was carried out. It could take a lot of time to figure out what went wrong … and if you know that something went wrong, you consider everything, starting with the most likely suspects, but ruling nothing out.
Let’s further consider what you might do to correct things if you ran a lab that had come up with a false AAF. Let’s simplify things. Let’s say that the AAF produced a reading of 5, and you KNOW that the reading should have been 4. Let’s imagine that the lab method has 5 steps: (1) get value for A, (2) get value for B, (3) add A and B together, (4) print out the value of A and B, and (5) exit the program. OK, right off the bat, you might be able to say that whatever the problem is, it COULD not be with step 5, because the program is exiting just fine. However, the problem with the method COULD be with steps 1 or 2 (not getting the right values), step 3 (getting the right values but not adding them up correctly) OR step 4 (getting the right values, adding them up correctly but printing out something other than the sum you got in step 3). Sure, you might conclude that the problem is probably with step 1 or 2, because how could all of your sophisticated machinery make a mistake in adding the two values or printing them out? But if there COULD be a problem with steps 3 and 4, then you cannot say without further investigation that steps 3 and 4 HAD no impact on the false AAF.
Let’s go one step further. How can an expert determine that a particular step in a lab process HAD no effect on the false AAF? Well, thinking logically, first you need to identify that the AAF is false — without doing so, you’re just screwing around. There’s the old expression, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. There’s a logical corollary, which is that you can’t tell if you’ve fixed something if you haven’t first determined that it’s broken. Anyway … first you determine that the AAF is false, and then you pour through your method looking for things that could be wrong. If you find something that might be wrong — say, in step 2 of the process — you correct step 2 and run the method again to see if you’re now getting the right reading (4, instead of the false 5 you got before the fix). If you get a right reading, you can say that step 2 caused the AAF and ergo that steps 1, 3, 4 and 5 DID not cause the AAF. But you can only say this once you’ve seen that the AAF is false, and you made a change in step 2 that corrected the AAF.
(even this is not perfect proof … but this post is already getting a little long …)
Go back to Landaluce. The experts in the Landaluce case testified that the delay in B testing HAD no effect on the AAF. How could they say this? Did they determine that the AAF was false, and then take steps to correct the testing to see what went wrong? Of course not! The experts thought that the AAF was true, not false. Ergo … the only way the experts in Landaluce could say that the delay DID not cause the AAF was to conclude that the delay COULD not have caused the AAF.
Logically, therefore, the ADA in Landaluce was required to explain that a delay in testing a B sample COULD not have caused the AAF. Of course, there’s no such explanation in the CAS decision.
8-0, we’re still not sure exactly what rules apply to the testing in this year’s Tour. But I don’t think that the ASO will be satisfied to limit the consequences of in-Tour AAFs to races run in France or organized by the ASO. The ASO cares about the popularity and health of cycling in general, if only because the general state of cycling affects the ASO’s profitability. Also, ASO has to consider the point of view of the ex-pro Tour teams, as well as WADA and the other parties in cycling with which ASO wants to do business. All concerned expect ASO to act in concert with the world-wide effort to combat doping. It would be a blow to ASO AND to its partners if in-competition AAFs at ASO events were treated as a private matter, of concern to ASO and ASO only. Remember, if ASO wants to be respected as the leader of pro cycling, they have to act in a responsible manner and in the interests of their partners.
My own guess continues to be that AAFs arising from this year’s Tour will be handled and finalized by FFC, using the same rules FFC would apply to any cycling event on its national calendar. Then these AAFs will be enforced world-wide by the various national cycling federations, as required by UCI rules. If the UCI rules are inapplicable to this year’s Tour, then I would expect that most national federations would act voluntarily to enforce these AAFs.
From Procycling.com
Team Astana terminates Vladimir GusevBy BikeRadar
Astana Cycling team management has terminated the contract of Russian cyclist Vladimir Gusev due to ‘irregular values’. The values were gathered during internal out-of-competition control tests, under the supervision of anti-doping expert Dr. Rasmus Damsgaard. The Team has applied the contractual clauses based on these physiological and biological abnormalities.
“Vladimir Gusev has been officially notified that he no longer represents Team Astana”, said general manager Johan Bruyneel. “Though his results do not indicate the use of forbidden substances, Vladimir’s values exceeded the normal parameters established by Dr. Damsgaard and were not compliant with the strict agreement signed by all thirty riders. Our Kazakh sponsors have also been made aware of this decision and are fully supportive.”
Bruyneel further commented: “It’s impossible for any team manager to know the activities of riders behind closed doors, but we continue to enforce that Team Astana has a 100 percent no tolerance policy and any violators will serve the same fate as Vladimir. On a brighter note, this proves that Dr. Damsgaard’s system works and we are committed to racing clean.”
Under Dr. Damsgaard’s anti-doping system, Team Astana riders are frequently required to submit blood and urine samples, which are then sent to independent labs for analysis. This system, also instituted by CSC-Saxo Bank, is in addition to any sport or Olympic governing body’s tests.
“Certainly these situations are unfortunate, but I truly believe that we are continuing to see a cleaner sport with a large majority of credible riders. Teams like Astana and CSC-Saxo Bank have shown their full commitment to my program and I, in return, have committed all my resources to their firm anti-doping stance,” Dr. Damsgaard said.
According to team spokesman Philippe Maertens, Gusev’s release is effective immediately and he is free to seek employment with another team or company
Bill,
Thanks for the tip. I was wondering what would happen if a rider had “unusual values.” Now we have an answer. Interesting that Bruyneel states that the evidence doesn’t prove the use of banned substances. Tough break for Gusev. But if he was doping, good for Astana to have parted company with him. They certainly make it sound like there’s a tough policy in place at Astana. Interesting timing, what with a certain race ending in Paris in two day’s time.
According to ‘Der Suddeutsche Zeiting’ is Frank Sleck connected to OP.
He is number 25 of the Fuentes list, according to the newspaper.
The newspaper is the one that connected Contador to OP.
Re: the 30 day limt, there are too possible reasons for this, administrative and scientific. By administrative, I mean simple that the powers that be institute time limits in order that things proceed in a reasonably timely fashion. For example, Landis had 5 days to request the B sample test, he had a certain time limit after the Malibu hearing to file an appeal to CAS, etc. If he had failed to meet any of these limits, it would have been tough luck, and rightly so. Such limits have nothing to do with causing or not causing an AAF.
By scientific, I mean that there is possibility, however well samples are stored, that deterioration will occur, rendering a test impossible. Such might vary with the nature of the test and the substance in question. However, I would note the the additional B sample testing done prior to the Malibu hearing were well after 30 days. As I recall, there was no question raised about whether this was a factor.
If the 30 day limit is an administrative limit, then the question of whether or not exceeding the limit caused an AAF is immaterial, IMHO. You don’t do the test in time, the case gets tossed. Else what is the point of having the limit? It would seem to me that this limit is indeed an administrative limit designed to move things along, not necessarily to guarantee that samples haven’t deteriorated. But obviously the powers that be don’t agree with this. So what is the point of having this limit?
Link Frank Schleck story Süddeutsche Zeitung: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/sport/weitere/special/329/122165/index.html/sport/weitere/artikel/511/187914/article.html
The Fränk Schleck = Amigo de Birillo (ie Basso) story was floated by a Duch paper last summer. If Süddeutsche Zeitung are running with it then they must have more faith in it this year. Certainly it may explain CONI’s interest in CSC, the customs search yesterday and the almost silent speculation going on about CSC (how do you do silent speculation? You refer to clean teams in the Tour and only list Garmin and Columbia, as if to say you don’t believe CSC are clean at all).
Anyway, the timing of this SZ story makes the timing of the Gusev story seem very appropriate. If you believe in coincidences then it’s a great coincidence and one Damsgaard can be happy for.
If, however, you believe in conspiracies, it seems unlikely that Bruyneel would finally associate himself with a junkie after a spotless record all these years and then fire him today just to help Damsgaard out of a fix. Unless he has a reason to protect Damsgaard.
That’s the problem with the conspiracy theory end of it. It gets too complicated. So let’s stick with coincidence.
About the Schleck there is some openly rumours inside TDF departure village since a few day. It’s said that they are under AFLD scope for blood doping. CSC riders showed an extreme ability to climb, the most impressive were their heavier riders: Voigt and Cancellara. Andy Schleck seemed to have a problem a la Landis or Zulle on Hautacam.
Many possible clues for rumors.
Gusev’s exclusion confirms the good choice of ASO not to invite Astana. Despite their allegation, the “new” management need time to clean the team.
Jean C
There is also the rumour that French riders are not tested as much as the other riders.
Rumours!
Cancellara is worldchampion TT. Voigt world champion willpower. Aren’t they supposed to ride hard?
Didn’t Chavanel ride too hard?
Really, rumours. pff
There is also the rumour that as long there is no French winner there will be rumours about other, no-French, riders.
Shall we take that as being the truth?
About the EPO family
http://www.google.com/translate?u=http://www.humanite.fr/L-EPO-un-jeu-des-7-familles&hl=fr&ie=UTF8&sl=fr&sl=en&tl=en&tl=fr
or access by a short link :http://minilien.com/?zp8pk2vTvf
{ 1 trackback }