Interesting couple of days it’s been. Yesterday, what appears to be the first bona fide doping scandal to hit the US Olympic team broke. Jessica Hardy, a swimmer, tested positive for clenbuterol (or so it’s been said) at the US Olympic Trials in Omaha earlier this month. Reports are that her positive test was sandwiched between a couple of negative tests (sound familiar, anyone?). Her story is still unfolding, as it will be for some time. More on that in a bit.
Two other stories of doping hit the news today, related to cycling and related, after a fashion, to the Tour de France. In the first story, Team Astana — they of the not invited to participate because of the sins of previous riders and previous management — fired rider Vladimir Gusev for “irregular” test results. As ProCycling reports:
“Though his [Gusev’s] 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.”
Exactly what the results were or what they showed, however, hasn’t been made clear. Must have been a tough decision for Johan Bruyneel, as Gusev was one of the ex-Disco riders he brought over to Team Astana from Discovery. Details of how Astana’s program, run by Danish anti-doping expert Dr. Rasmus Damsgaard, actually functions haven’t been as well publicized as for the ACE program in use at Garmin-Chipotle and Team Columbia.
It’s been an open question as to what would happen when a rider came up with some unusual test results. Under the Astana implementation of Damsgaard’s program, it appears that the rider will be allowed to “pursue business and travel opportunities” as one of my employers used to say of people who’ve been sacked. (As an aside, Damsgaard was recently quoted in various places bemoaning the fact that anti-doping officials have a large number of suspicious EPO test results that never resulted in sanctions. Perhaps today’s action by Astana reflects his harder line approach to dealing with athletes who might be up to something.)
In the press release, Bruyneel was careful not to say that the results indicated any doping had been going on, and according to the first story I saw (posted in a comment here by Bill Hue), Gusev is free to pursue employment elsewhere. Of course, knowing that Gusev was let go in the manner he was may cause other teams to pass up the chance to hire him. At the very least, I’d say that’s not the best letter of recommendation.
I’ll bet Johan Bruyneel is glad this story didn’t blow up on him while his team was racing in the Tour. But it does show the value of a tough internal testing program. Not the least of which is positive PR for keeping his team clean. I can imagine there could be some interesting questions for Bruyneel in the announcer’s booth tomorrow, assuming that he continues providing some color commentary for Versus during the Tour’s last couple of days. Then again, probably not.
Meanwhile, another story is brewing that threatens a team participating rather successfully in this year’s Grande (de)Boucle. Reader karuna points to an article in the Süddeutche Zeitung (original article here for those who speak German) that claims Frank Schleck, who’s currently second in the general classification standings of the 2008 Tour de France, is connected to our fine feathered friend Dr. Fuentes of Operacion Puerto fame.
If I’m following the story correctly (and the machine translation is a bit garbled), it appears that the German newspaper is claiming that the elder Schleck brother and CSC boss Bjarne Riis met with Dr. Fuentes in December 2005. Exactly what came out of that meeting, and exactly what the young German rider may or may not have done afterwards is unclear — at least to my eyes.
“The names Riis and Frank Schleck of course we are aware,” said an agreed investigators and a spokesman for the SZ authorities, “and there are linkages with Mr. Fuentes.” The alleged customers of the current tour Second-Frank Schleck was even “with Sachbeweisen to show.” Whether this contact between the obvious intention of the blood doping served, but it is still unclear.
Yes, it’s unclear. But that’s Google’s language translation tools for you. The timing of both stories is rather interesting. Clearly, Team Astana couldn’t control when a rider might return some irregular test results, and by the sounds of it, they had to act according to the team’s policy. Announcing the dismissal while the Tour is going on could just be a coincidence. Or it could be a bit of one-upsmanship. “See,” they may be saying to the ASO, “not only are we a clean team, but we’ll get rid of valued riders who even have the faintest whiff of a scandal dangling around their necks like an unwelcome albatross.”
The story in the German paper, however, raises some questions of its own. The obvious one, of course, is why now? With Schleck a potential podium finisher in two day’s time, this has got to be rather embarrassing to Team CSC. Is there something new here, and if so, what is it? Or is this just an old story being rehashed at a convenient time to sell newspapers? And, having seen the story that a car being driven by Schleck’s father was searched by French Customs agents the other day, perhaps the explanation for that little episode is tied up with the Süddeutsche Zeitung’s story. Interesting coincidence, to say the least. Over time, we’ll see how both of these stories play out.
And the same would be true for the story of Jessica Hardy, over time we’ll see if this is a case of intentional doping or a case of inadvertent exposure. Either way, if the stories coming out are true and USADA chooses to push forward with a case, Hardy’s shot at Olympic glory will be toast for another four years. At least one reporter (Alan Abrahamson) who was only too willing to throw Floyd Landis under the bus writes a straight-up news story about Hardy’s situation. My, how times change.
One twist to Hardy’s story is the possibility offered up by her coach to a couple of reporters for the Orange County Register.
Dave Salo, Hardy’s coach at the Trojan Swim Club, told the Orange County Register on Thursday he thinks Hardy’s positive drug test at the recent U.S. Olympic Trials for the banned stimulant clenbuterol was the result of “inadvertent consumption of a banned substance” possibly through supplements or vitamins.
Hardy, an Orange, Calif., native who won the Trials 100-meter breaststroke and qualified for the Beijing Games in three other events, has been listed as an endorser of AdvoCare products on her personal Web site, the company’s Web site and other sports nutritional sites.
At the same time, Salo claims to have warned his charge about the dangers of using vitamins and supplements.
“I have urged Jessica to have any supplement, vitamin, etc. that she has consumed to be tested for purity,” Salo said in an e-mail to the Register from Japan, where he is working with the Tunisia Olympic team.
“Having said that, in 30 years of coaching I have never encouraged and have generally discouraged my athletes of taking supplements of any kind.
“The community of athletes – elite and otherwise – do believe in the benefit of supplements and in fact many coaches often prescribe such supplements with the expectations of better training recovery.
“The worse fears may be realized in this circumstance as it pertains to Jessica – i.e. the supplement industry runs unabated without any controls. Jessica has come by her results with honest committed hard work.”
Hardy’s case has an eerie ring to it. Similar to the cases of Jessica Foschi in 1995 and Kicker Vencil in 2003. The story will doubtless play out over the next few weeks (or perhaps longer). If it goes to arbitration, I’d expect that Hardy will get some kind of suspension based on the strict liability standard. It was in her (according to what little we’ve been told), it’s banned, therefore … suspension.
Wouldn’t matter to USADA or an arbitration panel whether it was accidental or on purpose, or even whether it was just enough to give a performance boost or if it was merely a trace. In their eyes, she’d still be due a suspension, because under strict liability she’s responsible for whatever finds it’s way into her system
That’s a shame, especially if the conjecture that Hardy’s positive was the result of an accidental exposure turns out to be true. It’s pretty predictable how this story is going to play out, I’m afraid, regardless of what the truth of the matter might be. But what will be interesting to watch is whether it draws the same kind of attention and derision that a doping scandal in cycling would cause. I’m guessing that there will be a marked difference in coverage.
For those who follow swimming, I’ll bet the name that would pop into your minds in connection to doping wouldn’t have been Jessica Hardy’s. I’m guessing that it would have been Dara Torres, the 41-year-old sprinter who’s going to be attending her fifth Olympic Games next month. There’s a touch of irony to that, as Torres is part of USADA’s “Un-Dirty Dozen” program. But that’s a story that I’ll leave for another time.
Mind if I repeat a comment I made on the other post?
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.
We don’t know of course. But maybe it is a little strange that it is again a OP story about a cyclist.
There hasn’t been any story about the other sportsmen connected to OP. A well known tennis player, a complete and well known soccer team is mentioned, but that’s it.
Maybe Germany hasn’t recovered from the trauma of the T Mobile affairs.
So this could be payback time for Rijs.
The article in the Suddeutsche Zeitung is discussed in length here: http://www.podiumcafe.com/2008/7/25/579490/story-title
Karuna,
Thanks for the Podium Cafe link. Gavia’s post is very well done. Interesting discussion there, too.
So the “Danish Godfather” has outfoxed the French Godfathers, the German Godfathers, the Swiss Godfathers, and the newly “made” Godfather in the Land Down Under. Meanwhile the Spanish are building new castles in Leon – ready to repel all attackers!
Be that as it may – the Danish Godfather has won – and it ain’t sitting well with any of the other “made” players.
Being that as some here and at other places have pointed out – IT’S ALL ABOUT the BIG EURO. It ain’t the Dollar anymore – if any of you may have noticed? Thanks – Mr Bush!
I’ve decided that I will back the Danes – godfather or not. Maybe I’m just exhibiting my “American Imperialism” by siding with Riis – but at least as far as I’m concerned – Riis was a RIDER in the “trenches” who not only WON the Tour de France but had the cajones to take on the “wannabe godfathers of cycling” AND BEAT THEM AT THEIR OWN GAME!
That is – if we ALL choose to believe the “new pc indicator” that states; ANY RIDER WHO WINS A STAGE IN THE TdeF AND happens to be NOT French – is doping!
Personally – I don’t hold with either aspects of this “new interpretation” or definition for ANYONE who excels at anything. I don’t care what WADA, USADA, along with some French bloggers may put in the Internet. I’m not mentioning the UCI anymore since they seemed to have committed “suicide” – for lack of brains in their hierarchy. Well – I won’t mention them much.
It looks like “little Sastra” and that master Danish Machiavellian “über-leader” managed to take the TdeF away from the other “godfathers.”
Who wants to make some “small wager” that we are going to be seeing some very convoluted public attacks on both the Spaniard Sastra along with the Spanish Federation AND the torturous destruction of TEAM CSC. The Danish Federation though will not be a “target” since they “tow the line.”
Bets -anyone?
Nice posting Karuna. fmk – what’s wrong with a “good conspiracy?” – coincidence is soooo boring.
Morgan – I love a good conspiracy as much as the next cyclist. But I just can’t join the dots which would see Bruyneel destroy his whiter-than-white totally spotless never-had-a-junkie rep, not for no one and certainly not for Riis … although (inserts tongue in cheek) … CSC did roll over to let Armstrong win the 2004 Tour (well that’s my reading of Overcoming anyway) so maybe this is feeding into your Mafia spin and Riis called upon Bruyneel to repay the service owed to him?
Alt, the Gusev story proves this: Bruyneel has always had a zero tolerance to junkies. A number of riders – eight to twelve, depending on how you count them – have left his squads and either been caught junking or admitted to being junkies. QED the reason they were forced to leave Bruyneel’s squads was that he wouldn’t tolerate their junking. Bruyneel was at the forefront of the war to clean up cycling.
(removes tongue from cheek)
ps If Evans is a Godfather then I suggest he’s Tony Soprano and it’s high time he found his own therapist.
Ya’ll are so caught up in your clever metaphores that you’ve gone from hard to translate, to the rest of us don’t get it. We don’t care about your frustrated career writing one -liners for Jay Leno or your unpublished book, All Cyclists Are In The Mafia. Enjoyed the exchange, but…. for us less clever sorts, PLAIN ENGLISH IS GOOD. Thanks.
OK then. In the style of Phil Hartman doing Frankenstein:
Cycling ….. GOOD! Doping ….. BAD!
;^)
Looks to me like SDZ is engaging in some opportunism along with some six degrees of separation exercises. If they haven’t anything more than what we have seen so far, I’d just ignore them. The similar flap re Contador last year rather died off, although I have no way of knowing how much, if any, that played in ASO’s mind when they nixed Astana.
I always sort of thought of the evil, doping DS as more a Svengali than a Godfather.
Morgan, great post!
What a bizarre Tour. Talk about the best of times, the worst of times.
The best of times: the GC winner will be the GC contender who successfully attacked the others in the mountains and won the Tour’s most fabled stage, also the guy who led the Tour’s strongest team, and that seems fitting. The Young Americans of Garmin-Chipotle had a strong first Tour ever, exceeding everyone’s expectations, and giving those of us in the States a rooting interest. Vande Velde rode a great final time trial — if Evans had matched Vande Velde, we’d have a virtual tie for the maillot jaune going into Paris! Kudos to Vande Velde. CSC and Columbia, two of the teams under the strictest internal anti-doping controls, arguably were the two best teams in the Tour, giving some of us (sorry, Ludwig) real hope that you don’t have to dope to win. Mark Cavendish is a rising star, and so are Kim Kirchen and Andy Schleck. The GC race was close, with 6 riders in the race coming into the Alps, and the race not decided until the last day. The race looked beautiful as always, and serious injuries were at a minimum.
The worst of times: I missed Tom Boonen, and Alberto Contador, and Levi Leipheimer, not to mention Basso and Mayo and Landis and so many other familiar names from the past. The guys remaining at the head of the race often seemed surprised to be there. There was little sense of rivalry. Other than Sastre’s ride up Alpe d’Huez, there were few GC heroics, mostly a sense of 6 guys trying to survive until Paris. In particular, Evans and Menchov rode flat and uninspiring Tours. Other than CSC, there was little sense that the GC contender teams played any role in the GC race. What might Vande Velde have done if there had been a Schleck brother or two on Garmin-Chipotle? There was a bit of drama over the White Jersey, per usual no drama over the polka-dot jersey, and surprisingly little drama over the green jersey.
The best of times: the anti-doping guys got the jump on cyclists cheating with CERA, the third generation EPO. They tested aggressively — more than 400 blood, urine and hair tests by one count. Other than a few complaints early in the Tour, it appeared that AFLD was able to handle doping control without the assistance of the UCI. While it was not a completely “clean” race — three in-race AAFs, same as last year — the race was able to avoid anything like last year’s embarrassing affair when Rasmussen was tossed out with the race lead. And so far at least, Sastre is not facing anything near the scrutiny that Contador faced for possible involvement with doping and Operation Puerto.
The worst of times: while anti-doping in cycling has never been transparent, this year’s version of anti-doping is particularly opaque. We know that there’s been “targeted testing”, where 20 – 60 riders on the AFLD’s target list have been tested much more often than anyone else, but we do not know who is on the list or why they were put there. We suspect that there will be B samples tested, but we don’t know for sure. We don’t know if the AAFs will be respected world-wide, or only in France. We don’t know if the accused athletes will be entitled to hearings, or where the hearings will be held, or which ADA will prosecute the cases. And even with AFLD’s much-trumpted ability to test for CERA, we have no idea if their test has been validated, or how it was validated, or even whether the applicable rules this year require that the test BE validated.
More worst of times: despite all the commotion over how clever the ADAs were in testing for CERA, they caught maybe one or two riders using CERA. We learned much to our dismay that there are 20 varieties of EPO out there, many of which are purportedly undetectable, and that there are growing numbers and generations of new varieties of EPO. This year brings us yet another anti-doping insider (Damsgaard, assuming the role played last year by Saugy) claiming that considerable numbers of riders are doping and getting away with it. Just like last year, possibly the most surprising aspect of the Damsgaard story is the complete and utter failure of anyone in authority in cycling to step forward and refute Damsgaard’s claims. For all of the commotion about doping in cycling, the actual amount of doping in cycling remains a mystery.
Still more worst of times: IMHO, the hypocrisy of the persons with responsibility for anti-doping in this year’s Tour reached a new high. We were told that each AAF was a signal that the anti-doping effort was working — exactly the opposite of what we were told last year, where every AAF indicated that the UCI’s anti-doping work had failed and a new approach was needed.
Here’s an example of the hypocrisy: in last year’s Tour, after the announcement of the third in-race AAF, Anne Gripper of the UCI stated that “The results clearly show that the anti-doping system is working.” But at the same time, ASO director Christian Prudhomme replied that “there has been an absolute failure of the system,” http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/6914924.stm, and ASO competition director Jean-Francois Pescheux later stated that “if the 2008 season is a repeat of 2007 and 2006, then it’s the end of cycling.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/oct/26/cycling.sport. This year, with a repeat number of AAFs (this year a repeat of last year?), what was Prudhomme’s reaction? “Rest assured, we’re on our way to a clean sport.” http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/2008-07-16-743844943_x.htm. “We are happy the cheats are being caught.” “The noose is tightening around those who still believe they can cheat and get away with it.” http://www.bikeradar.com/road/racing/article/tour-notes-noose-is-tightening-around-dopers-necks-17603. What’s the primary difference between the doping situation in this year’s Tour versus last year’s Tour? Arguably, the primary difference is that last year, UCI (ASO’s enemy and rival for control of pro cycling) was in charge of anti-doping. This year, ASO itself is in charge of anti-doping.
Conclusion: the Tour de France is in transition, as is all of men’s pro road racing. We are unlikely to see another Tour organized like this one. The UCI pro tour (which DID manage to place 17 of its 18 teams into this year’s Tour de France) appears dead, to be replaced by an organization run directly by pro teams and race sponsors (with ASO playing a lead role). UCI’s future in men’s pro road racing is uncertain, as is the role traditionally played by national cycling federations such as France’s FFC and USA Cycling. Anti-doping efforts are also in transition. The traditional heavy reliance on post-race testing of race leaders is being replaced by biological passport-style longitudinal testing (even if the biological passport itself dies along with UCI’s involvement in men’s pro road racing), combined with targeted testing. As doping drugs become harder to detect, cycling will rely more heavily on the deterrent of criminal sanctions against the few cyclists they manage to catch, in an effort to scare the remainder of cycling into compliance (or at least into cheating more subtly). Moreover, the anti-doping emphasis will shift (again) away from actually insuring a clean race, and towards creating the appearance of a clean race — where those accused of AAFs are marginalized, isolated, labeled as aberrant and effectively banned for life, while the public and cycling’s sponsors are assured that the sport is essentially clean.
I doubt the Contador/Puerto thing influenced ASO much. Look at all the other Puerto riders who started. I think ASO had to nix some team, to pick a fight with the UCI. The Astana-have-sullied-the-Tour story worked like a good smokescreen. But I really think Astana caught the bullet because of Bruyneel more than anything else. And Bruyneel seems to have got the message by signing up with Damsgaard.
The evil doping doctor … Waddington nailed him as Frankenstein in Bad To The Bone I think. But I liked Morgan’s mafia riff.
Heads up – Paul Kimmage in the Sunset Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/cycling/article4407072.ece I (((heart))) Kimmage. I think I want to have his babies and wash his socks. For me, that piece nails this race just right. The Tour is getting its mojo back.
fmk, understood completely about Kimmage. Me, I would be happy to mow Bonnie Ford’s lawn and take out her trash.
As I’ve said, I have been wrong about many, many things. But I still think we will hear of more positives post-Tour. No top 10 guys. I just think The Master wishes to let the spectacle play out to maximize the impact de jour, then will turn on the unfortunates for grinding under the bus.
Dear DFrey
Thank you for pointing out that we are just wannabe writers — perhaps some of us have such aspirations — but I consider myself part of the “us” – as do all of the commentators on the Rantline. We all are “us” — just wanted to point this out to you, before I address the rest of your comment.
Personally — I would never want to write for Jay Leno — that is if I “claimed” myself to be a “writer”. I have no “unpublished book” or for that matter “one waiting for publishing.” BUT I must say — it is a rather a low blow to belittle someone who actually is “published” and can write in English AND if I may point out has the unbelievable power to actually write down something and know what he is writing.
Personally — I am glad that you found the exchange enjoyable, even though this seems to be “counter indicative” of your previous observations. If you are going to “quote” – PLAIN ENGLISH IS GOOD — it should be: PLAIN ENGLISH IS GOOD enough for me — unless of course you are representing ALL of “us.”
Hey Rant,
I know I am in danger of being accused of “inbreeding” — but I am impressed by your summations of cycling developments — therefore:
It was the best of times; it was the worst of times. — I for one am appreciative that you would assume that we – the “us” actually have read “The Tale of Two Cities.”
“The 400 Blows” – anti-doping guys got the jump on cyclists cheating – they tested aggressively “” more than 400 blood, urine and hair tests by one count — Now, this 400 tests — were they of the 60 or so “targeted” riders or the “entire” peleton?
The Tour was able to avoid anything like last year’s embarrassing affair when Rasmussen was tossed out with the race lead — AND — so far at least; Sastre is not facing anything near the scrutiny that Contador faced for possible involvement with doping and Operation Puerto. — I may be way off here but doesn’t “scrutiny” — EXCLUDE — innuendo and baseless accusation?
AFLD was able to handle doping control without the assistance of the UCI — well, “transparency or not” — does it matter? The only real difference I see is “who gets to SAY who is in or out” — at this stage — one MUST HAVE questions to their MOTIVATION. No?
Anti-doping in cycling has never been transparent, this year’s version of anti-doping is particularly opaque. — So true, so true!
We know that there’s been “targeted testing”, where 20 – 60 riders on the AFLD’s target list have been tested much more often than anyone else — at least 400 times — at least this is the rumor/public statement – from the “governing French bodies.”
We do not know who is on the list or why they were put there.
We suspect that there will be B samples tested, but we don’t know for sure.
We don’t know if the AAFs will be respected world-wide, or only in France.
We don’t know if the accused athletes will be entitled to hearings, or where the hearings will be held, or which ADA will prosecute the cases.
And even with AFLD’s much-trumpeted ability to test for CERA —- BUT — we have no idea if their test has been validated, or how it was validated, or even whether the applicable rules this year require that the test BE validated.
(tic) – Heck Rant — these are only SOME of the fine observations in your “rant.” I just “worry” that you are being too euphemistic for the rest of “us” – us.
Larry,
Wink-wink—nudge, nudge, nod – ;^) — keep it coming pal.
fmk,
Very glad that you have “lust in your heart” for a “journalist!” — Lust is GOOOOD — belief is GOOOOD — “mojo” — yeah!
80
we “ain’t herd” the last of it – “us” people want to know!
To the best of my knowledge, the race is playing by WADA rules, like any other bike race. The UCI actually organises testing at a tiny number of races, usually the ones they want to control. So AFAIK, all the normal rules apply. B samples to be tested (and note: one reason for delays in B sample tests can be the riders, who can nominate a representative to be present) and any judgements appealed all the way up to the CAS. The AFLD test for CERA is clearly the WADA test for CERA – WADA have publicly claimed it. This wasn’t the AFLD making up the rules as it went along.
On the number of tests. AFLD’s Pierre Bordry (Google him on TUEs by the way) gave AP (I think) a breakdown of 80 random pre-race tests during the weeks prior to the Tour, one blood test of each of the 180 starters two days prior to the July 5 start in Brest and 250 doping controls during the race on top of the pre-race tests. (I think the 15 or whatever tests carried out by CONI might need to be added in too.) According to Bordry: “It’s more than what the UCI usually do.” So stuff that in yer pipe Pat McQuaid and smoke it. Accepted, no breakdown of how many riders were actually both blood and urine tested.
On comparisons of coverage of Sastre with Contador last year. IIRC, Werner Franke waited until after the final presentation to declare Contador a client of Fuentes. So there’s still time for him to pull a piece of paper from his briefcase. But you might also look at the interview Sastre did today. I know some round here still believe in Landis, but what sold me against him most wasn’t The Ride, it was a response to a question about doping – he dodged the question. Similarly Rasmussen’s problem last year was tying himself up in knots in front of journalists and trying to doge the question. Sastre got hit with two serious questions today. And answered both. Maybe that just means he got better PR advice than Landis did. I dunno. Personally, I’m just happy that it’s getting harder to doge the questions.
The AAFs we have seen released all came from the early stages, and were released more or less a week after the fact. Supposedly, the SOP is to get doping riders out ASAP in order to minimize any impact they might have on the racing. Therefore, I think it unlikely that results are being sat on until after the race is over. There might be some results from the past week which won’t be available until after the race is over simply because it takes time to get to and process the samples.
fmk –
You’ve raised a ton of questions! I’m going to focus on just one of them, but we could have detailed and interesting discussions regarding a number of the points you raised in your last post.
To be sure, the race is “playing” by the WADA rules. But this is far from being any other bike race. Meaning that how this race “plays” by the WADA rules is not at all clear.
First thing to understand is that the WADA Code is a private document that has to be adopted by an authoritative body in order to be effective. So, for example, the reason that the WADA Code governs anti-doping in the Olympic Games is because the Code has been adopted by the International Olympic Committee. The reason that the WADA Code does NOT govern U.S. baseball is because it hasn’t been adopted by major league baseball (although this could change). The WADA Code has been adopted by the UCI, so it is applicable to international pro cycling. I believe that the WADA Code has also been adopted by the official U.S. national cycling federation, USA Cycling. My guess is that this Code has also been separately adopted by the French national cycling federation, the FFC, though I have not tried to confirm this.
Next thing to understand is the importance of the so-called racing calendars. Just about every important bike race I’ve ever heard of is scheduled on one of the UCI’s international calendars (we’ll get to the reason for this in a moment). The WADA Code applies to these races via UCI’s adoption of the Code. If there is an anti-doping violation in any such race, the UCI has the international reach to enforce the sanctions arising from the violation.
This year’s Tour de France was purposely NOT scheduled on any of the UCI’s race calendars. Instead, the race was scheduled on the national calendar of the French cycling federation (FFC). Since we assume that the FFC has adopted the WADA Code, we can also assume that the WADA code was applicable to this year’s Tour de France.
Next thing to consider is who has the power to punish a rider who is accused of an anti-doping violation — an adverse analytical finding (AAF) — arising from this year’s Tour de France. Clearly, the FFC has this power, and any such rider will face FFC sanctions. If the rider is French, the FFC would have the power to suspend the rider’s license to race anywhere. If the rider is not French, the FFC would have the power to ban the rider from French events. All of this is reasonably clear, though I AM engaging in a bit of conjecture, as I have not read the FFC regulations.
But strictly speaking, the FFC’s reach does not extend beyond the borders of France. In order for AAF sanctions to be truly effective, the sanctions must have an international reach. And this is where our discussion gets difficult.
Let’s use Ricco as an example. Ricco is an Italian rider. Let’s say that the AAF against Ricco from this year’s Tour de France becomes final, and Ricco is named to a team scheduled to ride in the 2009 Tour of California. Is there anything that would prevent Ricco from racing? True, Ricco is under sanction from the FFC, but the FFC does not have jurisdiction over the Tour of California. There are three things that might prevent Ricco from racing: (1) it is possible that the Italian cycling federation might have suspended Ricco’s pro cycling license, (2) it is possible that UCI or USA Cycling (whoever ends up having ultimate authority over the Tour of California) would choose to respect the FFC’s AAF against Ricco, leaving Ricco ineligible to race in the Tour of California, or (3) the Tour of California organizers would voluntarily ban Ricco from its Tour, just as they voluntarily acted to ban Tyler Hamilton and other racers earlier this year.
Let’s put possibility no. 3 above to one side for the moment, and focus on possibilities 1 and 2 above. Under the rules governing this year’s Tour de France, would the Italian cycling federation be REQUIRED to suspend Ricco’s pro cycling license, and would the UCI or USA Cycling be REQUIRED to ban Ricco from the Tour of California? Normally, I’d say that the answers to both questions are “yes”. Rule 306 of UCI’s cycling regulations provide that final adjudications of any signatory to the WADA Code which are consistent with the WADA Code and within the signatory’s authority, must be recognized and respected by the UCI and national federations such as USA Cycling.
However, UCI has taken the position that this year’s Tour de France was IMPROPERLY placed on the FFC’s national calendar. While the UCI has never publicly explained the rationale for this position, the most obvious argument in UCI’s favor is that under the UCI rules, none of the teams racing in this year’s Tour de France are permitted to ride in a race scheduled on a national calendar. Per UCI Rule 2.1.009, only UCI continental teams of the country, regional and club teams, national teams and so-called “mixed teams” may participate in an event on a national calendar. None of the teams in this year’s Tour de France (or for that matter, in any Tour de France in recent memory) fell into any of these categories. The Tour de France teams are either Pro Tour teams or Pro Continental teams, and by UCI rule, these teams can only participate in races on the UCI international calendar.
So, we’re left with the difficult question: given the fact that the Tour de France organizers and the FFC deliberately flaunted UCI rules by moving the race to the French national calendar and inviting teams not permitted to race in national calendar events … can the race organizers and FFC NOW claim that they should have the benefit of the rules requiring the UCI and other national cycling federations to respect the AAFs arising from this year’s Tour? From the way I phrased the question, you might expect me to answer “no”. Actually, my answer would be a qualified “yes”, but you can see that this is not an easy question.
As I said, you’ve raised a number of other interesting questions, and time permitting I may try to get to the others.
Others? OTHERS?!!? There’s more to come? Oh sweet Jesus. Take me now lord, please, take me now!
UCI has come under a lot of criticism: from some of us here and over at TBV, from ASO certainly, and probably others over a range of issues. But I think we need to be careful about distinguishing the way UCI is currently running things (and the people so involved) and the need for an organization like UCI to oversee the sport, or at least certain aspects of it.
Certainly any national federation could honor an AAF from the TdF for one of its riders. Would the rider then have cause for an appeal simply over the jurisdicitonal issue? On the other hand, a NF could ignore the AAF. Could UCI punish the NF for this, when in theory the race in question was run illegally, according the UCI regualtions about who can race in a national calendar event? This might put them in a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t position, as seeking to enforce an AAF from this race could be seen as tacit recognition of the race.
Both the ToC and the TdF now have precedent for banning riders/teams otherwise in good standing who they fell might bring disrepute on their race. So if Ricco doesn’t get his license pulled and decides to try to enter one of those races, I would think either of the 2 tours would have no problem saying “sorry Charlie”.
So let’s play this out to see what might happen if the UCI’s role in pro cycling was to vanish, or be severely curtailed. ASO presumably would promote a calendar of races, expanding on its current stable by buying up rights to existing races and/or promoting new ones. The other 2 big tours might join in in some way. There might be other race series, perhaps at a lower level (minor league, so to speak) or even at a similar level. Perhaps ASO might choose to concentrate on stage racing, some other organization might concentrate on one day races. I see that our 3 US semi-big tours might continue, and maybe there would be other series promoted elsewhere. Sort of like what we have in motor sports. And you still would probably have questions over who gets to race, would bans by one organization be ignored by another, etc. I could see some organizations getting snooty and saying if you ride in those other guys’ race, don’t come to ours.
This is one reason why an organization like UCI is needed. Some of us here may not like the fact that Floyd has been banned, and some others may not like what Damsgaard alleges, that riders whose test he thinks show definite signs of doping are allowed to race by WADA/UCI rules, but at least we clearly know who can and can’t race.
fmk:
If you don’t like long discussions, you’ve come to the wrong place.
fmk, given that the 4th AAF was announced before your plea for divine intervention, we have proof that not all prayers are answered and in this case, good thing!
Dmitry Fofonov of Credit Agricole has been dinged for heptaminol.
William, great post!
Yes, no question that Ricco will not race in next year’s Tour of California, if for no other reason that ASO now plays a role in the organization of the event. I only used Ricco and the Tour of California as convenient examples.
Yes, the sport needs international coordination and cooperation. The logical source for this coordination and cooperation is the UCI. However, at this point there is such bad blood between the UCI and the ASO, that I doubt we’ll see the UCI play much of a role in future ASO sponsored events. If ASO manages to organize a pro racing series under its sponsorship (or under the sponsorship of one or more partners), then maybe it won’t need the UCI — maybe the ASO will consider it sufficient to ban offending riders only from its own series of races, leaving all those outside of the ASO pro racing series to fend for themselves.
We’ll have to follow the news to see how all this plays out.
McCarthyism is alive and well in professional cycling. Gusev has now never officially tested positive for anything, but his urine seemed a little more pink than it should, so now he’s been fired and everyone KNOWs he’s a commie bastard. And Frank Schleck has now been mentioned in the same sentence as Fuentes. You might as well say he was seen in a bar with Stalin.
tom
OK Tom, what would you have had Astana do differently?
The Damsgaard – ACE style programs are based on the concept that the conventional one-time doping tests don’t work, and what is needed is longitudinal measurement and monitoring of a number of blood and urine markers. There ARE no established positive tests for this kind of testing, but if the testing is done properly, it should be possible to look at the trend of these values and determine if what you’re seeing is statistically unlikely.
If the Damsgaard program is like the ACE program, then a rider who produces an anomalous result will be brought in for questioning, counseling and further testing. If there’s a reason for the suspicious result, the team will attempt to figure it out. Before a rider is dismissed, the rider should have produced a number of suspicious test results.
There’s a fair question of how a team like Astana should handle a rider dismissal. Should the team disclose as little as possible, announce that the rider has resigned, or that the rider and team have irreconcilable differences? To be certain, a LOT of employees are fired that way! Or should the team go to the other extreme, and disclose as many facts as possible? Remember that there are issues involving medical privacy. The rider would probably have to consent to disclosure of his test results.
It’s a tricky balance, between full disclosure and not publicly condemning the rider too severely (after all, the rider has NOT tested positive, as you pointed out).
It’s also not clear whether Astana has done itself any favors by taking this action. Is Astana proving that it’s serious about combating doping, or is it admitting that the team has not eradicated its doping past?
Tom, I’ll admit, it’s not clear how the teams should handle issues that arise as a result of their internal testing, but I don’t agree that this is cycling McCarthyism.
I can’t judge how Astana handled it, because I don’t know the details. One hopes they use higher standards than WADA, and that they’re really really sure of something.
But internal issues are all beside the point. I was talking about what this means externally. Gusev is “tagged” now, and we really don’t know why and never really will. I can think of two ways that Astana could’ve handled this that would be more palatable. Astana and Gusev could’ve parted ways because of “artistic differences”, and left everyone wondering, but at least he wouldn’t be labelled. Alternatively (and my personal favorite), they could’ve chosen full disclosure. I’d love to see a team with this style of testing write in a full disclosure requirement in all the rider’s contracts.
I can see that riders might not like that. It’s privacy stuff. On the other hand, it’s yet more pressure on riders to stay clean. And in a case such as this, we could actually say “yes, Astana’s doing a thorough job, too bad about Gusev”, or alternatively “Damn, Astana’s as bad as WADA”. The ability to make such examinations is ultimately a protection for the riders that in my opinion ought to outweigh the privacy concerns.
This sort of testing ought to provide the riders with protections. If all it does is provide teams with protection, riders are really no better off than they are under
WADA.
tom
In the Netherlands we have a situation Tom is referring to.
Today there was an article lots of people feared: http://www.volkskrant.nl/sport/article1048717.ece/Vertrouwensbreuk_Dekker_en_Rabo.
As a summary it says that Thomas Dekker is with his lawyers and the lawyers of the Rabobank talking about how to end the contract of Thomas which runs until 2010.
Reason: a breach of confidence.
Thomas Dekker is supposed to be one of the riders that is on the list of the UCI with variable blood levels. According to the article the UCI has said that the levels are not suspicious but they vary which raises questions. He can ride every race he wants to and there is no reason to fire him.
There is some background information in another article: http://www.volkskrant.nl/sport/article1048744.ece/Wielerhoop_verdwaald_in_spoor_van_kampioenen
Thomas Dekker is a person who likes his freedom. As a young rider he moved to Italy to train with the great riders of Italy. He trained for a long time with Luigi Cecchini. He stopped working with Cecchini because of the new rules in the Rabobank since last year.
The new rules he had problems with complying to.
Since a while it became tense between Dekker and the Rabo. The communication goes through lawyers for some time now. Dekker was not selected for the TdF and is also not going to the OS.
I have no idea what to think of this all.
His blood levels vary, but how much? Is there really a reason to worry?
Is there really a reason to treat Dekker so harsh?
The Rabo has always agreed to his way of training, agreed to his way of performing etc.
Now they take their hands off of him. Wouldn’t it be a whole lot more reasonable to guide him here?
I don’t know. Nothing is confirmed when it comes down to doping. If there where extra tests we don’t know.
The biological passport will be a good weapon, but will it not also make victims it shouldn’t make?
I too have some problems with Astana’s handling of Gusev. I would have hoped that the idea of progressive discipline might have been used, especially in cases where the test results are suggestive but not definite, as seems to be the case. Call the rider is, discuss things, if there’s no good reason for the results, sit him down for a while. Next violation, he’s held out longer, etc., with termination being the last step, or for definite violations. It seems that Astana went straight to termination, but, to be fair, we have no idea if anything went on before they took this step.
Astana is sort of between a rock and a hard place, with their reputation. By announcing this, some think they’re still dirty. Keep it under wraps, and if and when if comes out they might be suspected of covering things up, and what else is going on with them?
If Astana were to release a rider’s test results, with riders agreeing to this as part of their contract, there could be several problems. Of course, in a case like Gusev’s, another team could look at the results and verify that there was no actual sign of PED use. However, what if questions arise about a “clean” rider, perhaps following a good performance. Astana releases the rider’s test results to show he was clean, but someone else, a la Damsgaard, reads the figures differently and claims the results show signs of doping. As much as we have argued about how the data for Landis should be interpreted and what they show or don’t show, I think that is quite possible.
Maybe after all, Astana’s approach is the best for them. “We aren’t going to mess around, anything questionable and you’re out.” Pressure’s on riders to stay clean if they want a job with this team.
Larry/Tom,
One thing we don’t really know is whether or not Damsgaard’s program does the same kind of counseling that the ACE program does. Or, whether that’s left up to the teams (Astana, CSC) to decide for themselves.
I would hope that Gusev would have been benched for a couple of weeks, given the “doping bad, riding clean good” lecture, and then see escalating measures taken if such anomalies happened again. And I would hope that an effort would be made to determine the cause of the anomalies. Illness? Exhaustion? Something else? But it’s not clear whether or not that actually happened.
But now that Gusev has been sacked, he’s got an albatross hanging around his neck, as does Sergei Honchar and one or two other riders. Fired not for doping, but for “unusual test results.” Honchar and the other riders who’ve met the same fate have yet to find new teams. (And, given that Honchar’s sample number was the same as a “typo” listed in Floyd’s Lab Documentation Package, wouldn’t it be interesting if, in years to come, Honchar penned a book about the 2006 Tour with the title, “It Was Me What Tested Positive”?)
Contrast this to Fofonov. If he’s sanctioned (which looks likely, given his reported admission to buying the medication over the Internet and forgetting to inform the team doctors/others), he’ll get a suspension, serve his time and come back to race again — or at least he could. Gusev is now labeled as “suspicious” — whether or not a medical explanation can be found for his test results. And that suspicion may well be enough to keep team directors from hiring him. Who wants to take a chance on a rider who may embarrass the team by testing positive somewhere down the line? No one I can think of. Too big a risk.
As William points out, Astana is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Damned if they do. Damned if they don’t. There’s no good ending to Gusev’s story. They either let him go now (“zero tolerance”) or run the risk of being accused of a cover-up if he ever tests positive for something. And were that to happen, that just fuels certain suspicions about the team and their management.
I’d like to think that Astana would use the same approach to handling unusual results that the ACE teams do, but I can also see why they may feel pressure to drop the axe at the first suspicion of something being wrong. In the process, however, a possibly innocent person gets branded as a cheat — at least, that’s likely to be the perception by the public who only have a cursory (if an) interest in following the whole subject of doping in sports. If Gusev is innocent — and even Astana’s statement suggests that’s possible — he’s getting the shaft.
Meanwhile, it appears that Rabobank has some troubles regarding Thomas Dekker — at the very least in terms of negotiating an end to his contract. I wonder if, given the Rasmussen fiasco, the new team management has decided that allowing riders to go off and train in their own ways is something they can no longer afford. It may just be a matter of appearing to have control over their riders versus appearing to not be in control. Or it may be something else.
Karuna’s last question resonates pretty loudly to me. “The biological passport will be a good weapon, but will it not also make victims it shouldn’t make?”
We need to know what (or if) controls are in place to see that such a scenario is unlikely to happen. Transparency has never been a strong point of the anti-doping agencies, I’m afraid. With the shift to the biological passport system, greater transparency is needed to ensure that the unnecessary victims will be few and far between.
Things around test results etc are not an easy thing to deal with.
When I continue the Thomas Dekker story it seems now to have gone like this:
Before the Tour of Switzerland the Rabo team doctor asked the UCI for the results of the blood test from their riders. There was ONE test result which raised the eye brows a little.
Nothing conclusive could be said about the test, he had been sick, faulty measurement, lots of possible reasons.
The Rabo internal test results didn’t show anything strange.
The UCI got contacted and said that there was no reason why Dekker couldn’t race where ever of whenever he wanted.
Dekker didn’t ride a good Tour of Switzerland.
What happens next is that he not got selected for the TdF. Dekker was “˜not amused’.
The official version of the Rabo was that Dekker’s condition was not good enough to race.
Everyone thinks now of course that the Rabo kept Dekker out of the TdF because of that blood result. The Rabo sticks to its official version.
Rumors about the difficult communication and an (still) angry Dekker started to appear.
The lawyers only communicated was the story, which seems to be confirmed by now.
A rider like Dekker was missed in the TdF so the stories kept on being refueled.
Until this morning paper, see article Volkskrant.
If this is true that this is all about ONE blood test result and it does look like that, it seems almost impossible to keep a result like this confidential.
Of course the exclusion of Dekker of the TdF got things started, but won’t there be always something like that?
On a personal level I do understand something if the anger of Dekker.
A broken machine and a overreacting Rabo might cost him his carrier.
Tom, you’re making great points, but you’re not acknowledging that there’s an inevitable trade-off with a case like Gusev’s:
If you’re concerned that Gusev has been “tagged”, then you’re essentially advocating that Gusev be fired with as little information disclosed as possible.
If you want full disclosure, including disclosure of whether Gusev was given warnings and what William calls “progressive discipline”, then you’re essentially advocating that Gusev be “tagged” more thoroughly and effectively.
I personally see no way to avoid this trade-off.
By the way, most medical privacy laws allow a person to revoke any previous waiver of his medical privacy rights. So, I expect that a cyclist might be able to sign a contract authorizing full disclosure of his test results, and later revoke the team’s right to make this disclosure.
Maybe a more interesting question is: does Gusev have the RIGHT to disclose the results of these tests, if Astana does not want these results disclosed? The answer may be “no”.
The big picture question is a good one: does the biological passport effectively provide for a lifetime ban of riders like Gusev who run afoul of the system? Rant, your contrast of Gusev to Fofonov is a good one, but even Fofonov may effectively face a lifetime ban at this point. (Medication purchased on the internet without informing the team? !! Either the guy is lying, or he is a complete idiot.) These days, what riders with AAFs get to serve their 2-year bans (or 4-year bans) and then return to pro cycling with no questions asked? Whatever you think of David Millar, he has had to work his rear end off to rehabilitate his reputation.
I think this is the take-away lesson: in order to survive in cycling today, a rider needs to maintain a reputation for honesty and adherence to the rules. This is not such a bad thing, standing on its own, and you can make the same statement for other professionals in other lines of work that depend for their survival on public confidence and trust. This take-away lesson is troubling in cycling, not so much because it’s wrong to ask professional cyclists to maintain a squeaky-clean reputation, but because of the near-monopolistic and unchecked power currently wielded by the ASO. No cycling team could conceive of hiring a Gusev (or a Fofonov, or even a Landis) without asking what the ASO would think.
William, I agree, different experts can reach different conclusions regarding the same logitudinal tests.
I haven’t been keeping up with swimming like I used to. I have fairly tight family connections with swimming in Southern California. My (now grown) brothers used to compete against kids coached by David Salo. I have absolutely no doubt as to the integrity of Salo.
I also know that the kids coming out of his program (and indeed many of the kids who are involved in high level swimming) come from much more wealthy families. It’s kind of like ice skating or gymnastics, the families have to have the money to pay the coaches to get them to an elite level to begin with. I don’t think of cycling quite as much as a “sport of priveledge” as swimming. I don’t know how well-to-do this swimmer in particular is, but there is a definite cultural contrast. It will be interesting to see if that distinction plays out in the upcoming legal proceedings.
bannaoj, great point.
Karuna, the Dekker situation sounds very different from the Gusev situation. It sounds like the relationship between Dekker and Rabobank has broken down in a number of areas, including Dekker’s regularly being unreachable by the team (that’s GOT to be a matter of special concern to Rabobank, after what happened with Rasmussen). The articles you cite (in Google translation) make Dekker sound spoiled and arrogant. It appears that Dekker’s problems with his biological passport readings are only a part (maybe a small part) of the reason for Dekker’s apparent separation from Rabobank.
There is almost no conceivable way that a single biological passport test should result in a rider being fired. However, as we’re discussing with Gusev, a single test CAN (and should) result in a rider being questioned, counseled and more closely monitored. From the information you’ve provided, we might guess that Dekker resisted taking any constructive action in response to his questionable biological passport readings. That’s another reason (possibly a very good reason) for firing a rider.
Larry,
Good point about whether other teams might hire Fofonov. His behavior certainly would raise some questions in the minds of prospective employers. Of course, if he were to work as tirelessly as Millar did are rehabbing his image, he might be able to come back at the end of his suspension. For Gusev, he doesn’t even get an official suspension to come back from. Just that lingering kind of doubt as to whether he’s a cheater or not. That’s a pretty insidious thing, as it gets into the realm of how one proves a negative. Pretty hard to do.
Rant, agreed that Gusev might be in a pretty bad position right about now. But it may not be an impossible position. We can be reasonably certain that Astana is turning all of its test results over to the UCI, and that these test results can be made available (though perhaps Gusev might have to consent) to other teams that might think about employing Gusev. So, these other teams might conclude that Astana had been too strict or too hasty in its interpretation of these tests … or that subsequent testing of Gusev revealed that Gusev had cleaned up his act or that the suspicious results that had led to his being sacked were later proved to by anomalous.
(Karuna’s great posts here are a reminder that UCI is sitting on biological passport results for 23 unnamed riders that are suspicious or questionable. Gusev might be one of these riders. Astana’s hand might have been forced here.)
The difficult part of this, of course, is that teams interested in hiring Gusev have to be concerned with what ASO would think. But this is true regardless of whether Gusev is fired for bad passport results or a conventional AAF.
I’ve been mulling the “class” distinctions with regards to doping, quite a bit. Running isn’t a sport with a lot of money in it either, but some. Cycling has a bit more money in it than running, but not loads. If you are good you can normally get a sponsorship from somebody to help defray expenses even if you don’t make money.
The “true amateur” sports, don’t seem to get dinged for doping as much, even if they are “endurance” sports. Unless you are Michael Phelps there is almost no money in swimming. Conversely the “upper eschelon” professional sports that happen to be at the Olympics like soccer, basketball, or hockey, don’t seem to cough up many doping scandals either.
Swimming does make a logical target because of the doping history behind it, particularly on the women’s side. In the last 15 years, the coaching/training philosophy for swimming has been revolutionized, by people such as David Salo and Terry Laughlin, so “unbelieveable” performances are more commonplace at the moment. But, along with this revolution, the children of wealthier families are the ones who are often becoming the most elite swimmers because their families are the ones who can afford these revolutionary coaches. To become recognized a swimmer almost *has* to go to one of these coaches to be coached well enough to suceed in the upper eschelons of the sport. This shift has happened since the last major doping scandals in swimming. I have the popcorn popping and will be fascinated to watch and see if the two sports are treated differently. If so, why???
One reason why team sports may not have as much doping is that there is a large amount of skill involved. Barry Bonds very well may have bulked up via steroids, tranforming himself into a power hitter, but he still had to hit Major League pitching.
Larry
You are right Dekker has an arrogant posture.
In a country like The Netherlands where “˜normal is more than crazy enough’ , he got a lot of criticism for that posture.
But we are talking his character here.
There weren’t any problems with the way Dekker was doing “˜his thing’ until last year’s TdF. Things changed, he changed with it, he stopped his working relationship with Cecchini.
In retrospect things got problematic after the Tour de Switzerland or after the blood test result became knowledge to the Rabo and Dekker.
Arrogant or not, I think Dekker has a point when he says: The UCI doesn’t treat the test result as being suspicious, they wrote me a letter saying there is nothing wrong with my bloodlevels (according to Dekker himself he is getting that letter) but by not selecting me for the TdF you (the rabo) treat me as if there is something wrong.
The Rabo denies to have left Dekker out of the TdF selection for other reasons than “˜out of condition/shape (I don’t know the right word)’, but I don’t buy that.
IF I am right then de Rabo left Dekker out of the TdF because they were afraid the test result might come out.
You could say that they were afraid Dekker might test positive, but I doubt that he would be that stupid. I hope for him.
Being the Rabo you do go a long way to protect your image.
And being so careful about the image the Biological passport is not just a good weapon against doping, but can also be a burden for the riders in a way it shouldn’t be.
I thought the purpose of the “Program” was to prevent a rider from starting a race where he might test positive, or having an out of competition AAF. Not necessarily to prevent doping (per se). The more Machiavellian and cynical of you out there can look at that for what it is: A simple statement of fact. Vaughters might have more pure motivations than that (he certainly sells it), but I don’t believe that to be the case with Riis or Johan. They joined the program because it’s good for business.
I think that Astana and Gusev must have had the “talk” because Johan is not known for throwing away talent without reason. He also would be fully aware of what this would look like from the outside (and the less craven side of me believes that Johan would not have ruined Gusev’s career just to get good PR). I believe that Gusev must have shown something more than just unusual values. He must have done something beyond stupid. I don’t know, maybe he was injecting a 50% concentrate of espresso diluted with walrus blood and elephant growth hormone. Whatever it was, I feel confident that this was not just a simple variation in obscure values.
I would also conclude that any team that runs the program would be reluctant to release the information – who knows how such information might be interpreted by a third set of eyes with an ax to grind. A team would then be subject to the same witch hunts that have caught up so many riders; A team could be accused of intentionally hiding a known doper (which they might actually be doing)
Michael,
I sure hope that Astana and Gusev had “the talk.” I also find it hard to believe that Bruyneel would toss someone overboard without considering all of the consequences first. You’re spot on about teams being reluctant to release the information. Witness the article in Bicycling with the headline “Vande Velde Is Clean.” Joe Lindsey makes it clear that Vaughters and company only release the info if they know a well-qualified interpreter of the data will be looking it over. Vaughters certainly wants to avoid just the scenario you describe, the way I understand things.