Dekker's Positive

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 13, 2009
3,093
0
0
issoisso said:
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)
IIRC HgH doesn't stay long in the system. So, probably you can only find someone who went overboard with the dosage within a few hours before the test. Not smart to announce the test, I would think.
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
Cobblestones said:
IIRC HgH doesn't stay long in the system. So, probably you can only find someone who went overboard with the dosage within a few hours before the test. Not smart to announce the test, I would think.
Not smart, but they only announced they had a new test for an unnamed substance. It was the AFLD that leaked that it was HGH
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
pmcg76 said:
A lot of people on here are always protesting about people who base their opinions on rumours & whispers but it normal when the whispers always eventually prove correct. When I read about Dekker being positive, the first thing I thought about was the rumours and newspaper stories a few seasons ago. Same with Patrick Lefevre, he can protest all he wants, I dont believe him. .
i think to be fair, just about every rider in the pelaton has been mentioned at some time or another..

it wouldnt surprise if some people just drop new names every now and again, and have a list in excel of rider names and the url for the post they first mentioned them in so they can quote it later and say i told you so.. :D

So, what do we think of the riders that say things in advance like "good news for cycling" and those that today say "all good, one less doper racing" etc... are they clean, or liars?
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
dimspace said:
So, what do we think of the riders that say things in advance like "good news for cycling" and those that today say "all good, one less doper racing" etc... are they clean, or liars?
Liars. Probably.

Riders in the top 50 of any Grand Tour race are 100% doped for sure...Some farther down could be clean but are probably doped too (90% chance.)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
one thing i do find weird is dekkers place is now taken by charlie...

I was a little confused why charlie was on the reserve list when one of the reasons he was signed was "to help cadel win the tdf"... that was from silence themselves...
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,657
0
0
BigBoat said:
Liars. Probably.

Riders in the top 50 of any Grand Tour race are 100% doped for sure...Some farther down could be clean but are probably doped too (90% chance.)
That comment just shows your intelligence about cycling- little to nothing
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
issoisso said:
I'm talking about

1. This Dekker "incident"
2. Kohl saying that Lotto only signed him after they looked at his blood values to confirm that he hid his doping well
3. Bileka (riding for Lotto) tested positive. Lotto tried to cover it up and told the press and the public that he'd become depressed and decided to retire. All of a sudden, Bileka's best friend and teammate who rode with him his entire career has a sudden and quite tremendous performance drop and does awful the rest of the season, just like Dekker this season.

Heck, we only ever found out Bileka tested positive because it was in WADA's yearly list of positive tests released many months later. Lotto did everything they could to throw it under the mat.
D'oh. How could I forget? There's also the Scheirlinckx bit. that's 4.
 
BigBoat said:
Liars. Probably.

Riders in the top 50 of any Grand Tour race are 100% doped for sure...Some farther down could be clean but are probably doped too (90% chance.)
I thought you were the guy that voted in the 100%, "They're all jacked!" category? ;)

Auscyclefan94 - Stick around. He may go off the deep end every so often (every other post?!), but you're wrong in your assessment of the guy's knowledge and background.
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,274
0
0
dimspace said:
one thing i do find weird is dekkers place is now taken by charlie...

I was a little confused why charlie was on the reserve list when one of the reasons he was signed was "to help cadel win the tdf"... that was from silence themselves...

sentjens doesn't seem to be too happy about about it:\

Roy Sentjens was last in the
Tour Team of Silence, but chose
Charles Wegelius the team as a replacement
of Dekker and not Sent Jens.

"On paper he is a better climber and
Evans so he can better assist. But
in the Giro he didn't show that . He was nowhere, "says Sentjens in
HBvL. "I tried to Marc Sergeant to
call, but is not. This
shows the lack of communication. "

Sentjens is now the Tour of Austria drive. "I really don't feel like it
, but I have no choice. My
morale had been in my shoes, now is
even worse. This is a nightmare. "

jesus, google translate seems to be getting worse :)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
i smell a rat.. i wonder if lotto had an incling

charlie was signed to help cadel through the mountains and win the tour, yeh he didnt have a spectacular giro, but none of lotto did, it was litte more than a training ride for them.. and from what i can work out he was in monaco prior to dekkers positive being made public..
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
dimspace said:
i smell a rat.. i wonder if lotto had an incling

charlie was signed to help cadel through the mountains and win the tour, yeh he didnt have a spectacular giro, but none of lotto did, it was litte more than a training ride for them.. and from what i can work out he was in monaco prior to dekkers positive being made public..
Wegelius and Sentjens are the two riders in reserve. All teams have them. As such, they travelled to monaco too in case they had to replace someone at the last moment.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
Dekker says (in today's Telegraaf) that he can't understand it and feels that he's being 'shafted' (my translation of the Dutch 'geflikt'). He's consulting with his lawyer in Milan and threatening legal action. I have not seen him categorically deny that he took any banned substances in 07.

The lawyer says he does not believe that the UCI came up with a positive as a result of 'new methods' used to re-test the 07 sample, but rather because they have moved the goal posts (mixed sporting metaphor, sorry) by setting new parameters for what's 'positive'.

edit - I hadn't seen the post directly above while I was writing mine.
 
Mar 13, 2009
683
0
0
agh, the usual legal weaselling favoured by nearly all dopers.

I for one actually think including Charlie improves the Silence team. It's also a step closer to having a system that actually works. Win-win!!
 
May 6, 2009
8,524
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I thought you were the guy that voted in the 100%, "They're all jacked!" category? ;)

Auscyclefan94 - Stick around. He may go off the deep end every so often (every other post?!), but you're wrong in your assessment of the guy's knowledge and background.
Geniune question, what is it?
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,657
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I thought you were the guy that voted in the 100%, "They're all jacked!" category? ;)

Auscyclefan94 - Stick around. He may go off the deep end every so often (every other post?!), but you're wrong in your assessment of the guy's knowledge and background.
he goes way to far with his comments and draws conclusion and evidence out of his backside.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
he goes way to far with his comments and draws conclusion and evidence out of his backside.
...and throws around terms and statistics that are (almost certainly) incomprehensible to more than a very small handful of people who read or post here, the classic 'baffle 'em with bull****' approach. He should be posting that stuff on some sort of scientific forum, or one limited to professionals in the doping business, not on a general cycling forum frequented by 'ordinary' cyclists or fans.

Moreover, someone who 'goes off the deep end' (only) 'every other post' is an authority to be listened to? Where I come from, you make your case without going off the deep end, or you don't make it at all.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,657
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
...and throws around terms and statistics that are (almost certainly) incomprehensible to more than a very small handful of people who read or post here, the classic 'baffle 'em with bull****' approach. He should be posting that stuff on some sort of scientific forum, or one limited to professionals in the doping business, not on a general cycling forum frequented by 'ordinary' cyclists or fans.

Moreover, someone who 'goes off the deep end' (only) 'every other post' is an authority to be listened to? Where I come from, you make your case without going off the deep end, or you don't make it at all.
Tottaly agree with you. Like the part were it says "baffle em with bull**** approach".
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,274
0
0
good question from cyclocosm.com:

If you had been unceremoniously dumped from your team for “abnormal blood values”, and knew that any samples you had given any dope tester over the past 8 years could be rescrutinized ad infinitum, why on Earth would you ever stop doping?
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,279
0
0
I still don't understand what warranted the retesting of a december 2007 sample, which was days before the intro of the passport. If your values were 'irregular' in 2008 or are in 2009, can they use any sample collected over the years, or is there a cut off date?

From what I read, the UCI retested the sample because the passport revealed something fishy. So was the 2007 sample the closest to the time frame in which the 'irregularity' was found? Ie, the passport shows 12 months, and Jan and Feb according to the experts display anomalies, so they used a sample that preceded those months...

But in his case, irregular values were reported mid-june 2008 (right?) leading to a break with RAB, and then they go back to a sample from end 2007... :confused:
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
Bala Verde said:
I still don't understand what warranted the retesting of a december 2007 sample, which was days before the intro of the passport. If your values were 'irregular' in 2008 or are in 2009, can they use any sample collected over the years, or is there a cut off date?

From what I read, the UCI retested the sample because the passport revealed something fishy. So was the 2007 sample the closest to the time frame in which the 'irregularity' was found? Ie, the passport shows 12 months, and Jan and Feb according to the experts display anomalies, so they used a sample that preceded those months...

But in his case, irregular values were reported mid-june 2008 (right?) leading to a break with RAB, and then they go back to a sample from end 2007... :confused:
Of all the samples, that one was the most suspicious one.

As Martial Saugy of the Lausanne lab put it, the test results clearly show who's doping and who isn't (according to him, about 80% of the TDF peloton). Simply they can't declare it positive due to insanely high standards to be able to declare a sample positive.

In this case, the spectral analysis showed bands that are nothing like those of normal urine. Clearly exogenous EPO was there. But they couldn't prove it.
However with the new test for Dynepo, they retested it and it came back positive for Dynepo.

Hope that helped :)
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,279
0
0
issoisso said:
Of all the samples, that one was the most suspicious one.

As Martial Saugy of the Lausanne lab put it, the test results clearly show who's doping and who isn't (according to him, about 80% of the TDF peloton). Simply they can't declare it positive due to insanely high standards to be able to declare a sample positive.

In this case, the spectral analysis showed bands that are nothing like those of normal urine. Clearly exogenous EPO was there. But they couldn't prove it.
However with the new test for Dynepo, they retested it and it came back positive for Dynepo.

Hope that helped :)

Great!! Thanks for the info
 
Apr 29, 2009
428
0
0
issoisso said:
Wegelius and Sentjens are the two riders in reserve. All teams have them. As such, they travelled to monaco too in case they had to replace someone at the last moment.
Wegelius was still at home when he got the news, not in Monaco. Cadel had only left for Moncao on Wednesday lunchtime with Matt Lloyd and their DS.
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
powderpuff said:
Wegelius was still at home when he got the news, not in Monaco. Cadel had only left for Moncao on Wednesday lunchtime with Matt Lloyd and their DS.
That's pretty weird. Last time I checked silence-lotto.be it said Wegelius was at hand on the spot :confused:

Oh well. Not the first time they'd be wrong :p
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS