Dekker's Positive

[Big_Blue_Dave]

Many athletes of all sorts have official residences in Monaco for tax purposes. Boonen's another example. Whether they actually live there is a different matter.

As to this, I'd say it's actually good news. Even if some people are getting by the bio-passport as Kohl implied, some are getting caught. Any progress in that direction is good as far as I'm concerned. I just wish it were faster.

Didn't Cipollini get in a whole lot of tax trouble for something very much like that?

Susan

Yes Susan, you are right in what you say there. For example, in the UK, if you are a British citizen claiming expatriate tax rights (ie. you live abroard) then you are only allowed to live in the UK for a mximum of 90 days per year or face an income tax bill from HM Treasury. I do not know the complete ins and outs of Monaco Taxation and/or residency policy, nor do I know the Netherlands policy either but I can certainly imagine that the Netherlands policy is similar to those here in the UK. Hence, if he was in the Netherlands for a certain period of time over and above the stated allowed time, he may have been committing tax fraud, same as any other person doing similar actions.

Please note i'm not saying that tax fraud has been committed here, i'm just stating UK regulations on residency of British citizens for tax purposes (hopefully this will stop any angry posts). Also, I am disappointed that this result has been released as I did like Thomas Dekker, but i'm not surprised for once.

 

[slcbiker]

I have kind of mixed feelings about how reliable the French labs in particular are.
They seem to leak constantly to the media. This is very clearly against basic scientific and ethical protocol and does make me wonder about how well they hold up some of the rest of their standards.
Where I work we handle alot of protected health information, including I'm sure that of some celebrities. If we had any kind of the level of privacy breaches the French labs seem to have, we'd have been shut down long ago.

Please don't take this as me being at all in favor of doping, but we need to have good, fast and reliable process that also protects the riders rights. An A sample to one lab and the B to another would be a good start.

 

[craig1985]

I'm pretty angry at that it has taken 18 months for this to come out. Should of come out when Thomas Dekker failed the tests in 2007. Of course I'm angry at Dekker for proving that his IQ is lower then the biggest gear on his bike.

But given the way Dekker has been riding, I'm not sure if he is a big loss for Cadel anyway. Johan van Summeren > Dekker as domestique anyday for mine.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm pretty angry at that it has taken 18 months for this to come out. Should of come out when Thomas Dekker failed the tests in 2007. Of course I'm angry at Dekker for proving that his IQ is lower then the biggest gear on his bike.

But given the way Dekker has been riding, I'm not sure if he is a big loss for Cadel anyway. Johan van Summeren > Dekker as domestique anyday for mine.

Unless I misunderstand it, he didn't test positive then, it was only recently that his urine was retested and came up snake eyes because of a refined EPO test.

 

[craig1985]

Well why should it take so long for a re-test? Should be done a lot quicker IMO.

 

[powderpuff]

Didn't Cipollini get in a whole lot of tax trouble for something very much like that?

Susan

The reason Cadel lives in Switzerland (just 3kms from Italy) and not Italy is because Italian tax laws are horrendous, so Dekker most probably likes the Italian lifestyle but uses Monaco for tax purposes, as do many top sportsmen/women from many different sports.

 

[Anonymous]

Well why should it take so long for a re-test? Should be done a lot quicker IMO.

Again, it sounds like when the originally tested it, it didn't test positive enough, but was suspicious (seems they knew what sample to go back to). So they get a better test and go back and get them. My wonder is this, why not use that more sensitive test on any B samples they have lying around. I guess that might be expensive though both for every team and of course financially also.

 

[craig1985]

On the S/L website they have replaced Dekker from their Tour start list with Wegelius, but Wegelius is also down for their Tour of Austria line-up. He is going to be a busy man over the next week, doing two races at once

 

[auscyclefan94]

The reason Cadel lives in Switzerland (just 3kms from Italy) and not Italy is because Italian tax laws are horrendous, so Dekker most probably likes the Italian lifestyle but uses Monaco for tax purposes, as do many top sportsmen/women from many different sports.

Cadel lives in italy with his wife who is italian

 

[auscyclefan94]

I have found a quote on the message board of the Silence Lotto website. Mark Coucke (Director Sportif) says:

"We prefer finish 4th at the Tour rather to win with somebody who deceived us. We have publish that news concerning Thomas Dekker as we cannot be blamed fore it, and we do not want to have anything to do with doping."

Yes i do know understand that it wasn't the smartest descision to let Dekker in to Lotto but i still don't think it's right to put all the blame on lotto. On a forum on another cycling site i was told that dekker was dropped from the team lineup as he was not performing well and nothing to do with doping. I do feel sorry for Dekker Tifosi... if it was one of my favourite riders i would be gutted. Has Rabobank said anything about Dekker's test?

 

[Epicycle]

I'm pretty angry at that it has taken 18 months for this to come out. Should of come out when Thomas Dekker failed the tests in 2007.

The new EPO testing protocol was only approved in May 2009. They used that to retroactively test his December 2007 sample.

 

[Kittel]

My wonder is this, why not use that more sensitive test on any B samples they have lying around. I guess that might be expensive though both for every team and of course financially also.

Expensive in Euros yes, but also expensive in terms of possible wasting of important samples. Apperantly they can now detect (the use of) a certain substance which they couldn't find 2 years ago. What will be possible in 2 years from now? Nothing, if there aren't any samples left... So I'd say: only recheck samples of which you have a reasonable expectation for testing positive. Just as they did now using the correlation between irregular blood values and (dyn)epo use.

What I like about this is that time-factor in the traditional fight between the cats (laboratories) and mice (dopers) is getting more weight now. You can dope, but we'll find it sooner or later. Traditionally, the dopers would know more or less what tests were done and therefore applied innovative techniques and strategies. If we punnish the guys that get caught for something that happened years ago really hard (financially or detention-wise), that would send out a very strong signal: We'll get you some day and make you wish you hadn't been that stupid! The biological passport might just become the single greatest sports-innovation ensuring credability of our sporting-super-stars. You guys agree with me on that or do you think that the riders won't be brainy enough to not risk it all for relatively small success in the short term?


As for the timing of UCI/WADA: If Menchov is going to be the next big fish tomorrow then I'll put my money on it that this was already known at the Giro, which would be a terrible shame. However, I also see the importance of sending out a strong signal at the biggest stage possible. I hope we'll see a lot of guys falling from their pedestal in the coming three weeks (mixed feelings alert here!) with real heavy suspensions and fines in the wake of it. Didn't the sporting authorities recently increase the maximum suspension to 4 years for dopers? That would ruin quite some 'great carreers' and I won't feel sorry for them.

On the other hand, does doping matter if almost everybody did it? A winner would still have proven to be the best in a 'fair fight', although more money might buy you a faster car...

Anyways, new here, kicked in quite a lot of open doors I'm afraid, but the Dekker issue made my brain work a little... Not too fond of doping as above will have shown, but that doesn't keep me from cheering for (doped) guys slaughtering each other on the slopes. Enjoy your TdF!

 

[msjett]

Look what happens when you come down with the flu....Dekker gets done, and you think argh! I missed all the action...damn!

 

[Anonymous]

Expensive in Euros yes, but also expensive in terms of possible wasting of important samples. Apperantly they can now detect (the use of) a certain substance which they couldn't find 2 years ago. What will be possible in 2 years from now? Nothing, if there aren't any samples left... So I'd say: only recheck samples of which you have a reasonable expectation for testing positive. Just as they did now using the correlation between irregular blood values and (dyn)epo use.

What I like about this is that time-factor in the traditional fight between the cats (laboratories) and mice (dopers) is getting more weight now. You can dope, but we'll find it sooner or later. Traditionally, the dopers would know more or less what tests were done and therefore applied innovative techniques and strategies. If we punnish the guys that get caught for something that happened years ago really hard (financially or detention-wise), that would send out a very strong signal: We'll get you some day and make you wish you hadn't been that stupid! The biological passport might just become the single greatest sports-innovation ensuring credability of our sporting-super-stars. You guys agree with me on that or do you think that the riders won't be brainy enough to not risk it all for relatively small success in the short term?


As for the timing of UCI/WADA: If Menchov is going to be the next big fish tomorrow then I'll put my money on it that this was already known at the Giro, which would be a terrible shame. However, I also see the importance of sending out a strong signal at the biggest stage possible. I hope we'll see a lot of guys falling from their pedestal in the coming three weeks (mixed feelings alert here!) with real heavy suspensions and fines in the wake of it. Didn't the sporting authorities recently increase the maximum suspension to 4 years for dopers? That would ruin quite some 'great carreers' and I won't feel sorry for them.

On the other hand, does doping matter if almost everybody did it? A winner would still have proven to be the best in a 'fair fight', although more money might buy you a faster car...

Anyways, new here, kicked in quite a lot of open doors I'm afraid, but the Dekker issue made my brain work a little... Not too fond of doping as above will have shown, but that doesn't keep me from cheering for (doped) guys slaughtering each other on the slopes. Enjoy your TdF!

Very good post.

 

[Snake8]

Anyways, new here, kicked in quite a lot of open doors I'm afraid, but the Dekker issue made my brain work a little... Not too fond of doping as above will have shown, but that doesn't keep me from cheering for (doped) guys slaughtering each other on the slopes. Enjoy your TdF!

Yes, yes and yes. Welcome and please do not hold back.

I love the idea of holding samples and retesting. Eventually they will find a test for HGH, maybe not blood doping..., but probably all the synthetic crap eventually...if i were a rider I would hate the idea because once you pee/get drawn/hair etc sample, its out of your hands. I'm not sure i would trust the powers that be, be it gov't/sporting. etc., bureaucracy. But, it does hold an anvil over their heads and ultimately it comes down to the rider to say, "I dont give a crap what anyone else says or does, I am not going to do this stuff."

Off topic: does anyone know if re-injecting your own blood is harmful/dangerous at the levels that are alleged to be happening in helicopters at the TdF?

 

[Moondance]

For me a more interesting question is for how long can he be banned? I mean, it's been 18 months since the positive, and assuming that no positives from a later date are discovered (which is entirely possible though), can they still ban him until July 2011 (the full 24 months) when the test dates back to 2007?

Please don't mistake this post for me wanting to see him back. I'll be far happier never seeing his smug face again.

 

[Kennf1]

The new EPO testing protocol was only approved in May 2009. They used that to retroactively test his December 2007 sample.

A-ha! Thank you! This explains a lot. If I understand it, the actual test is the same, but the protocol is different (i.e. threshold values?).

 

[auscyclefan94]

Was the epo test that dekker is now positive for due to the use of cera? Is that why they could only find it now from re-testing?

 

[Anonymous]

Despite what Armstrong would have you believe, you can store samples for a tremendously long time in perfect conditions

Umm.. that is disingenuous.

Protocols NOW exist to properly account for long term storage of samples.

The old protocols of the 99 samples only assured 3 years.

Not saying he didn't dope. Just trying to keep it real.

 

[Anonymous]

You are correct! The blood values remained irregular in 2008, and WADA was asked to retest the sample.

But does that mean that anyone who displays irregular values, has a chance to have past samples retested? And till what date will they go back?

You mean 2009 right?

and i'm hoping the answer to the second question is YES!

on values... someone suggested they were looking for the 50 number for crit.

Yes, but not many are doing that. What they are looking for is patterns of changes. During a race crit should go down. If it doesn't,they are suspicious.

this can get very sophisticated in the next couple of years and they develop a database of knowledge from what they can learn from the racing and how it effect the riders physiology.


,

 

[Epicycle]

A-ha! Thank you! This explains a lot. If I understand it, the actual test is the same, but the protocol is different (i.e. threshold values?).

Probably a case of updated WADA regulations that make it easier to identify any type of EPO that causes the sample result to deviate from what is expected of endogenous EPO. This includes a confirmation test by a second method.
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/td2009eop_en.pdf

Was the epo test that dekker is now positive for due to the use of cera? Is that why they could only find it now from re-testing?

He tested positive for Dynepo. Like CERA it is something that couldn't definitively be called a positive until recently.

 

[BigBoat]

this can get very sophisticated in the next couple of years and they develop a database of knowledge from what they can learn from the racing and how it effect the riders physiology.


,

Thats detestable. I mean, wrong way on a one way.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Thats detestable.

It took a while for Big Boat to put his usual garbage over the net.

 

[Bala Verde]

You mean 2009 right?

No 2008, the passport came into existence january first 2008. Or as an Gripper says, 18 months. In 2008 they noticed variable blood values or suspicious patterns in his blood, so they kept an eye on him. That's wgat lead to the break with RAB. In 2009 WADA discovered a new testing method to detect, apparently, Dynepo, and given his suspicous values in (mid) 2008, they retested the december 2007 sample. (As far as I know from what I read)

According to SIL nothing was wrong with his values this year or previously when they signed him, otherwise they wouldn't have contracted him in 2008 September.

I think the UCI stated that there was something wrong with his values, but when they constituted that as a fact, I don't know...

 

[issoisso]

Eventually they will find a test for HGH

They have. It'll be used for the first time friday at the Tour's medical checkups (the ones where they test every rider).

It's a very new test, though, so it's bound to be like the current EPO test (ie: doesn't catch anyone who's taken it unless they've gone far overboard with the dosage)