• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

22 Tests

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Berzin said:
The tests aren't always administered the way we think.

Case in point-when Roberto Heras got busted at the Vuelta, he made a big deal about testing positive so near the end of the race, when he had the victory already in the bag.

Part of his defense was how he had been tested as race leader a few times before and nothing ever came up. So why would he dope so close to the end of the race when he was assured of the overall victory?

We later find out that (and please remember the Vuelta is one of the three grand tours on the racing calendar) that none of the previous samples were ever tested. They were just collected. When those previous samples were tested after the first positive, they also came up for EPO. He had been riding dirty the whole time.

The excuse why the previous samples were never tested boiled down to the costs of each individual test. Meanwhile, Heras was riding those days thinking he had passed those tests and was basically home free.

The moral of this story? There is a big difference between what we are told and what actually occurs.

My informations tells me the labs got so tired of A samples being washed away with a TUE or a borderline result by the UCI the labs started leaking the A sample. Hence Floyds positive A sample was leaked. They had to. There's no way the UCI would have allowed the TDF champion to test positive. Not after Puerto.
 
Jul 2, 2009
1,079
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
Wasn't 500 tests thrown about at one point?


Wordsmen get the Mens Journal on the line and get this in the print run for September 10th. There good info in this.

500

the number sylvia used in thousands toward UCI donation
armstrong used it, well cause it's a damn big number
 
Jun 13, 2010
263
0
0
Visit site
Berzin said:
The tests aren't always administered the way we think.

Case in point-when Roberto Heras got busted at the Vuelta, he made a big deal about testing positive so near the end of the race, when he had the victory already in the bag.

Part of his defense was how he had been tested as race leader a few times before and nothing ever came up. So why would he dope so close to the end of the race when he was assured of the overall victory?

We later find out that (and please remember the Vuelta is one of the three grand tours on the racing calendar) that none of the previous samples were ever tested. They were just collected. When those previous samples were tested after the first positive, they also came up for EPO. He had been riding dirty the whole time.

The excuse why the previous samples were never tested boiled down to the costs of each individual test. Meanwhile, Heras was riding those days thinking he had passed those tests and was basically home free.

The moral of this story? There is a big difference between what we are told and what actually occurs.

Berzin,

My trip to the WADA sight did not bare much fruit, certainly not like at USADA.

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/Resources/Global-Statistics/testing-statistics/

First, they only post results that go back 2 years.

Second, it looks like all they do is take the data given to them by the UCI – I was under the impression that they did their own testing; someone needs to confirm this – and they do not report it by named individual like USADA does; they just report the total numbers, both in and out of control.

I suppose someone could email them to see if they would release LA's number of tests by year; not likely IMO. But the total number of tests for all cyclists in 2009/2008 does not seem that high, at least to me, and especially given the cesspool pro cycling has become.

This leaves the TDF (ASO) – unless I have overlooked another “governing body”/organization (?) – and my guess, without even looking, is that those numbers will be even harder to extract. I drew goose eggs on their sites.

So what we have at this juncture, and in all fairness to LA, is the 22 confirmed tests performed by USADA from 2001-2010 shown on their web site, and the 63 UCI data points reported by myra above as published by L'Equipe in 2005 – a "known" French tabloid/bird cage liner of a sports rag (I believe that is what the LA camp called it in some fashion or another) – so those number must be looked at with a jaundice eye and assumed to be all BS. Of course, most people in the know would say that L'Equipe is a highly regarded sports publication on par with SI in the states, but that is another story.

Even if we double those numbers (22 + 63 x 2 = 170) to take into account ASO (very generous in my opinion) we are still left with a number well below the numbers reported by the LA camp (300, 400, 500 . . . or was it $25,000, $100,000, $500,000?). In fact, if we just look at the USADA numbers – there are any number of athletes – cyclists and others – who have been tested significantly more than LA in the period from 2001 – 2010.

Perhaps one of the paid trolls from PS that frequent The Clinic – or a pure fan boy/girl wearing rose colored glasses that still believes in the tooth fairy – would be happy to enlighten us about the numbers posted here thus far.

The hunt continues.
 
thehog said:
My informations tells me the labs got so tired of A samples being washed away with a TUE or a borderline result by the UCI the labs started leaking the A sample. Hence Floyds positive A sample was leaked. They had to. There's no way the UCI would have allowed the TDF champion to test positive. Not after Puerto.

At the time the UCI was involved in a power struggle with the ASO. It served their agenda to have the Tour embarrassed. The following year the UCI stood by and allowed Rasmussen to start the race; the ASO was convinced that the UCI had done it deliberately to damage the Tour, so they stopped working with the UCI the following year. The ASO was convinced that the UCI would intentionally harm the TdF. Who is to say it did not start with Landis?
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
Visit site
When Armstrong posted his 2009 test values for the Giro and Tour de France (the ones Dr. Morkeberg looked at) does anyone recall how many there were?

I imagine his twitter would also offer up some counts for the past two years, but I blocked him when he did his media boycott at that Giro, and he blocked me some time this summer (even though I never used his twitter address for anything - it may have been when I talked smack in a comment at Versus). I know I could view it anyway, but I'd have to shower afterward.
 
Jul 2, 2009
1,079
0
0
Visit site
theswordsman said:
I imagine his twitter would also offer up some counts for the past two years,

His twitter account. believable. :D

is he the one writing it :eek: ?

He is the most tested athlete in the Universe, that's what i have read, been told, and has been written upon a stone tablet

images
 
Jun 13, 2010
263
0
0
Visit site
theswordsman said:
Found it - 33 tests from him announcing the come back August 2008 to the end of the 2009 Tour, including 4 for the USADA and 2 that USADA did at request of UCI.

http://cdn-community2.livestrong.co...c981f7be-e46c-4245-aa9d-d61ae110a264.Full.jpg

theswordsman,

Nice work!

Do you have the rest of LA's 2009 numbers? Just cross checking with USADA to confirm. In 2008, they show 3 tests. Your table shows 5 total but two of those were clearly requested by the UCI, so I assume USADA does not count those as theirs. So 2008 seems to jive. In 2009 USADA shows 6 tests, but your table stops at 07.25.09. with only 1 test shown?

I also noted now for the first time that some athletes - I assume those with nothing to hide - have an * next to their names. "*Athletes who voluntarily participated in USADA’s 2008 pilot testing program, which included increased testing." Guess who does not have an * next to their name?
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Visit site
sartain said:
I went to the USADA site having never been there before and low and behold, you can actually look up any athlete’s testing data by year. So I looked up LA and from 2001-2010 he was tested a whopping 22 times in total. I then looked up so some of the other Postal boys and here are their numbers: GH = 38; DZ = 31; CV = 28; TH = 21. Kristin Armstrong, BTW, has been tested 66 times in that time span!

Let’s assume that the other entities (UCI, WADA, TDF) have done similar amounts of testing and then just for fun and to be good sports about it we double that number, so we have 22 x 3 x 2 = 132 tests. This is a long way from 300 tests and even further away for 500 tests. So much for the BS spin by the scum-balls at PS about the most tested athlete in history. Perhaps one of the other members of The Clinic can mine the rest of the data – if it is available – from the other bodies so we can but to rest once and for all this nonsense about who much LA has been tested.

Source:
http://www.usada.org/what-we-do/testing-statistics/athlete-test-history.aspx

WADA does not perform any testing. They set the rules and act as the governing organization for the labs - and are supposed to observe that the individual sports federations (such as UCI) do a proper job within their dicipline. Olympics has their own testing since it covers all sports.

Most countries also have their own national anti-doping organizations - e.g. USADA in the US, CONI in Italy and AFLD in France. These exist on paper also in eastern Europe and developed world, but perform next to no function due to funding issues or not wanting to catch their own athletes dope. Russia has been in the news as one such prime example - many track & field, biathlon, cross-country skiing cases, caught by the respective international sports federations over the last couple of years.

This is where the system breaks down, especially for an international sport such as cycling where athletes spend major blocks of time away from home. USADA can only perform tests on its own soil. UCI focuses on testing at its sactioned events - rarely they send testers on a plane anywhere (Kaschekin of KAZ was an exception). National anti-doping organizations typically only test athletes from their own countries since they don't necessarily have whereabouts information about foreign athletes training on their soil. As we know, UCI has not been the leader of sharing the athletes' training locations.

So no doubt Armstrong was fully aware of the limitations of the testers and their jurisdictions - and used this fact to his advantage. This would also explain the small # of actual tests.
 
Jun 13, 2010
263
0
0
Visit site
Tubeless said:
WADA does not perform any testing. They set the rules and act as the governing organization for the labs — and are supposed to observe that the individual sports federations (such as UCI) do a proper job withing their dicipline. Olympics has their own testing since it covers all sports.

Most countries also have their own national anti-doping organizations - e.g. USADA in the US, CONI in Italy and AFLD in France. These exist on paper also in eastern Europe and developed world, but perform next to no function due to funding issues or not wanting to catch their own athletes dope. Russia has been in the news as one such prime example - many track & field, biathlon, cross-country skiing cases, caught by the respective international sports federations over the last couple of years.

This is where the system breaks down, especially for an international sport such as cycling where athletes spend major blocks of time away from home. USADA can only perform tests on its own soil. UCI focuses on testing at its sactioned events - rarely they send testers on a plane anywhere (Kaschekin of KAZ was an exception). National anti-doping organizations typically only test athletes from their own countries since they don't necessarily have whereabouts information about foreign athletes training on their soil. As we know, UCI has not been the leader of sharing the athletes' training locations.

So no doubt Armstrong was fully aware of the limitations of the testers and their jurisdictions - and used this fact to his advantage. This would also explain the small # of actual tests.


Thanks for the recap. After looking more on the WADA site I realized that they are really the "gate keeper" and do no testing of their own. So we are down to three bodies now: USADA, UCI and TDF (ASO). I suspect the actually number, if we can ever know for sure, will be more like 100, if that.
 
At the risk of being jeered off the boards...

If any athlete has been tested even once a month for their entire career - that's a lot of tests. Most elite athletes might get tested 3 or 4 times a year - if you win or podium you get tested more - 60+ tests is a lot of tests.

If the tests work and that's a big if - Armstrong was tested more than enough to be considered 'technically clean' in the eyes of the authorities. I don't believe in the conspiracy theories about labs, testers and so on. It's obvious to me that the people who dope and don't get caught use more sophisticated chemistry and doping protocol than the testers can reasonably identify. They are always at least one step ahead and genearlly are either stupid or unlucky if they get caught.
 
Jul 2, 2009
1,079
0
0
Visit site
Former German cycling president blasts UCI’s handling of Armstrong case

By VeloNews.com • Published: Sep 15th 2005 1:00 AM EDT


http://velonews.competitor.com/2005...t-blasts-ucis-handling-of-armstrong-case_8889

http://www.google.com/search?q=sylv...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

There is obviously a strong relationship with Armstrong,” Schenk added. “The UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong – to my knowledge 500,000 dollars – and now there is speculation that there are financial connections to Armstrong, as well as the American market. I do not know what sort of connections Verbruggen has.”




RULES BENT FOR TEXAN CYCLING CYCLING Lance Armstrong has not sat on
Sunday Herald, The, Oct 12, 2008 by Jeremy Whittle

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20081012/ai_n30900387/

Towards the end of his career, Armstrong made a donation to the UCI coffers, believed to be in the region of dollars500,000, claiming that it was to "combat doping". But former UCI committee member Sylvia Schenk said that it was "not clear what it was used for. It seemed to be a secret". A UCI spokesperson was yesterday unavailable for comment.

That cosy relationship appears to have been resumed and the decision to waive the six-month rule in Armstrong's favour has been widely condemned.

"It's started again, Armstrong has the UCI under his thumb, " a team manager was quoted as saying.

"We're back where we were before Lance retired, " one former French professional said yesterday. "It's as if all the scandals - Operacion Puerto, Floyd Landis, Riccardo Ricco - never happened."

:D sylvia dropped the bomb in 2005, but no one heard it, amongst the trees in the forest

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/riders/2005/interviews/?id=sylvia_schenk05a
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/riders/2005/interviews/?id=sylvia_schenk05b
 
Jun 13, 2010
263
0
0
Visit site
180mmCrank said:
At the risk of being jeered off the boards...

If any athlete has been tested even once a month for their entire career - that's a lot of tests. Most elite athletes might get tested 3 or 4 times a year - if you win or podium you get tested more - 60+ tests is a lot of tests.

If the tests work and that's a big if - Armstrong was tested more than enough to be considered 'technically clean' in the eyes of the authorities. I don't believe in the conspiracy theories about labs, testers and so on. It's obvious to me that the people who dope and don't get caught use more sophisticated chemistry and doping protocol than the testers can reasonably identify. They are always at least one step ahead and genearlly are either stupid or unlucky if they get caught.

I am certainly not going to jeer you from this board. I welcome ALL posts, especially those from LA's fan club, which you do not strike me as being a CCM of.

My point in this thread was not that LA had not been tested (a fair amount), especially when compared to some water carrier, but that anything flowing from his mouth or his camp of highly paid "advisors," should be taken with a grain of salt until proven/dis-proven otherwise.

Right now we are struggling to show 100 confirmed tests. Which is a long way from 300 or 500 tests, and more than likely making him NOT the most tested athlete in history?
 
You have to be seriously mentally twisted to come out with "I'm the most tested athlete in the world" thinking that no one is ever going to try to verify this comment.

I'm actually surprised no one has bothered to do this before.

Kudos to Sartain for his efforts.
 
About USADA, I was already planning to ask and this thread quite convenient.

The official line is USADA have been targetting Lance, right, and for quite some time already? I don't have a link ready to support that memory.
Why does that not really show from their testing count then? Does Lance have them on a leash also?
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
Visit site
skidmark said:
okay, so that's not many tests. but as far as the TdF goes, wouldn't he have been tested after every stage he won? I think that's the way it works. That means either very few tests outside of the stages that he won, or just infrequent testing.

"82 days in Yellow - 82 days of pure glory" was just a small hint to add.
Of course you can ignore that and it obviously is ignored.
Common practice. :D
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
Visit site
sartain said:
Thanks for the recap. After looking more on the WADA site I realized that they are really the "gate keeper" and do no testing of their own. So we are down to three bodies now: USADA, UCI and TDF (ASO). I suspect the actually number, if we can ever know for sure, will be more like 100, if that.

Wouldn't you also add AFLD to the list?
 
Berzin said:
You have to be seriously mentally twisted to come out with "I'm the most tested athlete in the world" thinking that no one is ever going to try to verify this comment.

I'm actually surprised no one has bothered to do this before.

Kudos to Sartain for his efforts.

Ironic in the sense that Armstrong would question the journalistic integrity of many publication but would be happy to propagate baloney of this nature in the press.

Although a sad reflection on the press which never researched such detail and took it on face value. I've often seen the following printed in articles: "Armstrong who is the most tested athlete in sport denies the accusations from Landis".
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
Visit site
This doesn't answer the question of how many times he was tested ever, but I'm posting it just because it's so funny. The journalist whines about the testing. Get's a "yeah you're right comment," then gets a lengthy and detailed post about why the tests may be justified, to which the "journalist" replies: "That's very discouraging to read." Investigative reporting at its finest.

Edit: I take back even referring to him as a "journalist" with the quotation marks. He's an actor wanna-be.



http://www.deepintosports.com/2009/03/18/french-drug-test-lance-armstrong-hair/
 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
Visit site
regular AFLD testing are part of WADA or UCI tests, so already counted!

Lance was only one times tested by French laws : that was when he decided to have a shower before the test!
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
sartain said:
Yes, I had not considered them. I went to their site, it's all in French, so no luck on my end in trying to find anything.

Another piece to include would be tests before 99.
There are probably only a few tests in 98 - as he did not compete too often. But pre cancer (Oct 96) he would have been tested. These would be mainly for wins though - as there was little (if any)out of competition testing.

Also - I have a list of all the times LA tweeted his tests. No idea where I wrote it though, but will dig around later. (IIRC it was only 30ish)
 
Jun 13, 2010
263
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Another piece to include would be tests before 99.
There are probably only a few tests in 98 - as he did not compete too often. But pre cancer (Oct 96) he would have been tested. These would be mainly for wins though - as there was little (if any)out of competition testing.

Also - I have a list of all the times LA tweeted his tests. No idea where I wrote it though, but will dig around later. (IIRC it was only 30ish)



Good point! Those numbers need to be considered as well just to be fair to LA; likely hard to obtain at this point though.
 
Jul 29, 2010
431
0
0
Visit site
poupou said:
Lance was only one times tested by French laws : that was when he decided to have a shower before the test!

Yes, that was also when the bad Frenchies cut his hair, and did such a bad job of it that Lance had to go out immediately and get a "crew cut".

BS artist, to the extreme. :rolleyes:
 

TRENDING THREADS