Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 11-23-12, 22:39
questions questions is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9
Default

OK, I've got a question that I think needs to be answered but no-one seems to be asking, and it sure as hell indicates to me that there has been corruption in Australian cycling for a long time.

Festina Affair: Neil Stephens.

Taken from the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festina_affair

Quote:
Neil Stephens, a Festina rider at the Tour, admits taking performance enhancing drugs but claims that he thought the EPO injections were vitamin C and E supplements.
Quote:
November 28, 1998: The results of the analysis of the samples taken from the nine Festina riders are known and are subsequently released and revealed evidence of Human Growth Hormone, amphetamines, steroids, corticoids and Erythropoietin (EPO). In eight of the nine riders test positive for synthetic EPO. The results of the ninth rider (Christophe Moreau) were indeterminate but Moreau had already admitted use of EPO. Traces of amphetamines were found in the samples of Moreau, Pascal Hervé, Laurent Brochard and Didier Rous. Four riders had hematocrit levels below the legal limit of 50%, establish in February 1997 [32]. These included Virenque, Armin Meier, Moreau who had a level of 49.3 and Laurent Dufaux who had a level of 47.2%. Five riders were above the limit. Brochard had 50.3%, Neil Stephens 50.3%, Hervé 52.6%, Rous 51% and Alex Zülle 52.3%.
(I wasn't aware that a doping test existed for EPO in 1998, so this could be an error in the WIKI, or maybe it did, but it just wasn't approved yet?).

More information: http://inrng.com/2010/07/the-curse-of-stevo/

There is plently more info on the net... just google it.

This all occured in July of 1998... but... only two months later, with no sanction (and no investigation as far as I know), not only do the Australian officials turn a blind eye to the overwelming evidence, they go and select Neil Stephens to represent Australia in the Commonweath Games in September of 1998!

http://www.gettyimages.es/detail/fot...ticias/1277406

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/resul...8/cgmenrr.html

Many times over the following years he has held many official positions within Cycling Australia and other teams, while people like Mathew White and Steven Hodge get banished from the sport, this guy will gets off? And take into account that Neil Stephens was actually caught red handed, and White and Hodge admited to it before they had to resign.

Who in Cycling Australia approved the selection of Neil Stephens for the Commonweath Games of 1998 just two months after the Festina Affair while there was an official investigation taking place in other countries? Why was Neil Stephens not punished after admitting to using EPO and other drugs? Are these people still in positions of power? Why has nothing been said about this? Can anyone take EPO and after getting caught just say they thought it was vitamins and get off? Or is this an indication of corruption in Australian cycling?

Last edited by questions; 11-23-12 at 22:41.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-23-12, 22:53
blackcat's Avatar
blackcat blackcat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,592
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by questions View Post
OK, I've got a question that I think needs to be answered but no-one seems to be asking, and it sure as hell indicates to me that there has been corruption in Australian cycling for a long time.

Festina Affair: Neil Stephens.

Taken from the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festina_affair



(I wasn't aware that a doping test existed for EPO in 1998, so this could be an error in the WIKI, or maybe it did, but it just wasn't approved yet?).

More information: http://inrng.com/2010/07/the-curse-of-stevo/

There is plently more info on the net... just google it.

This all occured in July of 1998... but... only two months later, with no sanction (and no investigation as far as I know), not only do the Australian officials turn a blind eye to the overwelming evidence, they go and select Neil Stephens to represent Australia in the Commonweath Games in September of 1998!

http://www.gettyimages.es/detail/fotograf%C3%ADa-de-noticias/neil-stephens-of-australia-and-festina-leads-fotograf%C3%ADa-de-noticias/1277406

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/resul...8/cgmenrr.html

Many times over the following years he has held many official positions within Cycling Australia and other teams, while people like Mathew White and Steven Hodge get banished from the sport, this guy will gets off? And take into account that Neil Stephens was actually caught red handed, and White and Hodge admited to it before they had to resign.

Who in Cycling Australia approved the selection of Neil Stephens for the Commonweath Games of 1998 just two months after the Festina Affair while there was an official investigation taking place in other countries? Why was Neil Stephens not punished after admitting to using EPO and other drugs? Are these people still in positions of power? Why has nothing been said about this? Can anyone take EPO and after getting caught just say they thought it was vitamins and get off? Or is this an indication of corruption in Australian cycling?
"Cowboy" Neil Stephens looks great in a ten gallon and shirtless with chesthair. Call him perhaps on youtube. very sexy.
__________________
I just hope that rather than hate, judge, or feel cheated, that our community will choose to do the same - to move forward without forgetting and to ride, not for greed or fame, but for the unbridled joy and love that the simple act of cycling brings us.
that bombastic tosh is courtesy of Allen Lim
Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family.
Renton Trainspotting.
Choose Life
t-shirts George Michael before busted by the bobbies trawling Hyde Park for glory holes.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-24-12, 00:51
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 3,997
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by questions View Post
Who in Cycling Australia approved the selection of Neil Stephens for the Commonweath Games of 1998 just two months after the Festina Affair while there was an official investigation taking place in other countries? Why was Neil Stephens not punished after admitting to using EPO and other drugs? Are these people still in positions of power? Why has nothing been said about this? Can anyone take EPO and after getting caught just say they thought it was vitamins and get off? Or is this an indication of corruption in Australian cycling?
AIS scientists published a paper around that period (March, 1997) which said:
1. 50% Hct rule is unfair
2. Aussies in Europe are training and racing in "clean environments" therefore their > 50% Hct values (2.8% of them) are natural therefore the rule is unfair
3. 25% of Aussie body builders had Hct > 50% therefore the rule is unfair (I have since learnt that testosterone triggers RBC increase)
4. 0.3% of netballers had a Hct > 50% (surprise surprise)
5. FIS implemented 18g/dL (54% Hct) and that should be the cutoff, not 50%

Of the people publishing that paper, 2 are still senior physiologists at AIS, 1 is the anti-doping hero of the world and one is on the UCI anti-doping panel and conducts exchanges online with Michele Ferrari.
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-24-12, 13:51
questions questions is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
AIS scientists published a paper around that period (March, 1997) which said:
1. 50% Hct rule is unfair
2. Aussies in Europe are training and racing in "clean environments" therefore their > 50% Hct values (2.8% of them) are natural therefore the rule is unfair
3. 25% of Aussie body builders had Hct > 50% therefore the rule is unfair (I have since learnt that testosterone triggers RBC increase)
4. 0.3% of netballers had a Hct > 50% (surprise surprise)
5. FIS implemented 18g/dL (54% Hct) and that should be the cutoff, not 50%

Of the people publishing that paper, 2 are still senior physiologists at AIS, 1 is the anti-doping hero of the world and one is on the UCI anti-doping panel and conducts exchanges online with Michele Ferrari.
From what I have been let to believe, natural Hct level has a direct relationship with genetics, so if his Hct was over 50% then, it should be close now, right? Test it now.

But anyway, the fact that he admitted to EPO use, then said he thought they were vitamins shouldn't have been good enough for him to get off scot-free... and, the fact that the French were holding an investigation should have been enough for him to have been overlooked in the selection process for the Commonweath Games at least. And, also the fact that there wasn't an investigation done, and the fact that he has continued to work on and off with Cycling Australia is enough for me to think there is corruption. I really hope the ASADA look into this, if they weren't complicit, of course.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-24-12, 14:55
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 3,997
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by questions View Post
From what I have been let to believe, natural Hct level has a direct relationship with genetics, so if his Hct was over 50% then, it should be close now, right? Test it now.

But anyway, the fact that he admitted to EPO use, then said he thought they were vitamins shouldn't have been good enough for him to get off scot-free... and, the fact that the French were holding an investigation should have been enough for him to have been overlooked in the selection process for the Commonweath Games at least. And, also the fact that there wasn't an investigation done, and the fact that he has continued to work on and off with Cycling Australia is enough for me to think there is corruption. I really hope the ASADA look into this, if they weren't complicit, of course.
I think it starts with ASC - as someone else mentioned. There's a 4 Corners story of someone's experience with the ASC investigation around a delivery of drugs and the absolute farce that resulted.

At the AIS level:

Medals = funding = your pay.
No medals = no funding = your job loss.

For any sport.

My problem with the AIS released paper is more along the lines of Liberty Seguros' posts discussing Brailsford's hiring of ex-dopers despite Sky's ZTP where there are 2 options:
1. the person making the claim is unintelligent
2. the person making the claim is being willfully misleading

For the top AIS scientists, 2 of which are cited as world anti-doping experts now, to get it so completely wrong wrt bodybuilders having high Hcts (for example) naturally or for cyclists to be in a clean environment and therefore naturally over 50% Hct attributes such low intelligence or experience with PEDs and athletes as to be troubling. This is 1997, EPO is already in use in the peloton, cyclists have died from using too much of it, and the 1998 Festina affair is only a year away.
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog

Last edited by Dear Wiggo; 11-24-12 at 14:58.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-24-12, 15:35
questions questions is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
I think it starts with ASC - as someone else mentioned. There's a 4 Corners story of someone's experience with the ASC investigation around a delivery of drugs and the absolute farce that resulted.

At the AIS level:

Medals = funding = your pay.
No medals = no funding = your job loss.

For any sport.

My problem with the AIS released paper is more along the lines of Liberty Seguros' posts discussing Brailsford's hiring of ex-dopers despite Sky's ZTP where there are 2 options:
1. the person making the claim is unintelligent
2. the person making the claim is being willfully misleading

For the top AIS scientists, 2 of which are cited as world anti-doping experts now, to get it so completely wrong wrt bodybuilders having high Hcts (for example) naturally or for cyclists to be in a clean environment and therefore naturally over 50% Hct attributes such low intelligence or experience with PEDs and athletes as to be troubling. This is 1997, EPO is already in use in the peloton, cyclists have died from using too much of it, and the 1998 Festina affair is only a year away.
We are talking about two completely different things. My questions are:

1. - Who's decision was it to select Neil Stephens to represent Australia in the Commonwealth Games just 2 months after the Festina affair where the guy admited to having used EPO and other drugs, then retracted saying he thought there were vitamins?
2. - How could they justify selecting him while there was an ongoing investigation (where everyone else was proved to be guilty)?
3. - Why was he never investigated/punished?

Last edited by questions; 11-24-12 at 18:56.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-24-12, 20:43
fatsprintking's Avatar
fatsprintking fatsprintking is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by questions View Post
We are talking about two completely different things. My questions are:

1. - Who's decision was it to select Neil Stephens to represent Australia in the Commonwealth Games just 2 months after the Festina affair where the guy admited to having used EPO and other drugs, then retracted saying he thought there were vitamins?
2. - How could they justify selecting him while there was an ongoing investigation (where everyone else was proved to be guilty)?
3. - Why was he never investigated/punished?
Its not going to really matter is it? We already know that the more digging you do here, the more you are going to come up with a long list of both d---eads, and dodgey **** that implicates pretty much anyone that you know of that has been involved in the sport for the last 30 years.

People were either actively involved in what went on, knew but did nothing and are complicit and enablers, or they were really dumb and easily manipulated. Either way they are not the people to move the sport forward.

The general publics lack of understanding that anyone that they want to hear from has skin in the game in the wrong way means that all we are going to get is more f----g Pat Jonker, Phil Anderson and "voice of cycling" guff that treats us like idiots.

What I want to hear is from the people who had great talent but left the sport because they could see the play - people with real talent who hit the brick wall once they got to national representation level and called it a day rather than play the game. We have two of em in my town. I would love to hear their story, cause they ar ethe ones that have been f---d over by the sport and who were let down by cycling administration in Australia.

You dont have to be Einstein to work out who won the national championships and represented at a junior level but then got overtaken buy people that they had beaten for their whole junior careers when they got to Europe to work out the start of the list.

Talk to those people and ask them who suggested what when they were 19. That would be interesting reading. There would be a few blokes in Adelaide who would be pretty jumpy if they took that approach I reckon.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-24-12, 23:02
DirtyWorks's Avatar
DirtyWorks DirtyWorks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatsprintking View Post
Its not going to really matter is it? We already know that the more digging you do here, the more you are going to come up with a long list of both d---eads, and dodgey **** that implicates pretty much anyone that you know of that has been involved in the sport for the last 30 years.
And how many would lose their jobs? Maybe one token loser. This is the disgusting beauty of the IOC system. Mostly invisible scumbags running the development system who are perfectly willing to bribe or dope to meet a goal. The nation has put tax dollars to the system too if I'm not mistaken!

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatsprintking View Post
People were either actively involved in what went on, knew but did nothing and are complicit and enablers
The know-nothings were kicked out. They won't do what needs to be done at any cost. Another common feature of the IOC system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatsprintking View Post
The general publics lack of understanding that anyone that they want to hear from has skin in the game in the wrong way means that all we are going to get is more f----g Pat Jonker, Phil Anderson and "voice of cycling" guff that treats us like idiots..
The goal is to monetize cycling and skim off the top of the revenue for personal gain. Fans and the appearance of a legitimate sport are secondary.
__________________
Bikeage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLLBNcrIEZ4
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-24-12, 23:57
questions questions is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatsprintking View Post
Its not going to really matter is it? We already know that the more digging you do here, the more you are going to come up with a long list of both d---eads, and dodgey **** that implicates pretty much anyone that you know of that has been involved in the sport for the last 30 years.

People were either actively involved in what went on, knew but did nothing and are complicit and enablers, or they were really dumb and easily manipulated. Either way they are not the people to move the sport forward.

The general publics lack of understanding that anyone that they want to hear from has skin in the game in the wrong way means that all we are going to get is more f----g Pat Jonker, Phil Anderson and "voice of cycling" guff that treats us like idiots.

What I want to hear is from the people who had great talent but left the sport because they could see the play - people with real talent who hit the brick wall once they got to national representation level and called it a day rather than play the game. We have two of em in my town. I would love to hear their story, cause they ar ethe ones that have been f---d over by the sport and who were let down by cycling administration in Australia.

You dont have to be Einstein to work out who won the national championships and represented at a junior level but then got overtaken buy people that they had beaten for their whole junior careers when they got to Europe to work out the start of the list.

Talk to those people and ask them who suggested what when they were 19. That would be interesting reading. There would be a few blokes in Adelaide who would be pretty jumpy if they took that approach I reckon.
What do you mean its not going to matter? Of course it matters. It matters that the people that selected Neil Stephens for the national team just 2 months after the Festina affair have NO interest in a clean sport. These people are probably still in cycling and making the decisions that have brought us to where we are today. These people MUST go. It has nothing to do with punishing Neil Stephens, as he is just a victim of an era, but with the corrupt officials in the Australian system.

ASADA please investigate this also.

When I heard that he had been selected, I knew there was no hope. Australian cycling was corrupt to its core. I quit the sport, never to race my bike again. And I, like the two guys in your town, was state and national road champion as a junior. So yeah, you could say that I was ****ed over.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-25-12, 00:05
peterst6906 peterst6906 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 667
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by questions View Post
1. - Who's decision was it to select Neil Stephens to represent Australia in the Commonwealth Games just 2 months after the Festina affair where the guy admited to having used EPO and other drugs, then retracted saying he thought there were vitamins?
That would have been the National Selection (Road) Committee, but who was on that in 1998 I don't know (or don't remember if I ever did back then).

In hindsight, these types of selections look very questionable, but I think it's more a case that the committee acted in accordance with the 1998 selection policy and criteria, which was based around performance and teamwork aspects only. Not so much a case of corruption/incompetence by the selectors, but gaps in what we as fans/interested outsiders would like to have.

As long as a rider was not officially sanctioned, they were open for selection under the criteria previously published and if a rider felt they were left out of the squad unfairly, then they could have challenged the selection process in court.

Unfortunately, there was nothing (and still isn't that I am aware of, but will need to go and look) related to ethics, morals and/or riders under investigation as being reasons to exclude. Without an official sanction, there was no basis to exclude a rider from consideration.

Quote:
2. - How could they justify selecting him while there was an ongoing investigation (where everyone else was proved to be guilty)?
Same as previous point. The documented and published selection criteria didn't cover that type of issue. Official sanctions were the criteria to exclude a rider.

Hopefully that changes and with the AOC moving towards requiring statutory declarations from athletes before being considered for selection, this situation hopefully won't occur again in the future.

Quote:
3. - Why was he never investigated/punished?
He was, just not in Australia. That's a questionable thing on the outside and probably worth asking that of the ASADA investigation as a cycling fan (after all, they've asked for information from anyone with relevant details and that is the sort of question that is relevant, even if 14 years is a long time ago).
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:42.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.