Bordry's comments re doping tests at TdF

[python]

i have it on several reliable sources that the test window by wada's rules can start at 6 am, not 7 am. the last year's incidence when the testers showed up at 6 am and were offered coffee whilst armstrong bitched about 6 am being too early is, to put it mildly, bs.

 

[Kennf1]

Or, if they are microdosing, to adjust their time frame to allow for clearing prior to the 7:00 test window.

Which, according to Thomas Frei, means the complicated and highly technical task of drinking a big glass of water before you go to bed.

 

[MacRoadie]

Which, according to Thomas Frei, means the complicated and highly technical task of drinking a big glass of water before you go to bed.

True. Followed by an appropriate amount of time: somewhere between the length of a shower and a good night's sleep...

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

i have it on several reliable sources that the test window by wada's rules can start at 6 am, not 7 am. the last year's incidence when the testers showed up at 6 am and were offered coffee whilst armstrong bitched about 6 am being too early is, to put it mildly, bs.

The requirement for top-level athletes included in the registered testing pool of either their IF or NADO to specify 1 hour each day (between 6 a.m. and 11 p.m.) during which they can be located at a specified location for testing. These athletes do not have to identify the 60-minute time-slot at a home address, but they can if they wish to. Previously this was a 24/7 requirement.

http://www.drugfreesport.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/wada_whereabouts_requirements_en1.pdf

Although this refers to out of competition testing. I did know the rules for in competition testing but can't find them. Fuentes' other client EPO Rafa Nadal was complaining about the invasion of privacy about having to be available for testing between these hours.

 

[goober]

True. Followed by an appropriate amount of time: somewhere between the length of a shower and a good night's sleep...

Here is the formal UCI report on Boudry/AFDL. Thought it might help some readers understand more of the UCI/Boudry conflicts. One other thing to note is AFDL is close to shutting their doors due to lack of funding..

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/g...bjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NTYzMTQ&LangId=1

 

[Condorman]

Here is the formal UCI report on Boudry/AFDL. Thought it might help some readers understand more of the UCI/Boudry conflicts. One other thing to note is AFDL is close to shutting their doors due to lack of funding..

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/g...bjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NTYzMTQ&LangId=1

Bordry
AFLD

AFLD has been in the red by 4 million euros and the deficit has been growing for some time.
France will however resist criminalisation of its Tour.

Comprenez-vous?

 

[Martin318is]

But the thing is, if you look at Bourdy's and Pat's comments and you don't have much of a knowledge of the real background of drugs in cycling, you would have to say that Pat has given him a proper smacking.

I mean, the majority of those of us on this forum have our own well-formed opinions developed through years of following all the details and can see the flaws in the comments, etc. If however, you are a member of the general public reading the paper or watching TV, you would have to think that Pat's use of the numbers (and the mechanics reference) make Bourdry look like a silly amateur.

Unfortunate but true, no?

 

[Cobblestones]

One thing which is underreported is that the AFLD or any such national organization is dependent on the International Sporting Federation (UCI for cycling) to receive whereabouts information on foreign athletes in their country. Say, a top US athlete is reconn'ing climbs in France, he will have filed whereabouts with the UCI, not the AFLD. If the UCI choses not to forward this information to the AFLD in a timely manner, the French wouldn't know where to find said athlete on any given day (unless they find out on their own). That's a pretty big loophole when you assume the UCI is corrupt.

 

[goober]

Test the staff. Remember Kelly's mechanic!

From USACycling.org:

"Holding a USAC Mechanics' License will tell other groups of cycling professionals that you can be counted on to do what is right, what is accepted in the cycling world, and what is best to convey the positive image of the sport of cycling."

Relax. The urine is taken in controlled environment and the blood they extract in person can be used to verify urine origin. UCI and WADA dispelled this myth over 10 years ago.

 

[goober]

One thing which is underreported is that the AFLD or any such national organization is dependent on the International Sporting Federation (UCI for cycling) to receive whereabouts information on foreign athletes in their country. Say, a top US athlete is reconn'ing climbs in France, he will have filed whereabouts with the UCI, not the AFLD. If the UCI choses not to forward this information to the AFLD in a timely manner, the French wouldn't know where to find said athlete on any given day (unless they find out on their own). That's a pretty big loophole when you assume the UCI is corrupt.

I don't think this is underreported at all. AFLD has twice accused UCI of not providing whereabouts and both times they were spanked with proof that the information was completely provided in a timely manner.

 

[goober]

Why the negativity to UCI?

First off let me say I dislike Pat McQuaid so this is not a fanboy statement; but, why do so many here think the UCI is corrupt? The UCI has over and over showed all claims by AFLD to be either incorrect or misinterpreted. And if you look at the misinterpretations they would lead one to believe AFLD has an agenda. Also, UCI has successfully shown AFLD does not understand doping controls and protocol with no response from AFLD. And remember, they only did this after getting fed up with AFLD accusations - they had no agenda until getting ****ed off.

 

[Beech Mtn]

One thing which is underreported is that the AFLD or any such national organization is dependent on the International Sporting Federation (UCI for cycling) to receive whereabouts information on foreign athletes in their country. Say, a top US athlete is reconn'ing climbs in France, he will have filed whereabouts with the UCI, not the AFLD. If the UCI choses not to forward this information to the AFLD in a timely manner, the French wouldn't know where to find said athlete on any given day (unless they find out on their own). That's a pretty big loophole when you assume the UCI is corrupt.

Which goes along well with this little gem:

"There are teams which have never given us or the UCI [athletes'] whereabouts or only when it's too late," said Bordry. "We want to control the riders who will be training in France before the race starts. Without those files, it will be difficult to find them but we'll try and find a solution."

Taken from this article. Sounds to me like Bordry has a good case for using OCLAESP surveillance to find riders.

It also sounds like whole teams may be in violation of whereabouts rules, but UCI appears not to be taking any action there. If so, then Chicken should sue.

 

[MacRoadie]

From USACycling.org:

"Holding a USAC Mechanics' License will tell other groups of cycling professionals that you can be counted on to do what is right, what is accepted in the cycling world, and what is best to convey the positive image of the sport of cycling."

It's that middle one that gets you every time...

 

[goober]

Which goes along well with this little gem:



Taken from this article. Sounds to me like Bordry has a good case for using OCLAESP surveillance to find riders.

It also sounds like whole teams may be in violation of whereabouts rules, but UCI appears not to be taking any action there. If so, then Chicken should sue.

Doubt it. Bordry was spanked last year with this statement as UCI provided full email trail of disclosing all UCI Pro Rider whereabouts in France prior to the TDF. UCI also showed that AFLD did little with this intelligence. All other UCI Pro Riders had provided whereabouts and were not in France (or were lying) as they must provide these details under UCI rules. Very surprised Bordry would open this can of worms again.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't think this is underreported at all. AFLD has twice accused UCI of not providing whereabouts and both times they were spanked with proof that the information was completely provided in a timely manner.

Proof!! I looove proof....

I have seen some press releases from the UCI rebutting various charges, but I have not seen 'proof'.

I wait in excitement for your links to the proof.

 

[goober]

Proof!! I looove proof....

I have seen some press releases from the UCI rebutting various charges, but I have not seen 'proof'.

I wait in excitement for your links to the proof.

Argh. Damn you! Of course I cannot provide proof so I should not have used that word . I don't think anyone could provide a link with proof of anything in cycling! Here is press release from UCI (all I could find):

"The UCI provided a continuous stream of whereabouts
information to the AFLD testing manager, Mr Verdy during the month of June.
In fact, at least 17 emails were sent to Mr Verdy providing detailed whereabouts of
foregn teams and riders when they were in France prior to the Tour de France.
At least five emails (25 May, 2 June, 3 June, 23 June, 30 June) were directly
concerning the whereabouts of Astana riders. Several emails from Mr Verdy
acknowledged receipt of such information.
Despite significant effort from the UCI to share whereabouts information with AFLD to
enable AFLD to conduct out-of-competition tests prior to the Tour de France, AFLD
conducted a total of 13 tests and no more. No Astana riders were tested by AFLD
during this period despite detailed information. 6 of the 13 samples were collected
from French riders for whom AFLD have full year-round access to whereabouts in
ADAMS. As already mentioned, five of the samples were declared invalid because of
the incompetence of the AFLD."

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Argh. Damn you! Of course I cannot provide proof so I should not have used that word . I don't think anyone could provide a link with proof of anything in cycling! Here is press release from UCI (all I could find):

"The UCI provided a continuous stream of whereabouts
information to the AFLD testing manager, Mr Verdy during the month of June.
In fact, at least 17 emails were sent to Mr Verdy providing detailed whereabouts of
foregn teams and riders when they were in France prior to the Tour de France.
At least five emails (25 May, 2 June, 3 June, 23 June, 30 June) were directly
concerning the whereabouts of Astana riders. Several emails from Mr Verdy
acknowledged receipt of such information.
Despite significant effort from the UCI to share whereabouts information with AFLD to
enable AFLD to conduct out-of-competition tests prior to the Tour de France, AFLD
conducted a total of 13 tests and no more. No Astana riders were tested by AFLD
during this period despite detailed information. 6 of the 13 samples were collected
from French riders for whom AFLD have full year-round access to whereabouts in
ADAMS. As already mentioned, five of the samples were declared invalid because of
the incompetence of the AFLD."

As with most UCI statements it answers everything but the question it was asked.

The accusation made by the AFLD was about the lack of information regarding the 'whereabouts' of the Astana team - why can they not release this detailed information?

 

[Race Radio]

why do so many here think the UCI is corrupt? The UCI has over and over showed all claims by AFLD to be either incorrect or misinterpreted.

Where should we start?

With Verbuggen covering up Brochard's World Positive?
Verbuggen approving McQuaid's illegal expense account?
Armstrong paying $500,000 to make a doping positive go away?
The UCI using mafia tactics to try to force the ASO/RCS/Unipublic to hand over their television rights?
The UCI giving Armstrong, Kelme, USPS, Manzano, advanced notice of OOC competition testing?
The UCI withholds whereabout info from the AFLD when Lance is training in France.
The AFLD releases this detailed, 11 page report on how the UCI gave Astana special treatment during testing at last year's Tour. The UCI response? You Suck Froggie!"

Really the better question would be who would not think the UCI is corrupt?

 

[Ferminal]

First off let me say I dislike Pat McQuaid so this is not a fanboy statement; but, why do so many here think the UCI is corrupt? The UCI has over and over showed all claims by AFLD to be either incorrect or misinterpreted. And if you look at the misinterpretations they would lead one to believe AFLD has an agenda. Also, UCI has successfully shown AFLD does not understand doping controls and protocol with no response from AFLD. And remember, they only did this after getting fed up with AFLD accusations - they had no agenda until getting ****ed off.

I don't think you can have it both ways.

It's impossible to look at the UCI and say "ok they are legitimate" whilst at the same time ignoring what the AFLD says because they are "incompetent".