Thanks fmk-Rol for the link, probably the most informative doping history article I have read in my ongoing doping education.fmk_RoI said:
Odd how the UCI line is so consistent over the ages:fmk_RoI said:
No positive tests. Cleanest sport there is.Verbruggen had surfed that storm by saying Ferrari must have been misquoted, that it was a case of rubbish journalism. He pointed to the number of doping tests carried out and the small number of positives they produced. (Even though there was no test for EPO.) There being no problem, Verbruggen ignored Roussel's request.
And the timing of it is wonderful irony.Nicolas Aubier, who talked of the difficulty of trying to ride clean in a dirty peloton... speaking to L'Equipe's Pierre Ballester:
Why haven't they made every possible effort to eliminate this cancer?
(emphasis added)This might also be a good time to bring Guy Brisson back into
this. You remember him, the Canadian doctor who was trying
to develop an EPO test in 1996? When the **** hit the fan
during the 1998 Tour, Brisson suddenly found himself popular.
Journalists finally wanted to know what had come of his 1996
research. His answer was not very comforting.
For a start, he disputed the UCI's claim that his research was
unsuccessful, claiming he had actually come up with a test for
EPO. It was reviewed and published in the scientific journal
Nature. The IOC and the UCI, however, didn't want to know
about it, he told the Toronto Star, claiming it wouldn't bear
"At several meetings, officials from the UCI and IOC
expressed their fear that the test's indirectness made it
vulnerable to legal challenge by millionaire athletes.
It is difficult to comprehend fully the scale of Conconi’s duplicity.
Funded by CONI and the IOC to come up with a test for EPO, he used that money to buy the drug, and then administered it to professional athletes for the purpose of performance enhancement. While being paid by the authorities to prevent doping, he was being paid by athletes for enabling them to dope.
Pretty much says it all, doesn't it?The case against Conconi, Casoni and Grazzi was dropped because the investigation could not be completed within the five years allotted for such cases. In her report Judge Franca said while that was the correct decision legally, there was no doubt from the evidence that the three doctors were guilty of dispensing doping products. In her view the case against them was incontrovertible.
+1.Alpe d'Huez said:Excellent link. Articles and threads like this make the Clinic valuable. I knew some of that information already, but that was well written.
Keep up the good posts.
Well clearly as good as the testing is now, and given that it is just a few bad apples who are not clean these days, the percentage of dopers should be the same as the percentage of riders returning positive tests, no?D-Queued said:I'm sharpening my pencil, and figure he can cut that to 0.5%.
No, anything over 0.5% rate is a false positive.Hugh Januss said:Well clearly as good as the testing is now, and given that it is just a few bad apples who are not clean these days, the percentage of dopers should be the same as the percentage of riders returning positive tests, no?
I was just going to add that I had forgotten about false positives or contamination. So really when you look at it Verdruggen's 1% is way way too high. I think we've won, let's go for a ride.D-Queued said:No, anything over 0.5% rate is a false positive.
You need to understand your statistics a bit better.
Let's say that we are running at 0.49% for the year. The next rider who tests positive is obviously a mistake.
Exactly.Hugh Januss said:I was just going to add that I had forgotten about false positives or contamination. So really when you look at it Verdruggen's 1% is way way too high. I think we've won, let's go for a ride.
Let's not give it back to the people though. I was thinking of some new office furniture that will make me more productive. And, maybe starting a medical clinic to help cyclists recover from all that hard work they do.Hugh Januss said:Oh that's easy, now that we've cleaned up cycling there is no more reason to waste all that money on testing.
There'll be a part II, maybe next week or the week after. Covers some good stories.rhubroma said:I only wish there would be a Part II: From the Festina Affair to the Armstrong Tyranny... or something to that effect. But I'm sure Novinsky is taking care of it.