| Archive for justcycling.myfastforum.org Just Cycling |
| kathy |
Astana still getting favours from dopetestersJust found this on As.comhttp://www.as.com/ciclismo/articu...es/dasclm/20091005dasdascic_2/Tes Basically it says that Astana were pre-warned about dope tests during the Tour this year. Must go out now, but will expand later if anyone's interested. |
||||
| bianchigirl |
If anyone's interested? Definitely | ||||
| SlowRower |
Wouldn't a better story be about teams not getting tipped off? 
Given the low level of reported test failures, either the pro peleton is basically clean, the tests don't work, the top guys get tipped off to "prepare" for the tests or failures are suppressed. The first two options aren't particularly realistic in my view and of the last two, the former is much easier to arrange than the latter, one would think. |
||||
| bianchigirl |
The ONLY team getting tipped off was Astana - 45 minute delays before tests they knew they'd be taking, no escorts for their tests and the AFLD were given pre race whereabouts info for every team EXCEPT Astana?
No wonder Pat McTwat is so desperate to take their PT licence - far too many skeletons in that closet. BTW the report was leaked to Le Monde (the paper not Greg) http://tinyurl.com/UCIdisgrace |
||||
| SlowRower |
I'm sure it wasn't intended as a joke, but that comment made me laugh.
So if Astana was the only team getting tipped off, does this mean you think that the Schlecks are riding clean? There's clearly more than one way to skin a cat... |
||||
| bianchigirl |
Of course I don't think the Schlecks or any other GC rider is clean but what I do see is the UCI blatantly protecting its cash cow.
I want to know who didn't pass on the whereabouts info - if the UCI claim they never received it from Astana then why did they let such a breach of the rules stand? If the UCI didn't transmit the information in their possession then there are even bigger questions to be asked. |
||||
| Bartali |
Complete Joke. Any other sport amd McPrat would be out on his ear! | ||||
| kathy |
A few more snippets from this report. I read it very quickly this morning and hadn't twigged it came from Le Monde (Have you found it in French, BG?). I wonder why it wasn't on l'Equipe? 
On the evening prior to the 'surprise' tests in Barcelona, the testers were talking in loud voices in a restaurant about the riders to be tested the next morning. On 25th July, the testers couldn't even locate the Astana team members to test them. The information about the random tests at the end of each stage ie who was to be tested, was routinely given at least half an hour before the end of the stage, given 'Plenty of time for the samples to be manipulated'. The tests on stage winners and the random tests were often not done for more than an hour after the end of the stage. It's implied in the article that this sloppiness in testing is as a result of the tests being the responsibility of the UCI and not AFLD as was the case in 2008. |
||||
| Bartali |
I'm rapidly coming to the view that the sport I love has turned into a joke sport like professional wrestling. 
|
||||
| HuwB |
Nicked from elsewhere, as it's obviously the hot news story.
|
||||
| SlowRower |
This was the sort of thing that routinely happened whenever Pantani was scheduled for a test in the Giro (as per Rendell's book.) Apparently the person who phoned through the IDs of those to be randomly tested the next day was always hard of hearing, so it required the person in the hotel taking the call to shout very loud so that the caller could confirm the IDs. As luck would have it, Mercatone Uno people just happened to be in the hotel lobby when this happened... I am curious as to why the AFLD people didn't do something about the protocol violations in July rather than September. Surely they must have realised that it might be significant at the time. It's not like they were waiting for the B-sample test result to come through before going public. |
||||
| HuwB |
Hang on, but didn't the AFLD make public statements to this effect, during the Tour?
I also seem to recall them saying there would be a report, in the future, although, I may be wrong on this second bit. If I am right, this is the official follow up, to the July "incidents". In which case, 2 months is fairly rapid, when judged alongside the UCI's standards. It also coincides with the start of the 2008 re-tests, so, it makes sense. After all, it's one of the UCI's worst kept secrets. |
||||
| SlowRower |
With all due respect to AFLD, the threat of a report 2 months hence is not much of a weapon against organised doping. |
||||
| Superbagneres |
+1, next thing you know they will be stuffing the guys full of dope and making them race against huskies... |
||||
| Mrs John Murphy |
Interestingly it is also being picked up by Velonews.
The story appeared in Le Figaro as well as Le Monde. http://www.velonews.com/article/98906 |
||||
| bianchigirl |
Anne Gipper says they didn't do it:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/u...eatment-on-testing-towards-astana And this just in, mafia boss's wife says 'my husband is a legitimate businessman'. Who got to Ann Gipper? And does she not realise that this report is about far more than one issue (I assume she means the 11th July 45 minute delay)? Now where are Flandis and Boss Hog speaking out on the sloppiness of those UCI testers? Or is it only the French labs that are unprofessional. |
||||
| berck |
CN's version has this little juicy tidbit...
However, the UCI’s head of anti-doping services, Anne Gripper, insisted any problems over testing procedures had been dealt with during the Tour. “The UCI is confident that there was no preferential treatment given to any team during the Tour,” she told Cyclingnews. “It was an issue raised and dealt with while the Tour was happening. There's nothing further than we can say on this matter. We had discussions with the AFLD on what they think happened and we've told them what actually happened.” |
||||
| Enchantress |
Thankfully, that spectacle will still see the huskies winning
|
||||
| HuwB |
Furthermore, the UCI recalls that as a result of concerns previously expressed by the AFLD, it had already conducted an investigation on the treatment of the Astana team. This clearly showed that the Astana team had not been favoured in any way.
Furthermore, the UCI recalls that as a result of concerns previously expressed by the AFLD, it had already conducted an investigation on the treatment of the Astana team. This clearly showed that the Astana team had not been favoured in any way. http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/E...I5%2Flayout.asp%3FMenuID%3DMTYxNw An investigation so secretive, that no findings have been made public? So secret, that the media had no knowledge of it's existence until now? Smoke mirrors and the distinct smell of stale cheese. Pat blowinghard again. Does he really want the Tour to pull out of his calander again, in defence of Astana? Astana and Pat: He loves me.....he loves me not......he loves me.....he loves me not... Shack's licence announcement will probably follow shortly, as a result of this. |
||||
| bianchigirl |
what a disingenuous pile of steaming turds
Loved the bit about having a neutral partner - why's that Pat, because you're crew are so biased they need keeping honest. Wonder what the ASO will do? |
||||
| Hommedesbois |
Morning all!
I was under the (probably mistaken) impression that AFLD did not test the Tour because they were broke and the testing, if any, was done by UCI. Also, the Liestrong shower incident was a 'mandated tester' so how would anyone know which body had engaged the testers? Can AFLD test in Spain? I have been away for a while - I see I have missed some fun! |
||||
| HuwB |
It's all happening at the moment. Welcome back Mr Rhône Red! | ||||
| kathy |
There was a brief interview with Contador on Spanish TV today. He declined to comment on the Astana getting preferential treatment business, and said he was more interested in what the future holds for Astana and what he will be doing next year. | ||||
| berck |
Some interesting comments from a UCI oberserver link
However Britain's Barry Broadbent, a UCI doping inspector, says the AFLD claims are wide of the mark, adding that Astana was among the most scrutinized teams at the race. "If I were to make a report on the Tour de France, I would say they were the opposite," said Broadbent when asked what he thought of a damning report by the AFLD which criticized the UCI's anti-doping system at the race. "The AFLD were subjecting them to more controls at more inconvenient times than anyone else. To say that one team had privileges when clearly they were tested more than any other team seems quite ridiculous to me." So, if that was really the case, I could see where Astana would complain to the UCI to do something. The UCI ended up intervening to combat it, and the AFLD got mad. |
||||
| mr shifter |
I picked that point out too. We will tell you the Official Line for Public Use so don't Rock the Boat. |
||||
| bianchigirl |
"Oh please make the nasty AFLD testers go away nice Mr Pat - we want testers who let us take a shower and do our hair and who are happy to have a cup of coffee whilst we make ourselves pretty for them"
Christ on a bike, they're professional athletes who know that being tested goes with the territory. Fact is, UCI gave them a free pass because they didn't want Bertie Bassett or the Mobility Scooter Kid testing positive on the showpiece event - especially not when Verdruggen and Arsmtrong plan to buy it out and let Pat run the show and split all the nice TV rights. Bordry's beef is with the poor quality of the UCI testing, the lack of rigour, the poor conservation of samples and lack of chain of custody - very surprised we haven't heard Flandis and Armstrong be the first to pat him on the back for attacking poor standards. Oh, I forgot, they're the French Conspiracy that spiked all those samples, right? It's actually Verdry who has made the direct accusations about the Astana 5 star treatment. And what about the stuff in the bins - anticonvulsants for dealing with bi-polar disorder, anti hypertension drugs, insulin secreters - this didn't throw up a red flag to the UCI that things might be going on? |
||||
| Slapshot 3 |
That'll be this article then BG??
The French Agency for the fight against doping said Wednesday that incongruous products but not prohibited by the World Anti-Doping Code, had been found by police in the garbage of teams in the Tour de France. "These products are incongruous in an environment where people are theoretically healthy," said Michel Rieu, the scientific adviser of the AFLD, during a press conference Wednesday. "It seems anomalous that we found for antihypertensive agents. The objective is to ensure that the athlete's blood pressure does not rise. Why? " "Therefore, that sitagliptin, used by diabetics to produce insulin, or valpromide, an anticonvulsant used to treat the manic-depressive psychosis, would be included in this "therapeutic arsenal" amazing. "I reported to WADA as early as July," stressed the president of the AFLD, Pierre Bordry. The president of WADA, John Fahey, and scientific director of WADA, Olivier Rabin, interviewed in September by the AFP on the subject, denied having been informed. (With AFP) Tranlations down to my usual standard..... Bodry doesn't want to let go does he..good on him |
||||
| SlowRower |
That's something of a red-herring, though, I'd say. Your main thrust - with which I agree - is that the UCI know what's going on already and are actively suppressing the truth, so additional evidence of dodgy goings on isn't telling them anything they don't know already. There's also the point that the classification of medical treatments and products is somewhat arbitrary and not necessarily complete (i.e. some things that enhance performance might not be on the list simply because no-one has got round to developing a test and putting them on!) If they're on the list, then their use is an offence. If not, then it isn't, however much it might imply or suggest activities that are offences. |
||||
| bianchigirl |
But the UCI should be targeting their testing based on those red flags - and they aren't. Add this to the lack of rigour in the testing procedures and you have some very serious questions the UCI aren't answering by trying to sidestep them through throwing all the emphasis on whether poor Lancey Poos was unfairly tested.
As for Mr Broadbent - wonder what Astana put in their coffee? And how funny that someone who is taking a paycheck from the UCI should be trotted out to supoort, um, the UCI |
||||
| Enchantress |
Sounds a lot like those much vaunted 'anti-doping' experts the pro teams like to have. Seeing as they invariably get their paychecks from the team and then are, to use your expression, trotted out to support the anti-doping practices of the team. It makes no sense really. The skeptics and investigators cannot be on the payrolls of the suspects and then given any credibility... |
||||