Many will go down now

[Cobblestones]

I am not that sure about that. The UCI seems to be driven by money. Contador testing positive would do a large amount of damage to the sport and, especially, the Tour de France. But then again, Di Luca was a big star...

If Contador goes down it will likely be due to a police investigation or something like use of CERA when it was thought to be undetectable. Kohl and his manager, with an undoubtedly less sophisticated doping program than what Bruyneel would be running, was smart enough not to use anything except blood transfusions during the Tour. He was only caught out by use of CERA too close to the start of the TdF. If Contador does not get caught by the 2008 Giro retesting then he is likely home free.

I believe that Contador still is a protected rider. Never mind the ruckus this July, he was in Bruyneel's team. If he tests non-negative, no matter what, it will reflect badly.

Second, ASO and UCI have a peace agreement as of this year. Neither is particularly interested any more in the anti-doping fight. Pat probably gets a good cut from the protection, and ASO saw their bottom line fall after the problems of the last years. How much money did they lose in the German market alone? A non-negative TdF winner is the last thing they want to see.

So why have so many Italians been busted? My feeling is because CONI has stepped up their game. Italian riders will have to adjust their MO. They're going the way of the French.

ETA: don't feed the troll

 

[sgreene]

Di Luca has just been popped for doping at this year's Giro. He finished second to Menchov. Contador won the 2008 Giro and hardly broke a sweat. What's the probability that Di Luca was doping at the 08 Giro when he finished just behind Contador? I'd bet that he was. So what does that tell you? If iContador is riding clean, he is a 30 percent better athlete than Di Luca et al if we allow a 20--25 percent Cera/EPO dope boost? I think not. Get a life, indeed.

Contador is a better athlete than DiLuca -- how much better, who knows? The fact is that Contador DID struggle to win the 08 Giro, he got better as he rode into the race, and his winning margin was not that large. DiLuca has shown inconsistent form in his Grand Tour history, with great success only coming in recent years. Contador's form in stage races has been very consistent, with no unusual peaks or valleys. While still not proof, it is supporting evidence. The theory that a non-doper cannot beat a doper is seriously flawed. Some athletes are just that good, and don't need dope. We can speculate all we want -- it's difficult to prove a negative.

 

[krebs303]

Doesn’t it seem strange that the MOST successful Grand Tour team director/team(s) have never had any kind of PROVEN connection with doping?

Maybe that's why they are successful because they know how not to be caught

 

[sgreene]

I honestly have a feeling that AC is going to be hung out to dry by Lance, in terms of the UCI. .

Hung out to dry? What do you mean? Lance is going to tell the UCI that he saw AC getting a blood transfusion at the Tour? Because he's mad at him? You are entitled to your opinion, but...

 

[sgreene]

Maybe that's why they are successful because they know how not to be caught

While possible, I find it highly unlikely due to the already heavy workload of a ProTour team director, the ever-increasing scrutiny by anti-doping entities, and the incredible difficulty of keeping any kind of secret from anyone, given the large number of team staff involved in day-to-day operations. Not to mention the disastrous consequences of being caught.

 

[BroDeal]

While possible, I find it highly unlikely due to the already heavy workload of a ProTour team director, the ever-increasing scrutiny by anti-doping entities, and the incredible difficulty of keeping any kind of secret from anyone, given the large number of team staff involved in day-to-day operations. Not to mention the disastrous consequences of being caught.

Yet, top riders continue to be caught. That might make a rational person question an idiotic line of reasoning like this...

I guess the 80% of TdF podium finishers from 1995 - 2005 who have been shown to have doped must have all been innocent too. They was framed! Framed, I tell you! How could they have thought they would away with it with the heavy workload of the team director and the large staff involved in day to day operations? How could they have risked the disasterous consequences? Framed!!!!

 

[psychlist]

What power does Armstrong have to hang anyone out to dry?

 

[BroDeal]

He has been tested a huge number of times, both in and out of competition, with the latest and best techniques available. Nothing.

So what if he has been tested a million times? Doping techniques like autologous blood doping are undetectable. There is no recognized test for them. Many drugs are undetectable. Still other substances have the threshold for a positive set so high that only the stupid or careless get caught.

Kohl, said he was tested two hundred times and a hundred of those tests should have come back positive, but they did not. The only thing that caught him was a new test for a previously undetectable substance. And he was not even using CERA during the Tour; the drug's half life was long enough that he tested positive long after he stopped using it.

Doesn’t it seem strange that the MOST successful Grand Tour team director/team(s) have never had any kind of PROVEN connection with doping?

It does not seem so strange when the organization responsible for testing has accepted $500,000 under the table payments from riders it tests. In light of that it does not seem so strange that last year when the AFLD was given total control over dope testing in the Tour, it found that 20% of the stages were won by dopers.

And Bruyneel's team has Armstrong, a man who has been proven to have used EPO in 1999. So that blows that argument out of the water.

 

[Digger]

What power does Armstrong have to hang anyone out to dry?

I'm editing my original post and I need ten characters!!!!

 

[sgreene]

So what if he has been tested a million times? Doping techniques like autologous blood doping are undetectable. There is no recognized test for them. Many drugs are undetectable. Still other substances have the threshold for a positive set so high that only the stupid or careless get caught.

Kohl, said he was tested two hundred times and a hundred of those tests should have come back positive, but they did not. The only thing that caught him was a new test for a previously undectable substance. And he was not even using CERA during the Tour; the drug's half life was long enough that he tested positive long after he stopped using it.



It does not seem so strange when the organization responsible for testing has accepted $500,000 under the table payments from riders it tests. In light of that it does not seem so strange that last year when the AFLD was given total control over dope testing in the Tour, it found that 20% of the stages were won by dopers.

And Bruyneel's team has Armstrong, a man who has been proven to have used EPO in 1999. So that blows that argument out of the water.

Where do I start? Armstrong was not proven to have taken EPO in 1999 -- an independent UCI investigation cleared him. Oh wait, by your theory the UCI is corrupt, so that doesn't count. And you believe admitted doper Kohl? Yeah, he's trustworthy. Again, who's your favorite rider? If he's performing well, he must be doping. It is possible for a rider to dope without his team knowing about it -- what I tried to say is that there is no proof of systematic doping in Bruyneel's teams, as many are suggesting. Do you really think it would be possible to keep a systematic doping program a secret for 10 years? Again, BroDeal, you basically called me an idiot because you disagree with me. How about lightening up on that? Since neither of our positions can be proven, can't you agree that they are equally pluasible? You imply I am naive, but I can reply that you are cynical and paranoid. If you prove me wrong, I will buy you a beer.

 

[BroDeal]

Where do I start? Armstrong was not proven to have taken EPO in 1999 -- an independent UCI investigation cleared him.

That so called "independent" investigation has been discredited. It was undertaken by a lawyer who makes his money defending dopers, a very strange choice of investigators. He did not even bother to ask WADA for documentation relating to the case. He also did not bother to obtain much of the primary evidence from the lab using France's version of the FOIA. In fact, some of his so called investigation was using newspaper reports. He started with predetermined conclusions, which were to exonerate Armstrong and to attack WADA. He used a legalistic explanation to explain why Armstrong could not be sanctioned for the positives, but he refused to deal with the fact that artificial EPO was found in Armstrong's urine. Armstrong doped. Period. It does not matter if he avoided being sanctioned. He doped. That question has been resolved.

Do you really think it would be possible to keep a systematic doping program a secret for 10 years?

ONCE/Liberty Seguros did. So did T-Mobile.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It will be interesting how the politics play out. The Carbineri seem to be more aggressive for political reasons and may squeeze more out of this than the UCI would ever want. It could kill UCI control over their version of the WWF (no, not the World Wildlife Fund). The political climate of Italy may dictate whether testing money shows up or not. If it does...

Bingo! This isn't about cycling or cleaning up a sport. It is all politics. The motivation is political - a photo opportunity and being able to claim that you are the Saviour of a sport.

The Carabinieri are just the tool to make this all happen. The UCI had an opportunity to retest those samples and refused - if they were serious about anti doping they would have tested them but they are happier to let some people slide through so as not to have more negativity on the sport.

The laws in Italy are now very powerful and wide ranging.
Di Luca was caught recently - and now has questioned how the lab is run!
He would be singing a different tune if he is sitting in an interrogation room - with a criminal conviction hanging over him that could result in large fines and possible jail time. While the Carabinieri search through his home, his hard drive, his telephone records and question everyone associated with him.

The UCI and McQuaid in particular must be regretting not doing the test themselves and being able to contain the damage that could be uncovered.

 

[sgreene]

That so called "independent" investigation has been discredited. It was undertaken by a lawyer who makes his money defending dopers, a very strange choice of investigators. He did not even bother to ask WADA for documentation relating to the case. He also did not bother to obtain much of the primary evidence from the lab using France's version of the FOIA. In fact, some of his so called investigation was using newspaper reports. He started with predetermined conclusions, which were to exonerate Armstrong and to attack WADA. He used a legalistic explanation to explain why Armstrong could not be sanctioned for the positives, but he refused to deal with the fact that artificial EPO was found in Armstrong's urine. Armstrong doped. Period. It does not matter if he avoided being sanctioned. He doped. That question has been resolved.

Sorry, there was no proof of chain of custody of the samples referred to in the case, or proof that they were even Armstrong's. The testing was initiated by L'Equipe, a sports magazine for God's sake! It doesn't even matter if there was EPO in the samples if they couldn't prove that they were LA's. So I guess LA suddenly didn't need EPO to dominate the Tour from 2000-2005 after the EPO test came into use?

You seem to have information that nobody has ever heard of before: "$500,000 under the table payments from riders"... Got any proof of that?
Why do you insist upon taking the most negative, cynical view when you don't have any evidence? Also, will you or will you not agree that both of our positions are equally plausible in the absence of proof either way?

 

[Digger]

Sorry, there was no proof of chain of custody of the samples referred to in the case, or proof that they were even Armstrong's. The testing was initiated by L'Equipe, a sports magazine for God's sake! It doesn't even matter if there was EPO in the samples if they couldn't prove that they were LA's. So I guess LA suddenly didn't need EPO to dominate the Tour from 2000-2005 after the EPO test came into use?

You seem to have information that nobody has ever heard of before: "$500,000 under the table payments from riders"... Got any proof of that?
Why do you insist upon taking the most negative, cynical view when you don't have any evidence? Also, will you or will you not agree that both of our positions are equally plausible in the absence of proof either way?

The testing was NOT initiated by L'Equipe. The sample positives were reported by the paper after the fact. Lance accepts they are his samples. You are clutching at straws.
"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden



Blood doping and micro-dosing came into play in later years.
Courtesy of Eva Maria:

Sylvia Schenk, ex-President of the Bund Deutsche Radfahrer, member of the UCI management committee and the UCI Ethics Commission.


Quote:
'Everything is suddenly different when it comes to Armstrong...There is obviously a close relationship to Armstrong. For example, the UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong - as far as I know, $500,000. Now of course there is speculation that there are financial relationships to Armstrong'

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news....p05/sep15news3

 

[Digger]

Clearly there are too many conspiracy theorists out there. Why do people doubt that Alberto Contador is clean? Well, of course it is because he has done impressive things on the bike! Has anyone stopped to think about how many times Contador was tested in the '09 Tour, not to mention in the last 1 1/2 years? When you are winning stages, wearing the leader's jersey and consistently near or at the top of the GC standings in all the major tours, you are going to be tested nearly EVERY DAY. Not a single suspicious thing has ever been found. Do you really think that Johan Bruyneel has the "magic formula" for successfully doping without being caught? On top of his enormous responsibilities as director, this would involve a huge time and money commitment, not to mention the fact that a single slipup would mean the end of everything -- job, reputation, etc. I don't believe it. Conspiracy theorists - you need to get a life!

Werner Franke, a molecular cell biologist at the German Cancer Research Center and key whistleblower against doping in then-East Germany, said he has documents in his possession from the Spanish police's blood doping investigation named Operation Puerto involving Eufemiano Fuentes, the doctor credited with engineering doping programs for professional athletes.

"The name of this Mr Contador appears on several occasions on the court and police documents," Franke told German television station ZDF, according to AFP.

"All of this has been simply concealed and hidden under the carpet whilst the name Contador was erased from the list of supicious riders."

Franke also told ZDF that he has a detailed list of banned products that were used by Contador. Those products appear in sworn statements following the raid on Fuentes' medical offices, AFP said.

Franke claims Contador used:

Insulin (anabolic)
HMG-lepori (stimulates testosterone production)
TNG (for asthma)

 

[Bronstein]

Sorry, there was no proof of chain of custody of the samples referred to in the case, or proof that they were even Armstrong's. The testing was initiated by L'Equipe, a sports magazine for God's sake! It doesn't even matter if there was EPO in the samples if they couldn't prove that they were LA's. So I guess LA suddenly didn't need EPO to dominate the Tour from 2000-2005 after the EPO test came into use?

You seem to have information that nobody has ever heard of before: "$500,000 under the table payments from riders"... Got any proof of that?
Why do you insist upon taking the most negative, cynical view when you don't have any evidence? Also, will you or will you not agree that both of our positions are equally plausible in the absence of proof either way?

There is substantial circumstantial evidence to support BroDeal's position. His position is plausible. Your position is possible, but implausible given the culture of doping within cycling, particularly in the last 15-20 years.

 

[Oldman]

Bingo! This isn't about cycling or cleaning up a sport. It is all politics. The motivation is political - a photo opportunity and being able to claim that you are the Saviour of a sport.

The Carabinieri are just the tool to make this all happen. The UCI had an opportunity to retest those samples and refused - if they were serious about anti doping they would have tested them but they are happier to let some people slide through so as not to have more negativity on the sport.

The laws in Italy are now very powerful and wide ranging.
Di Luca was caught recently - and now has questioned how the lab is run!
He would be singing a different tune if he is sitting in an interrogation room - with a criminal conviction hanging over him that could result in large fines and possible jail time. While the Carabinieri search through his home, his hard drive, his telephone records and question everyone associated with him.

The UCI and McQuaid in particular must be regretting not doing the test themselves and being able to contain the damage that could be uncovered.

And those guys don't let you out from under the hot lights until they get what they're after. Think the Amanda Knox trial and all the Italian officials running for camera time. DiLuca might become a gifted songbird on the tell-all circuit, seeing as he won't be making any money cycling in the near future.

 

[poupou]

Sorry, there was no proof of chain of custody of the samples referred to in the case, or proof that they were even Armstrong's. The testing was initiated by L'Equipe, a sports magazine for God's sake! It doesn't even matter if there was EPO in the samples if they couldn't prove that they were LA's. So I guess LA suddenly didn't need EPO to dominate the Tour from 2000-2005 after the EPO test came into use?

You seem to have information that nobody has ever heard of before: "$500,000 under the table payments from riders"... Got any proof of that?
Why do you insist upon taking the most negative, cynical view when you don't have any evidence? Also, will you or will you not agree that both of our positions are equally plausible in the absence of proof either way?

And the Irak war was declared by CNN !

 

[Oldman]

And the Irak war was declared by CNN !

As the creator's of the event, we like to call it the Iraq war. Emphasis on SAD-damn.

 

[Franklin]

Doesn’t it seem strange that the MOST successful Grand Tour team director/team(s) have never had any kind of PROVEN connection with doping?

Just for laughs:

Explain why besides Lance Carlos and AC almost everyone on the podium for the last ten years has been caught/implicated, yet they consistently beat those dopers?

Then we take it a notch up.
-If Riis is a convicted doper, does that spell good for the morality of Sastre? -If Saiz, the one who made Contador is THE connection of cycling with Puerto is a fraud, how does that look for AC?
-If said AC is mentioned in Puerto (odd that considering his whole team is caught), how far is the stretch of imagination that he is the only clean one on that team?
-If Lance is hounded by Epo stories has a director who *gasp* rode for *drumroll* Saiz and whose teammates who left the fold got caught time after time?
-If JB has tried to hire Top contenders who were implicated by Puerto, does that look good on his Anti doping stance?

I can go on for awhile (leaked text messages, retro date doctor transcripts, connections with certain convicted dottores, etc. etc.)

If that doesn't make you wonder; I have a bridge here to sell.

 

[Oldman]

Just for laughs:

Explain why besides Lance Carlos and AC almost everyone on the podium for the last ten years has been caught/implicated, yet they consistently beat those dopers?

Then we take it a notch up.
-If Riis is a convicted doper, does that spell good for the morality of Sastre? -If Saiz, the one who made Contador is THE connection of cycling with Puerto is a fraud, how does that look for AC?
-If said AC is mentioned in Puerto (odd that considering his whole team is caught), how far is the stretch of imagination that he is the only clean one on that team?
-If Lance is hounded by Epo stories has a director who *gasp* rode for *drumroll* Saiz and whose teammates who left the fold got caught time after time?
-If JB has tried to hire Top contenders who were implicated by Puerto, does that look good on his Anti doping stance?

I can go on for awhile (leaked text messages, retro date doctor transcripts, connections with certain convicted dottores, etc. etc.)

If that doesn't make you wonder; I have a bridge here to sell.

He's an American. We already bought the bridge and it's in an artificial lake in Arizona. He's texting from there as we speak.

 

[sgreene]

Just for laughs:

Explain why besides Lance Carlos and AC almost everyone on the podium for the last ten years has been caught/implicated, yet they consistently beat those dopers?

Then we take it a notch up.
-If Riis is a convicted doper, does that spell good for the morality of Sastre? -If Saiz, the one who made Contador is THE connection of cycling with Puerto is a fraud, how does that look for AC?
-If said AC is mentioned in Puerto (odd that considering his whole team is caught), how far is the stretch of imagination that he is the only clean one on that team?
-If Lance is hounded by Epo stories has a director who *gasp* rode for *drumroll* Saiz and whose teammates who left the fold got caught time after time?
-If JB has tried to hire Top contenders who were implicated by Puerto, does that look good on his Anti doping stance?

I can go on for awhile (leaked text messages, retro date doctor transcripts, connections with certain convicted dottores, etc. etc.)

If that doesn't make you wonder; I have a bridge here to sell.

Once and for all, if any actual, official, undisputed evidence of doping by Contador, or Armstrong for that matter, ever emerges, I will happily admit I was wrong to all of you. In the meantime, we are all entitled to our opinions.

 

[BroDeal]

You seem to have information that nobody has ever heard of before: "$500,000 under the table payments from riders"... Got any proof of that?

You have never heard of it because you never bothered to find out what you were talking about. Anyone else who has followed the sport to any degree is well aware of the information that seems to surprise you.

Even now you could be using google instead of putting your foot into your mouth.

For example, you make the argument that since Armstrong did not test positve after 1999, that casts doubt on the 1999 positives. That is idiotic. He could have simply gone to smaller more frequent doses, which will reduce the detection window. Use a small enough dose and the detection window closes to such a degree that injections done at night are undetectable by the time in the morning when testers are allowed to come.

By the very early 00s, riders were using a masking substance to destroy EPO in urine samples. L.A. Confidential details suspicion about Armstrong in this regard. Testers from that time have said that they found samples with not only no artificial EPO but no natural EPO either. Fuentes was handing out a masking powder to his clients.

Ultimtately, Armstrong undoubtedly went to blood transfusions. The IM conversation between Vaughters and Andreu revealed that Postal was using transfusions. Then there are the large number of bio-similar EPOs that the testing procedures are just barely getting on top of. During Armstrong's reign it was a free for all for use of those substances.

The notion that if other samples are not postive then it invalidates those that are is pure idiocy. If we used that criteria then not a single rider would ever be guilty of doping. Does the two hundred tests that Kohl passed invalidate the two that he did not?

 

[Anonymous]

Once and for all, if any actual, official, undisputed evidence of doping by Contador, or Armstrong for that matter, ever emerges, I will happily admit I was wrong to all of you. In the meantime, we are all entitled to our opinions.

Honestly, I don't think any of us really care whether or not you admit anything.

 

[BroDeal]

Once and for all, if any actual, official, undisputed evidence of doping by Contador, or Armstrong for that matter, ever emerges, I will happily admit I was wrong to all of you. In the meantime, we are all entitled to our opinions.

Sure you will. That is what all the ostriches say even as they steadfastly deny every bit of evidence that is brought before them. Why don't you just man up and admit that if you saw video evidence of Armstrong injecting himself with drugs you would still be denying the truth.