Kohl confirms manager bribed anti-doping labs

[cawright1375]

This revelation doesn't come as a total shocker and given how tight the noose is allegedly becoming it's logical that the hardcore dopers would go to such lengths to protect themselves.

On the flip side I'd be curious if this practice occurs on the administrative side of things? And no I am not referring the LA story that Equipe wrote about. And I know there will be some flack for this, but I am refering to Floyd's situation. As someone who works in the Bio-Pharmaceutical industry and handles lab paperwork on a daily basis the mistakes and erros that French lab made would have cost the company I work for millions of dollars and the probable production halt. Yet for all we know nothing happens and regardless of what David Walsh may think how does the yellow jersey only test postive one day out of all the rest?

Anyway, Kohl, by confirming this at least shows he is willing to help, but whether its out of a sense of doing what is right or taking everyone else with him - well only time will tell.

 

[HelmutRoole]

These are not "cycling laboratories" or "UCI laboratories". These are just laboratories what have accreditation from WADA. ..

Point is this, Kohl's manager was an idiot. He tried to get this thing done in one fell swoop.

Consider if you were going to do this and you didn't want to get caught, you'd use back channels. You find someone who knew someone who worked at a lab who could perform such tests. Then you'd find someone who knew the WADA tolerances for such tests. You'd take your rider's blood and urine to the first guy with information gleaned from the second guy.

You wouldn't just walk up some WADA lab stiff and go, "Pssst." Because: If he'll take your money to do that then he'll definitely take some else's money to narc your behind out latter to the first journalist who passes by, which is apparently what happened here.

 

[ramielptyltd]

private message

to serbski
I note you are a junuior rider and that you feel sad that nothing is being done about the problems cyclng faces. I have noted this is a private message and is about time people started to know, there is something being done but has taken a long time, a film exposing the truth is being made by an Australian Production Company. Rest assured, we have left no stone unturned and I will post a public reply when we are ready to go live with the film's website. As you can imagine it has taken me a very long time to work through the legalities of the film to protect myself so have faith, something is being done.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

to serbski
EDITED

You do realize this is not private, but appeared in the public portion of the forum?

Susan

 

[ramielptyltd]

Hi Susan, .....yes.

 

[issoisso]

Hi Susan, .....yes.

The reason she asks is not just because everyone can see...it's that there is in fact a "Private Message" function where you can "PM" (as we say) a certain forum member personally

And while we're at it...Susan, you do realize you don't need to sign every post "Susan Westemayer" at the end, right? We know it's you. We may sometimes (ok, more often than that) act like 3 year olds, but we don't exactly have the memory of 3 year olds

 

[Bala Verde]

Perhaps Matschiner was a little careless... on the other hand, it could also be inferred that his methods are a reflection of the conditions he operated in, or the way he perceived them. Perhaps he thought he could get away with it, by just going about the way he did.

If it indeed is a reflection of how people perceive the risks to approach an Eastern European, accredited lab, to test the tests, the flood gates are still wide open.

I think it was Lisa Hütthaler, the Triathlete working with Matschiner, who approached a laborant, to screw up the test that would pop her positive. Obviously with a promise to fatten his/her bank account...

 

[bianchigirl]

It goes without saying that USDiscatana have always had moles within the UCI who let them know when to expect 'surprise' testing.

So, in light of all of this - what's the future for the 'never tested positive' defence?

And of course there's no corruption in the UCI and their testers never sit and have a cup of coffee whilst 'showers' are taken :roll:

This merely confirms what some of us have known all along - that testing is a joke. The question is - does the sport continue to treat testing as essentially a joke and to contain the level of doping or does it really try and sort the problem out instead of dealing with a few spurious 'bad apples'? And where do we stand as fans in all this?

 

[Digger]

It goes without saying that USDiscatana have always had moles within the UCI who let them know when to expect 'surprise' testing.

So, in light of all of this - what's the future for the 'never tested positive' defence?

And of course there's no corruption in the UCI and their testers never sit and have a cup of coffee whilst 'showers' are taken :roll:

This merely confirms what some of us have known all along - that testing is a joke. The question is - does the sport continue to treat testing as essentially a joke and to contain the level of doping or does it really try and sort the problem out instead of dealing with a few spurious 'bad apples'? And where do we stand as fans in all this?

That I'm being naive in thinking progess is being made.

 

[Oldman]

Well, maybe the punk will take down the entire system... but, it will just pop up somewhere else. At this point I don't think anything can be done. It's like the "war on drugs" in the US. It's so wide spread.... what can be done that will result in a meaningful change? I'm at a loss.

The "war on drugs" in the US is a major profit center for the treatment industry and the private prison operators. That's right, PRIVATE PRISON OPERATORS. They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Just like the UCI.

 

[Cobblestones]

The only surprise would be to learn that not everybody is doing this.

You take a little, then you test yourself to see whether it triggers a positive. If not, you can take some more. Who wouldn't take advantage of that?

Since the WADA testing protocol is no secret, you could also try to recreate it at a non-accredited lab. As long as you have the necessary equipment and schooled personnel you should get a meaningful result.

Now, this is still a step away from altering the result of a real doping test (which I assume might be harder, since it's anonymous), but it looks pretty bad the way it is. Oh well.

The bright side of it all is that these practices get out in the open. We have speculated on many occasions what would be needed to effectively cheat, and it's good that we get confirmation on what we always thought was going on.

 

[Winterfold]

This is in no way surprising. It can't be long before **** Pound proposes to Kohl. And I think Kohl is legit - he's been busted, knows who else should be busted and is going to do his best to take everyone down.

Any of us who cycle even more than a bit know when someone has done something that looks too good to be true, but then passes a test. With a bit of reflection, we know what is going on - but I cant stop myself watching, because I live in hope that maybe they were able to race that hard clean, and even when my intuition tells me they arent clean, I still watch cos I love watching guys go mano a mano on big climbs. So 'they' win cos I keep watching, and buying bikes and upgrading and fettling.

People who only watch the Tour in July, or think that cycling=lance, they believe 'never failed a test' = clean so they keep watching, and taking on the sponsors messages and being made aware of brands.

'They' win either way.

Even if Wiggo tested +ve I would be sooooooooooooooooooo gutted and cheated but I dont think I would stop watching and as to give up my bike? NEVER.

 

[Winterfold]

**** Pound RAOTFLMAO

 

[BroDeal]

This does not seem to rise to the level of Kelme and Postal getting tip offs about OCC tests.

I am not even sure I would describe it as a bribe. Probably a lab tech made a few bucks for doing a little extra testing after hours. I think I remember another doctor--maybe Fuentes?--sending samples to be tested at labs.

Would it be worth riders benefit having their own individualized tests to find out the limits of what they can take without tripping controls? Or would using generalized rules of thumb that apply to all riders be good enough?

 

[Cobblestones]

I am not even sure I would describe it as a bribe. Probably a lab tech made a few bucks for doing a little extra testing after hours. I think I remember another doctor--maybe Fuentes?--sending samples to be tested at labs.

It's not allowed for WADA accredited labs to run such private tests. Of course there's no restrictions for non-accredited labs. The questions is therefore, why not use a non-accredited lab? I think the reasons are:
1) You want to be absolutely sure that the test is performed precisely to WADA specifications with properly calibrated equipment etc. and so forth.
2) It is more likely to remain secret.

The second point is clear when you think about it. If you go to a WADA lab, both sides are risking something. The rider, obviously because he's trying to cheat, and the lab employee because he/she is doing something which could cost the lab its accreditation (and likely the employee his or her job). If you just go to any other lab, the lab employee doesn't risk anything when exposed.

 

[usedtobefast]

This is everyday. The fact that the feds leak the information of what lab is being used is a part of the problem. I all this was sent to an accounting firm instead of back and forth between cycling thugs lots more riders would come up positive. This was a mid level German team, imagine the pressure everybody is under for the biggest names in the sport. This years tour had more press and TV coverage than the last 5 tours combined. The hits on sites for Jens Voight, Lance Armstrong were in the top ten for a week. The UCI and all it's corrupt clowns know not to kill too many golden geese while gathering their bankrolls. This bribe was paid by a team imagine the money that changes hands from the race promoters and cycling feds. Don't feel sorry for Kohl but ask yourself the same question he is why are they picking on me when there is so much guilt to go around. Did they wait until all the cash was collected before DiLuca was announced ?

of course. professional sports. just another day. good or bad.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Hey ramielptyltd, I heard about your movie a bit ago in some blurb. Good luck with it. A real tightrope to walk, but I hope you get it done. In 2007 a Scandanavian film was made about doping mostly in XC skiing. It was pretty good, but had some inaccuracies, and caused a sh!tstorm, and lawsuits. Hopefully you can carry through.

And having a separate board to discuss issues of doping is kind of another form of marginalization. By setting it apart from discussions of pro cycling, the mods have, well, set it apart from discussions of pro cycling.

I think I brought that up at the time. But the problem is that some people may show up to the site, see it's 90% about doping talk, and not even register. With separate forums, there's the hope they'll get curious, come over here, and see that not only do we not wear tin foil hats, this is where the real discussions about the sport are.

...how does the yellow jersey only test positive one day out of all the rest?

Because testing is weak and has an extremely high ratio of false negatives. The carbon isotope analysis re-test of Floyd's other samples showed they all contained synthetic testosterone.

As to the lab errors and sloppy paperwork, not sure where you are getting that information. It was covered very thoroughly in the report, and especially the CAS review as being based on nothing, or false information.

The bottom line to me is that Floyd doped, because that's what everyone at the top does and has for some time - along with just about everyone else he was beating that year. Maybe he did a little more, or a little less, who knows.

 

[usedtobefast]

This does not seem to rise to the level of Kelme and Postal getting tip offs about OCC tests.

I am not even sure I would describe it as a bribe. Probably a lab tech made a few bucks for doing a little extra testing after hours. I think I remember another doctor--maybe Fuentes?--sending samples to be tested at labs.

Would it be worth riders benefit having their own individualized tests to find out the limits of what they can take without tripping controls? Or would using generalized rules of thumb that apply to all riders be good enough?

it is just smart business to know your limits. ask "dirty harry".

 

[pedaling squares]

Now, someone go tell Phil, Paul, and Bob what they already know and have known this whole time.

I remember Phil musing on OLN during the TDF, I'm guessing in '04 or '05. He said quietly that he doubted he had watched a clean cyclist win the Tour in about twenty years (I think he said twenty... it's in the vicinity anyway). That is the only time I have ever heard him suggest that Lance and all the others were doping, and has he ever seemed to have changed tack. I wonder if he was speaking out of character, if he was told to shut up, or if he has decided it's better and more profitable to just play along. Anyway, my point is that TFF is right - these guys are so close to the fire and participate in the inner circle gossip. Doubtful that Kohl or anyone else can reveal anything too surprising to these guys.

 

[runninboy]

This just shows what a huge advantage can be gained from getting a little information from just one source. Now one can imagine how many of the top riders had this information. And does anyone now doubt that this is the reason so many people go to Ferrari? He is not a genius, he just bribed some stupid low level schmuck to find the testing limits.
So the guys who cant afford to pay for correct info either have to ride clean and suffer, or take their chances by not doping to the max allowed.
Kind of shoots holes in the "maybe LA dopes but he would win if nobody doped theory" If you dont want to trigger a positive you err on the safe side you're flying blind.
Heres a possible situation.
You hear from a teammate who worked with Ferrari that he used to use a certain dose of EPO but now the controls are different, more accurate. You cant take a chance on losing a couple years of income, better to lose than get popped, so you talk to a couple of other close friends and find they are using just 25 percent of the dose that used to be standard.
However a rider who is currently paying Ferrari knows that nothing has changed Ferrari just warns people who are no longer on the program that things have changed to scare them into continue using his services.
So the guy paying Ferrari knows to take four times the dose that the uninformed rider takes.
Who has the best chance of winning multiple Tours?
He is not the best rider, the strongest rider etc etc
He is merely the smartest cheater...

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

When Riis made his confession and said they could take his maillot jaune back, Phil quipped something about how they couldn't give it to anyone, as during that time everyone in the entire Tour was probably doped.

Did some more digging. During the Oil For Drugs mess, at one point Carlos Santuccione was tipped off by a lea investigation. Can't find the link though.

I don't think we're anywhere near the tipping point though of Kohl taking the sport down, so to speak. Remember, we need a total flush. It's not the riders. Fingering them isn't the real problem. We need to overhaul the UCI completely, get indpenedent and more thorough testing, and honor codes demanded by sponsors to their teams. Then the UCI (and other governing bodies) need to hold the managers and doctors and support systems accountable, and actively work with law enforcement to make sure it happens.

What we're really getting to is the point where simply not testing positive and having an "anti-doping program" isn't good enough. It's almost meaningless now. We need the sport, and riders, teams, management, to be proactive in their actions if we're going to clean things up at all.

But we've discussed all this before, haven't we?

 

[Anonymous]

This just shows what a huge advantage can be gained from getting a little information from just one source. Now one can imagine how many of the top riders had this information. And does anyone now doubt that this is the reason so many people go to Ferrari? He is not a genius, he just bribed some stupid low level schmuck to find the testing limits.
So the guys who cant afford to pay for correct info either have to ride clean and suffer, or take their chances by not doping to the max allowed.
Kind of shoots holes in the "maybe LA dopes but he would win if nobody doped theory" If you dont want to trigger a positive you err on the safe side you're flying blind.
Heres a possible situation.
You hear from a teammate who worked with Ferrari that he used to use a certain dose of EPO but now the controls are different, more accurate. You cant take a chance on losing a couple years of income, better to lose than get popped, so you talk to a couple of other close friends and find they are using just 25 percent of the dose that used to be standard.
However a rider who is currently paying Ferrari knows that nothing has changed Ferrari just warns people who are no longer on the program that things have changed to scare them into continue using his services.
So the guy paying Ferrari knows to take four times the dose that the uninformed rider takes.
Who has the best chance of winning multiple Tours?
He is not the best rider, the strongest rider etc etc
He is merely the smartest cheater...

Sounds like a manuscript for the soon-to-be-in -production Hollywood movie about LA.

 

[Digger]

This just shows what a huge advantage can be gained from getting a little information from just one source. Now one can imagine how many of the top riders had this information. And does anyone now doubt that this is the reason so many people go to Ferrari? He is not a genius, he just bribed some stupid low level schmuck to find the testing limits.
So the guys who cant afford to pay for correct info either have to ride clean and suffer, or take their chances by not doping to the max allowed.
Kind of shoots holes in the "maybe LA dopes but he would win if nobody doped theory" If you dont want to trigger a positive you err on the safe side you're flying blind.
Heres a possible situation.
You hear from a teammate who worked with Ferrari that he used to use a certain dose of EPO but now the controls are different, more accurate. You cant take a chance on losing a couple years of income, better to lose than get popped, so you talk to a couple of other close friends and find they are using just 25 percent of the dose that used to be standard.
However a rider who is currently paying Ferrari knows that nothing has changed Ferrari just warns people who are no longer on the program that things have changed to scare them into continue using his services.
So the guy paying Ferrari knows to take four times the dose that the uninformed rider takes.
Who has the best chance of winning multiple Tours?
He is not the best rider, the strongest rider etc etc
He is merely the smartest cheater...

According to the infamous IM, Kevin Livingston said that Ullrich never went over 42% HCT after 2000. In the 90s, there were a number of cyclists on 60% plus. Lance we know had a HCT around the 48 mark, which he put down to an oxygen tent!!!
There are other clues in that IM conversation that not all the teams were doping to the extent that USP were. Credit Agricole for example.