Clean Colombians? (Arkea investigation page 27)

[Escarabajo]

Well. He is open to criticism, just like Lemond. Anybody can now come forward and say he doped and that he saw him doping.

 

[sniper]

Why in the world would anybody have seen Mejia dope?
And in the unexpected case that somebody did see him dope, why in the world would that person come forward and say he doped?

btw, Dutch doctor Castoing who accused Lemond of using EPO got a letter from Lemond's lawyer telling him to withdraw the accusations. Lemond also made sure all press releases relating to that accusation disappeared behind a legal google wall.
Is that what you mean by "open to criticism, just like Lemond"?
That said, it's probably more accurate than "open to criticism, just like Lemond fans"

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Well. He is open to criticism, just like Lemond. Anybody can now come forward and say he doped and that he saw him doping.

That kind of doesn't work. The biggest @a$$hole in the sport only had a few people come forward and look how that panned out.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

Why in the world would anybody have seen Mejia dope?
And in the unexpected case that somebody did see him dope, why in the world would that person come forward and say he doped?

btw, Dutch doctor Castoing who accused Lemond of using EPO got a letter from Lemond's lawyer telling him to withdraw the accusations. Lemond also made sure all press releases relating to that accusation disappeared behind a legal google wall.
Is that what you mean by "open to criticism, just like Lemond"?
That said, it's probably more accurate than "open to criticism, just like Lemond fans"

How would some random Dutch doctor know if Lemond was using EPO? If some jerk was slandering me I'd ask them to knock it of too. I imagine that if Castoing had anything other than a third or fourth hand rumor to rely on... Ah, whatever.

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

Agreed. I would do the same.
It was not a criticism of Lemond, but of Escarabajos point.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

https://www.facebook.com/2Rmag/posts/534227359949423

Here you go sniper. Lemond admits to doping. There was that one time in Columbia that he and Fignon snorted coke.

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

Re:

https://www.facebook.com/2Rmag/posts/534227359949423

Here you go sniper. Lemond admits to doping. There was that one time in Columbia that he and Fignon snorted coke.

John Swanson

cheers!

It's still an exciting interview even when reading it for the 3rd or 4th time. Such a good job from Kimmage. His disbelieve is epic:

You didn’t see any of them doing it? Greg: No

So you didn’t see it with Renault? Greg: No.

You didn’t see it? Greg: No

And you didn’t actually see them doing it in Boxmeer in ‘83? Greg: No.

To keep it on topic, I doubt Ryo would be pleased to hear this:

Greg: I think he [Fignon] probably did it [coke] two nights in a row.
What was interesting about it was that he actually won the last stage and had to go to dope control and suddenly it dawns on him that he has a huge problem. And then he realises that he doesn’t have a problem at all because the Columbians are being fuelled on this stuff.

 

[Escarabajo]

Re: Re:

Well. He is open to criticism, just like Lemond. Anybody can now come forward and say he doped and that he saw him doping.

That kind of doesn't work. The biggest @a$$hole in the sport only had a few people come forward and look how that panned out.

I think he had a lot of people come forward. At least IMHO.

 

[Escarabajo]

Re:

Why in the world would anybody have seen Mejia dope?
And in the unexpected case that somebody did see him dope, why in the world would that person come forward and say he doped?

btw, Dutch doctor Castoing who accused Lemond of using EPO got a letter from Lemond's lawyer telling him to withdraw the accusations. Lemond also made sure all press releases relating to that accusation disappeared behind a legal google wall.
Is that what you mean by "open to criticism, just like Lemond"?
That said, it's probably more accurate than "open to criticism, just like Lemond fans"

I am not sure if I am following you.

I meant, don't you think these guys are at least open to criticism or whatever from other cyclists or coaches if they knew something about them. At least some noise. The problem here is that Mejia was not that big to be that important. There are probably other cyclists in his position where they faded away quickly for no big reason at all.

For some reason I like the turn of events in this case. It kind of falls into place.

Having said that, and not going into an argument with you, this is no proof of not doping anyway. So I give you that. Don't really want to defend with blood something that I don't know. Fair enough.

 

[Escarabajo]

According to Fignon all Colombians were on coke on the eighties as well!! LOL. Come on.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

All sarcasm aside, there's reason to think that the Colombians as a whole were clean(ish) or at least that they didn't benefit as much from doping in the 90s. In the second half of the 80s, the Colombians were a growing force in Europe. Their decline coincides precisely with the spread of EPO in the pro peloton. Now, why would those very talented folks like Lucho Herrera (who retired at 31, thirty-one) suddenly stop being a factor, when they had already paid their dues and adapted to European cycling?

Herrera also gave us a perfect quote to describe the early 90s: "when I saw riders with fat asses climbing like airplanes, that's when I knew." His case is similar to LeMond's.

Not to take anything away from the the rest of your point, and merely as an aside,
Lemond couldn't finish races anymore. That obviously had little to do with other riders being on EPO. His body simply couldn't cope anymore.
This is by and large uncontroversial among those who think he doped as well as those who think he didn't.

By conteast Hampste n for instance was still going as stronstrong as evver in 1992. when Lemon d was not finishing anymore. Bauer was also still in contention.

Other thing is that 89 is when we have riders including the tdfs lantern rouge on epo, so its plausible to assume that in 90 a considerable number was on EPO. Lemond won it that year.

And meanwhile we saw riders like Rooks and Planckaert going backwards in the early 90s, despite being on EPO by their own admission.

Just saying there is little reason to link lemonds decline to others using EPO, and herreras case does not look similar to me.

On topic:
Raul Alcala is an interesting case. He was allegedly the only pdm rider who didn't get sick in 91.

If you're trying to make the case that EPO didn't massively change the game, and that it didn't end the careers of many riders, you're doing so with wholly subjective evaluations, unsupported speculation, and directly against the statements of many riders, as well as simple logic.

"Plausible". "Considerable". These are terms without value in such a discussion.

 

[roundabout]

Re:

There you have it fellows. From Mejias mouth even after retirement. His career cut short:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/alvaro-mejia-i-would-have-liked-to-have-raced-in-a-clean-era/

I remember my brother telling me after the RCN classic. He just beat all the greats in the TT. This rider if our next "Herrera" if not better. I never understood what happened to him. Completely gone after a short stint.

Ryo has said it in this forum that he was even better than Herrera. But, you know for the Colombians in those days was kind of tough.

Lance once said about Mejia that he lacked determination. Now we know what he meant by that.

Awful article.

Someone should tell Rendell and Mejia that the Volta a Catalunya was in September before 1995.

Or perhaps something was lost in translation and Rendell doesn't know the difference between the Volta and Setmana Catalana.

Also someone should tell Rendell the difference between finishing 10th and 21st in a TT

http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1993/07/13/pagina-12/1478781/pdf.html

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
I am not sure if I am following you.

I meant, don't you think these guys are at least open to criticism or whatever from other cyclists or coaches if they knew something about them. At least some noise.

My point would be: all pro-cyclists -- except those who got caught and a handful of exceptions like Paul Kimmage or Charlie Mottet -- will claim they are/were clean. Froome, Wiggins, Contador, Paula Radcliffe, Rafael Nadal, Zlatan Ibrahimovic. You name them. Should we praise them for claiming they're clean, just because it means they're now "open to criticism"?

escarabajo:
The problem here is that Mejia was not that big to be that important. There are probably other cyclists in his position where they faded away quickly for no big reason at all.

For some reason I like the turn of events in this case. It kind of falls into place.

That's certainly fair enough.

escarabajo:
this is no proof of not doping anyway. So I give you that. Don't really want to defend with blood something that I don't know. Fair enough.

Fair enough indeed.


Fact is, every new PED that comes on the scene will have its victims.
Typically, a new PED will have victims of three kinds:
1. those who use, but respond badly to it (or simply don't respond to it);
2. those who don't use, because they don't have access to it;
3. those who don't use, because they are morally opposed to PEDs.
(feel free to add a category to that list if I'm missing something)

Now, my point would be that things get awfully muddy and messy when we start to place riders in category 3, like CN has been doing over the past few days.

Take Erik Breukink.
I really do believe EPO ruined his pro-cycling career. But while he himself is on the record claiming it's because he morally objected against it (cat 3 above), personally I'm more inclined to place him in cat 1. (And never mind that he went on to make good money first as overpaid packfodder then as a DS, all right in the middle of the EPO era.)

It gets really messy/muddy/silly when we start pretending certain riders were victims, when the evidence suggests they were beneficiaries. Hampsten/Lemond/Hesjedal/Vaughters, to name just a few who, incidentally, owe their not so small fortunes to the sport. Victims? Gimme a break.

Mejia* looks like he may have been a victim of EPO, and may have been a cat 3. But he also may have been a cat 1 or 2. Raul Alcala, same story. Cat 1 or 3, imo. (Cat 2 can be excluded as he rode for PDM).
Colin Sturgess is someone I'd like to see as a victim, too. Bassons. Maybe Delion, but i don't know them well enough.

The real verifiable victims, however, are to be found faaar far lower down the ranks: youth/junior athletes who refuse to dope and therefore miss out on selection for national teams and sponsor contracts and basically have to leave the sport because they can't compete with the dopers. This kind of victims, I know plenty of them, some of them first hand, and some (e.g. Starstruck) have posted their stories in the Clinic.
But since these victims never become famous, we tend to not talk about them.

*I bolded Mejia, so as to keep this post on topic
Sorry for going off on a tangent. It's also a reply to Red's post.

...
If you're trying to make the case that EPO didn't massively change the game, and that it didn't end the careers of many riders, you're doing so with wholly subjective evaluations, unsupported speculation, and directly against the statements of many riders, as well as simple logic.

Agreed. It would be silly to make such a case.

 

[Bronstein]

Colombians partying like it's 2008:

The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) announces that 8 riders were notified of an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) in samples during the Vuelta a Colombia 2017.

The riders Luis Alberto Largo Quintero, Jonathan Felipe Paredes Hernandez, Edward Fabian Diaz Cardenas, Fabio Nelson Montenegro Forero, Luis Camargo Flechas, Fabian Robinson Lopez Rivera and Oscar Soliz Vilca were notified of an AAF of CERA* in blood samples collected on 1 and 2 August 2017.

The rider Juan Carlos Cadena Sastoque was notified of an AAF of 19-noretiocholanolone and 19-norandrosterone** in a urine sample provided on 11 August 2017.

These intelligence-led doping controls were planned and carried out by the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation (CADF), the independent body mandated by the UCI, in charge of defining and implementing the anti-doping strategy in cycling.

The riders have the opportunity to request and attend the analysis of the B sample.

In accordance with UCI Anti-Doping Rules, the riders have been provisionally suspended until the adjudication of the matter.

At this stage of the procedure, the UCI will not comment any further on any of these cases.

(*) CERA is classified as “Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors, Related Substances and Mimetics” as per the World Anti-Doping Prohibited List 2017.

(**) 19-noretiocholanolone and 19-norandrosterone are classified as “Anabolic Androgenic Steroids” as per the World Anti-Doping Prohibited List 2017.

 

[offbyone]

Re:

Colombians partying like it's 2008:

The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) announces that 8 riders were notified of an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) in samples during the Vuelta a Colombia 2017.

The riders Luis Alberto Largo Quintero, Jonathan Felipe Paredes Hernandez, Edward Fabian Diaz Cardenas, Fabio Nelson Montenegro Forero, Luis Camargo Flechas, Fabian Robinson Lopez Rivera and Oscar Soliz Vilca were notified of an AAF of CERA* in blood samples collected on 1 and 2 August 2017.

The rider Juan Carlos Cadena Sastoque was notified of an AAF of 19-noretiocholanolone and 19-norandrosterone** in a urine sample provided on 11 August 2017.

These intelligence-led doping controls were planned and carried out by the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation (CADF), the independent body mandated by the UCI, in charge of defining and implementing the anti-doping strategy in cycling.

The riders have the opportunity to request and attend the analysis of the B sample.

In accordance with UCI Anti-Doping Rules, the riders have been provisionally suspended until the adjudication of the matter.

At this stage of the procedure, the UCI will not comment any further on any of these cases.

(*) CERA is classified as “Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors, Related Substances and Mimetics” as per the World Anti-Doping Prohibited List 2017.

(**) 19-noretiocholanolone and 19-norandrosterone are classified as “Anabolic Androgenic Steroids” as per the World Anti-Doping Prohibited List 2017.

Wow, the volume of riders testing positive at this one race is shocking.

When was the last race that had this many positives?

 

[Bye Bye Bicycle]

No surprise here, as long as “El Farmacéutico” is still riding.

http://noticiclismo.com/2017/08/18/graves-acusaciones-ciclista-suizo-uso-sustancias-dopantes-la-vuelta-colombia/

 

[Nick C.]

Are they just that "careless" at this race or has the change in leadership led to an effort to find positives, or is this part of the "catch the small fish and let the big fish go so we look like we are trying".

 

[Escarabajo]

8 riders test positive at the Vuelta a Colombia. Aditional to the U23 champion Robinson Lopez.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/eight-riders-test-positive-at-vuelta-a-colombia/

I have to admit that although I news like this from Colombia it is time they start cleaning out those races. They were the wild west with no control at all.

I know some people hate the UCI for their lack of controls. But at least you have some. In some of these races there were rumors of really bad things happening and some riders were complaining about it.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re:

Are they just that "careless" at this race or has the change in leadership led to an effort to find positives, or is this part of the "catch the small fish and let the big fish go so we look like we are trying".

The organization of proper controls that could catch the more up to date stuff was lacking, so people were taking their chances. Remember Jimmy "Mr 63%" Briceño? A lot of these smaller scenes have the problem that the infrastructure for testing to the same standard as at the top level is too costly for many races, and indeed in places like Colombia many of the races do not have UCI categorization at all. A lot of the most promising young riders will be plucked from the scene before they spend too long there, so much of the national péloton will be comprised of people trying to get spotted to make it out to Europe or North America on a good contract, or people who are never likely to leave the national scene (or have returned to it) and older riders for whom these are their biggest targets. This year's Vuelta winner was Aristobulo Cala, 27 years old and a surprise winner; he's the first rider under 30 to win it since Henao in 2010. Since then, the winners have been Félix Cardenas (at 38 and 39), Óscar Sevilla (at 36, 37 and 38) and Mauricio Ortega (at 35). Of the positives, Largo is 27, Paredes 28, Soliz 32, Montenegro 35 and Camargo 39. These 5 probably do not expect to be riding outside of South American teams, whether they wish to move on or not (and don't get me wrong, many riders don't). The other three are young prospects, admittedly.

The other thing is, CERA has an extremely long half-life, so a few surprise targeted tests early in the race might catch a few people still glowing. Giovanny Báez, another former Vuelta winner, tested positive for it last year, as did José Flober Peña, so it appears that it may be the drug of choice in the scene - but for the drug of choice to be something that has such a long half-life that it basically became useless as soon as AFLD unveiled the Dueñas and Beltrán positives nine years ago, it tells you how much the anti-doping has had to play catch-up in the scene.

 

[Nick C.]

Thanks Libertine.

 

[Robert5091]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/eight-riders-test-positive-at-vuelta-a-colombia/

According to the UCI press release, the "intelligence led" doping controls were planned and carried out by the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation (CADF).

Someone talked ...

 

[movingtarget]

I'd laugh if all of the B samples came back negative.

 

[proffate]

it seems like someone is getting serious. Lappartient?

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re: Re:

A lot of the most promising young riders will be plucked from the scene before they spend too long there, so much of the national péloton will be comprised of people trying to get spotted to make it out to Europe or North America on a good contract, or people who are never likely to leave the national scene (or have returned to it) and older riders for whom these are their biggest targets. This year's Vuelta winner was Aristobulo Cala, 27 years old and a surprise winner; he's the first rider under 30 to win it since Henao in 2010. Since then, the winners have been Félix Cardenas (at 38 and 39), Óscar Sevilla (at 36, 37 and 38) and Mauricio Ortega (at 35). Of the positives, Largo is 27, Paredes 28, Soliz 32, Montenegro 35 and Camargo 39. These 5 probably do not expect to be riding outside of South American teams, whether they wish to move on or not (and don't get me wrong, many riders don't). The other three are young prospects, admittedly.

So the Colombian domestic scene is Portugal basically? Old guys with no other prospects fighting hard over a race that's a big deal locally, kids trying to get a chance elsewhere asap?

 

[roundabout]

Re: Re:

Jarlinson Pantano has had a nice transformation to GC contender after dissappearing to Colombia for 2 months.

Where he habitually trained with Nairo and Anacona at high altitude. Maybe that has something to do with his improved form...

Did he not train at high altitude before?

The point is that he didn't disappear in Colombia; he was filmed and photographed training with Quintana, basically following the same program that has worked for Nairo the last few years. Also, I think the word 'transformation' is not fair; he did finish in the top 10 last year in Catalunya, not to mention his good TdF.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/trek-segafredo-suspend-pantano-after-epo-positive/