• 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!

Bo Belhage questions the efficacy of internal doping.

http://spn.dk/cykling/article1795749.ece

Bo Belhage (the former chief of the Bispebjerg anti-doping program that was run for Team Saxo Bank and Team Astana) has called for an end to the internal doping programs on the Cycling teams in an evaluation report for the UCI, referring to them as ultimately having been "a bad idea".



Bo Belhage also explains that he had several reasons why he terminated the Bispebjerg anti-doping program, among which the article brings up three:

One reason was that the program could not get insight into the anti-doping tests of Lance Armstrong.

Another reason was that he would not accept that Franck Schleck was not fired from Team Saxo Bank, when it was proven that he had been in transactions with Fuentes.

There also seems to have developed a significant problem with communication internally in the anti-doping program. In the last year, Damsgaard would sometimes act on his own, and Bispebjerg would then subsequently read about such actions through the media. For instance, Belhage was not made aware that the anti-doping program had started testing for CERA before he read about it in the newspapers (he repeats the story about the italian newspapers claiming that 4 Saxobank riders were suspected for CERA during last years Giro and Damsgaard's rather curious response to the situation). He says that the increasing lack of transparency was for him the biggest problem.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Digger said:
http://spn.dk/cykling/article1795749.ece

Bo Belhage (the former chief of the Bispebjerg anti-doping program that was run for Team Saxo Bank and Team Astana) has called for an end to the internal doping programs on the Cycling teams in an evaluation report for the UCI, referring to them as ultimately having been "a bad idea".



Bo Belhage also explains that he had several reasons why he terminated the Bispebjerg anti-doping program, among which the article brings up three:

One reason was that the program could not get insight into the anti-doping tests of Lance Armstrong.

Another reason was that he would not accept that Franck Schleck was not fired from Team Saxo Bank, when it was proven that he had been in transactions with Fuentes.

There also seems to have developed a significant problem with communication internally in the anti-doping program. In the last year, Damsgaard would sometimes act on his own, and Bispebjerg would then subsequently read about such actions through the media. For instance, Belhage was not made aware that the anti-doping program had started testing for CERA before he read about it in the newspapers (he repeats the story about the italian newspapers claiming that 4 Saxobank riders were suspected for CERA during last years Giro and Damsgaard's rather curious response to the situation). He says that the increasing lack of transparency was for him the biggest problem.

I don't blame the guy. Who would want to put their name on a dope testing program with the points he makes?

At some point the house of cards will fall (hopefully).
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
Visit site
The smoking gun is obvious.

What I can't stand in this situation is not the usual "They're all clean" laymen.

What I can't stand are the (very large number of) scandinavians who have no problem accusing anyone and everyone of doping but have blinders on when it comes to Riis and his team.

"Oh but Riis even came clean and said the truth"

yeah.....right....in a press conference where he lied about a small insignificant ego trip. I'm supposed to believe that even though we can prove that he lied about such a small thing, that he didn't lie in that same press conference about much bigger things that had real impact on his team's very existence? Take a hike

Apologies for the aimless rant :)
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
issoisso said:
The smoking gun is obvious.

What I can't stand in this situation is not the usual "They're all clean" laymen.

What I can't stand are the (very large number of) scandinavians who have no problem accusing anyone and everyone of doping but have blinders on when it comes to Riis and his team.

"Oh but Riis even came clean and said the truth"

yeah.....right....in a press conference where he lied about a small insignificant ego trip. I'm supposed to believe that even though we can prove that he lied about such a small thing, that he didn't lie in that same press conference about much bigger things that had real impact on his team's very existence? Take a hike

Apologies for the aimless rant :)

Your observations aren't so aimless. Didn't Senor Sixty wait until the statue of limitations were up for personal contract lawsuits before his revelation and newfound "honesty"? I'm with you on this.
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
Visit site
Oldman said:
Your observations aren't so aimless. Didn't Senor Sixty wait until the statue of limitations were up for personal contract lawsuits before his revelation and newfound "honesty"? I'm with you on this.

Yes. He admitted doping "until 1998". Which is very convenient, because If he had admitted to doping in 1999 he could still be sanctioned.
 
I'm with Scott.

I think about back in April I quipped that some teams anti-doping programs were likely used to insure that their riders didn't pee hot at controls, causing the teams embarrassment, plus a great deal of financial hardship. I was half-serious. Belhage has shown that even if it wasn't for that, it doesn't really matter anyway.

Another vote for Riis being out of cycling, along with Lefevre, the Hog, many more. That's one of the biggest problems, these ex-dopers and godfathers of the omerta running teams.
 
I always saw it, in the case of those with a "past" as a flying under the radar, exercise.
Don't forget the circumstances that surrounded their inception. i.e.OP and a raft of high profile cases/investigations.
Just another insurance policy for some of the teams adopting them. They have a nack for keeping (at least) one jump ahead of the testers
 
Jul 8, 2009
187
0
0
www.edwardgtalbot.com
Of course the internal programs are used for beating the tests. Can anyone seriously believe otherwise? I mean, probably some teams don't, but come on.

It's changed since 1984 when USOC and The Athletics Congress (now known as USA Track and Field) identified over 100 positives at the U.S. Olympic Track & field Trials and warned them to clean up before the Olympics. And that was basically just for steroids/testosterone. With WADA and USADA, at least some of the federations have removed themselves from testing, which they should not be involved in at the same time they serve as advocates for the athletes. But how could we possibly imagine that there aren't a whole lot of people involved in figuring out how to beat tests?