Doping inspector backs Armstrong

[Sprocket01]

Britain's Barry Broadbent, a UCI doping inspector, says the AFLD claims are wide of the mark.

He also believes Astana were among the most scrutinized teams on the race.

"If I were to make a report on the Tour de France, I would say they were the opposite," said Broadbent when asked what he thought of a damning report by the AFLD which criticised the UCI's anti-doping system at the race.

"The AFLD were subjecting them to more controls at more inconvenient times than anyone else.

"To say that one team had privileges when clearly they were tested more than any other team seems quite ridiculous to me."

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...about-testing-Armstrong-Contador-at-Tour.aspx

 

[BroDeal]

We already have a thread for this subject (and the other new thread you made). Add to the existing threads.

 

[Race Radio]

What did you expect him to say?

 

[Sprocket01]

We already have a thread for this subject (and the other new thread you made). Add to the existing threads.

The other new thread is about a seperate issue of the 2008 tour.

This thread is new information from a doping inspector. We now have it from someone on the front line that Astana were targeted more than any other team and at the most inappropriate times. It seems the dispute is more to do with politics.

 

[peloton]

it's already here, no need for a new thread, imo.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=3884&page=20

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The other new thread is about a seperate issue of the 2008 tour.

This thread is new information from a doping inspector. We now have it from someone on the front line that Astana were targeted more than any other team and at the most inappropriate times. It seems the dispute is more to do with politics.

Astana had 3 riders in the top 10 and the Yellow Jersey - obviously they were going to be tested more than most teams.

But as with the UCI press release they do not refute any of the allegations made:

• That the samples were stored in car boot and not in a proper container.
• That samples were marked "Out of Competition"
• Talking loudly about a suprise control the night before.
• The UCI did not give the AFLD the 'whereabouts' of the Astana team
• Astana were last to give their samples .
• Test delayed by 45 minutes, and AFLD escorts not permitted to attend.
• Excessive amount of time in notifying riders of post race tests.

In the UCI press relesase the UCI only discuss the case of the preferencial treatment of Astana - citing an unpublished investigation - but make no comment on the other allegations.

 

[Sprocket01]

Put it under the other posts then. Whatever...

 

[Sprocket01]

Astana had 3 riders in the top 10 and the Yellow Jersey - obviously they were going to be testedd more than most teams.

But as with the UCI press release they do not refute any of the allegations made:

• That the samples were stored in car boot and not in a proper container.
• That samples were marked "Out of Competition"
• Talking loudly about a suprise control the night before.
• The UCI did not give the AFLD the 'whereabouts' of the Astana team
• Astana were last to give their samples .
• Test delayed by 45 minutes, and AFLD escorts not permitted to attend.
• Excessive amount of time in notifying riders of post race tests.

In the UCI press relesase the UCI only discuss the case of the preferencial treatment of Astana - citing an unpublished investigation - but make no comment on the other allegations.

I think it would take an enormous amount of detail to go into every tiny matter they raise. It sounds like a lot of hearsay and 'he said, she said'.

What is important is a well respected and tough inspector who was at the coal face of the inspections process has felt moved to speak out and point out some home truths, just in case anyone was getting the wrong impression about the reality of what went on. This is important.

 

[Mellow Velo]

I'm amazed. A UCI doping inspector agreeing with the UCI.
Whatever next?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think it would take an enormous amount of detail to go into every tiny matter they raise. It sounds like a lot of hearsay and 'he said, she said'.

What is important is a well respected and tough inspector who was at the coal face of the inspections process has felt moved to speak out and point out some home truths, just in case anyone was getting the wrong impression about the reality of what went on. This is important.

You may believe that this is a 'tiny matter' - but I believe the collection and storage of samples is the first line in catching cheats.

These were very specific allegations that have not been refuted.
If they were untrue one would expect either UCI or Barry Broadbent to deny each of these serious allegations - or release the investigation that the UCI say they carried out.

 

[guilder]

Britain's Barry Broadbent, a UCI doping inspector, says the AFLD claims are "To say that one team had privileges when clearly they were tested more than any other team seems quite ridiculous to me."
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...about-testing-Armstrong-Contador-at-Tour.aspx

AFLD can't continue to exist by merely testing samples and following procedure. It's an embarrassment for them to receive a disproportional endowment when ultimately their job is to assure the perception the TDF is relatively clean which happens to be 9 months away.

The AFLD appears desperate by plying the emotions of the public as if opinion means more than solid proof.

 

[BikeCentric]

Britain's Barry Broadbent, a UCI doping inspector, says the AFLD claims are wide of the mark.

He also believes Astana were among the most scrutinized teams on the race.

"If I were to make a report on the Tour de France, I would say they were the opposite," said Broadbent when asked what he thought of a damning report by the AFLD which criticised the UCI's anti-doping system at the race.

"The AFLD were subjecting them to more controls at more inconvenient times than anyone else.

"To say that one team had privileges when clearly they were tested more than any other team seems quite ridiculous to me."

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...about-testing-Armstrong-Contador-at-Tour.aspx

So let me get this straight, an actual EMPLOYEE of the UCI (you know, a person that collects their PAYCHECK from the UCI) is speaking out and saying that his organization is being criticized unfairly, and somehow you are surprised by this? And you seem to think that anyone should actually care about this or think it means anything?

If anything, the fact that the UCI and AFLD seem to have completely opposite conceptions of what occurred at the TDF this year regarding testing should spur you into thinking that there may be some sort of problem going on here.

 

[bianchigirl]

I'm sure Mr Boradbent enjoyed his cofee - wonder what Astana put in it?Or does that only come in a brown bag?

I agree Doc - nobody is addressing the chain of custody/sample conservation issues which are the main meat of Bordry's argument. I'm amazed that Flandis and Pharmstrong aren't all over this - after all, weren't these very issues their main gripe of the 99 positives and the testosterone test?

 

[thehog]

AFLD can't continue to exist by merely testing samples and following procedure. It's an embarrassment for them to receive a disproportional endowment when ultimately their job is to assure the perception the TDF is relatively clean which happens to be 9 months away.

The AFLD appears desperate by plying the emotions of the public as if opinion means more than solid proof.

Correction. The AFLD does not test samples period. It only collects them and hads them to the same lab the UCI uses. I wonder why the AFLD sample shows more positives in one year of sole testing than the UCI in 5. Because they collect the samples in the proper manner.

 

[Sprocket01]

This is very poor spin. What if I were to answer everything by saying an employee of the AFLD said it so it can't be true? I don't know if this man is a full time inspector or was merely employed by the UCI during the Tour. If you think he's lying then you should produce the evidence.

 

[Epicycle]

Here is what Broadbent had to say during the 2009 Tour

http://politiken.dk/sport/cykling/touren/article754311.ece?cmpid=lokal
James Barry Broadbent is Commissioner doping during the Tour de France. He almost feels sorry for the riders for the rigors of control in the Tour.

"What we expose riders to is very harsh. We test the favorites the most, so we test the same riders over and over again. I will awaken the same rider twice or three times a week, and I will test the same rider three or four times a week after the stages. They get less sleep and return to the hotel for food and massages later. But the riders do not complain. They know that the system is there to make the game respectable again in public."


He then goes on to say that there will probably always be doping an the story ends with Astarloza getting called to doping control after the stage and saying he doesn't mind the hassle.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This is very poor spin. What if I were to answer everything by saying an employee of the AFLD said it so it can't be true? I don't know if this man is a full time inspector or was merely employed by the UCI during the Tour. If you think he's lying then you should produce the evidence.

He cannot be accused of lying as he did not refute any of the original accusations.

 

[BikeCentric]

This is very poor spin. What if I were to answer everything by saying an employee of the AFLD said it so it can't be true? I don't know if this man is a full time inspector or was merely employed by the UCI during the Tour. If you think he's lying then you should produce the evidence.

I didn't accuse anyone of lying BPC. Ironic that you speak of spin then put words in anothers' mouth.

 

[Sprocket01]

He cannot be accused of lying as he did not refute any of the original accusations.

He refutes the general smear, if you like, that Astana were given easy treatment, when in fact they were major targets and had to put up with things most other teams did not. That is a worthwhile and important contribution.

 

[BikeCentric]

He refutes the general smear, if you like, that Astana were given easy treatment, when in fact they were major targets and had to put up with things most other teams did not. That is a worthwhile and important contribution.

Interesting. You now claim that this man's statements are "fact" and the AFLD's report is a "smear" and yet accuse other posters of "spinning" in your previous post.

You're not very subtle Arbiter. I mean BanProCycling. I mean BritishProCycling. Whoops, you're back again as Sprocket01. We'll be seeing you again in a few days under yet another username I'm sure.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

He refutes the general smear, if you like, that Astana were given easy treatment, when in fact they were major targets and had to put up with things most other teams did not. That is a worthwhile and important contribution.

He does not refute the specific allegatoins.

Of course Astana were major targets -they had AC in yellow for 7 days and 4 stage wins, with 3 riders in the top 10.

 

[Publicus]

He does not refute the specific allegatoins.

Of course Astana were major targets -they had AC in yellow for 7 days and 4 stage wins, with 3 riders in the top 10.

So does any one know if Saxo Bank was subjected to the same treatment? I assume they were, but it would be nice confirmation that AFLD's treatment of Astana was consistent with its treatment of the other teams with multiple riders in the top 10 and who held the MJ for multiple days. Same question for AG2R.

 

[Anonymous]

He refutes the general smear, if you like, that Astana were given easy treatment, when in fact they were major targets and had to put up with things most other teams did not. That is a worthwhile and important contribution.

"Smear" is your word, not his. Arbiter, your bias is showing (again).

 

[CentralCaliBike]

It seems to me that both sides of the argument are only interested in reading the articles that appear to back their preconceived ideas re: Armstrong and doping. Whenever either side reads something they do not agree with they immediately attack the author, and anyone who suggests the article should be considered, as somehow immoral purveyors of falsehood.

 

[hfer07]

Lets review this:
*LA pays the UCI a 100K in donations/endorsements-therefore UCI works for him.
*UCI inspector works for UCI-therefore UCI inspector works for LA

any questions?