"The stars of the Tour 2008 must tremble"

[Mellow Velo]

You can probably delete the French riders from that list.........
Will they bother to re-test samples of riders already in retirement?
Also, those already caught at the Tour.
Then it looks like:
1) The Spanish
2) CSC
3) Rabo
4) The rest

 

[pataphysician]

So you would refuse a great job if they insisted on a clause in your contract that you will have to pay them severance if you ever commit murder?

the contract would say "convicted of murder". With the number of innocent people who have been exonerated after years in prison, i wouldn't agree to that, particularly if i had years left on a multi-year contract that didn't include that provision. If in the next contract negotiation they included it and it was not negotiable, maybe, but hopefully I could get something some equivalent protection such as if the company is going to go bankrupt I am paid 10 times my salary before they go into bankruptcy. In a contract you don't get to add other provisions later. steegmens couldn't send a letter to katusha saying if any other rider on the team is caught doping, you owe me 5 time my salary. it is silly, the only reason the other riders signed is because they didn't have any other option.

 

[issoisso]

the contract would say "convicted of murder". With the number of innocent people who have been exonerated after years in prison, i wouldn't agree to that, particularly if i had years left on a multi-year contract that didn't include that provision. If in the next contract negotiation they included it and it was not negotiable, maybe, but hopefully I could get something some equivalent protection such as if the company is going to go bankrupt I am paid 10 times my salary before they go into bankruptcy. In a contract you don't get to add other provisions later. steegmens couldn't send a letter to katusha saying if any other rider on the team is caught doping, you owe me 5 time my salary. it is silly, the only reason the other riders signed is because they didn't have any other option.

You're forgetting one thing: With the standards so insanely high for a positive test, there are no false positives. You can't be wrongfully convicted.

 

[Cerberus]

Riders in bold are the ones I'd be confident about not being doped. Just my opinion.

What on Earth could possibly inspire you to be confident that Millar is clean?

 

[Digger]

What on Earth could possibly inspire you to be confident that Millar is clean?

Numerous things, but his results since his return being number one.
If he is doping, he should get his money back.

 

[Cerberus]

Numerous things, but his results since his return being number one.
If he is doping, he should get his money back.

Doping doesn't guarantee good results, though his Vuelta was hardly embarrassing. Wasn't his positive test from a period where he performed relatively badly?

 

[issoisso]

Doping doesn't guarantee good results, though his Vuelta was hardly embarrassing. Wasn't his positive test from a period where he performed relatively badly?

He never tested positive

 

[Digger]

Doping doesn't guarantee good results, though his Vuelta was hardly embarrassing. Wasn't his positive test from a period where he performed relatively badly?

Police investigation. Gaumont spilled the beans on him and Cofidis. The police raided his house and found EPO (empty) vials.

And what basis do you have to say he is still doping?

 

[Anonymous]

Funny that you say that in a thread where all top cyclists are randomly accused of using doping

Anyway, how many times did we hear stories like this before? If all past stories about catching dopers from past Tours and other races were true, I would've won the Tour by now.

Look, I am sorry your national hero is a cheating little ***, but don't take it out on me.

I hope ANYONE who doped gets caught. There isn't a dog in the race that I hope gets away with doping regardless of their national origin.

 

[Cerberus]

He never tested positive

Police investigation. Gaumont spilled the beans on him and Cofidis. The police raided his house and found EPO (empty) vials.

My bad, I guess I got it mixed up because he's only admitted to doping during a period with bad results.

And what basis do you have to say he is still doping?

Anyways I haven't said he's still doping, All I've said is That I don't think it's reasonable to single him out as a rider particularly likely to be clean. My basis for that is the obvious one: I think the riders most deserving of trust would be riders who have never been convicted or plausibly implicated in doping cases.

 

[python]

Apologies, this is where I got confused, I knew the samples had been sent to France but I thought it was the AFLD that operated the Chatenay-Malabry lab as they were in charge of the anti-doping at the 08 Tour. Still want to know what happened to these results.

you are absolutely correct and isso is again a tad loose with his assertions.
châtenay-malabry lab formerly known as lndd is under direct control of afld. neither uci nor wada control any labs. any lab performing analysis of the uci samples must be accredited by wada. additionally, a lab must be specifically qualified certified to perform a specific test. in 2008 only châtenay-malabry was certified to test for cera because they were the inventors of the test. that's the reason the 2008 giro samples were destined for AFLD. there was no other lab that could do the cera test.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Apologies, this is where I got confused, I knew the samples had been sent to France but I thought it was the AFLD that operated the Chatenay-Malabry lab as they were in charge of the anti-doping at the 08 Tour. Still want to know what happened to these results.

The last I heard on this was that the 2008 Giro samples had NOT been tested.

I am trying to find confirmation online - however I had previously read a report that NAS the Italian Anti-Narcotic Police claimed that they had not the financial resources to start the tests. Basically they were hoping some other Italian department would cover the cost.
I have not seen anything more on this since - maybe someone here can clarify?

As for the AFLD - they are a state agency, and operate in the same manner as CONI. However, they do not own or run the labs although the LNDD lab is funded through the French Ministry of Youth and Sport.

 

[Galic Ho]

Depends on who they are. It's one thing if Kirchen/Rogers/Hincapie test positive, it's quite another if Cavendish or Martin does

Rogers didn't ride in 2008 at the Tour. That stupid virus playing up. Kirchen and Hincapie, then maybe Cav are the obious Columbia boys. CSC, thats bleedingly obvious.

The scenario is quite obvious. Menchov and the Schlecks are nabbed. The RCS lose their Giro winner and have already lost Di Luted.
Upset, the RCS retaliate by getting the CONI mafia to pop a positive on "Bertie's beach blood", with the result that Armstrong is eventually crowned 2009 Tour champ,(April 2011, or there abouts) with Wiggins as RU.

I hope not. LA winner by some warped default logic, that sounds like a serious conspiracy, no way it could be a coincidence. CONI wouldn't complain if Menchov went under, an Italian then becomes the heir apparent for the Giro win. A win win scenario if true and proven, except for Denis.

What is concerning is the implication that the UCI may have known about more CERA positives. If these tests return results and reveal subsequently hidden knowledge from the public by the UCI, whilst giving a scapegoat or two, then pro cycling will implode. Worst case scenario, if big names go down, someone will squeel and drag others into the spotlight. A domino effect, which could destroy what little credibility cycling has left. Is there anyone clean and honest enough to save the sport in such a scenario? Not that this will happen.

 

[python]

The last I heard on this was that the 2008 Giro samples had NOT been tested.

I am trying to find confirmation online - however I had previously read a report that NAS the Italian Anti-Narcotic Police claimed that they had not the financial resources to start the tests. Basically they were hoping some other Italian department would cover the cost.
I have not seen anything more on this since - maybe someone here can clarify?

As for the AFLD - they are a state agency, and operate in the same manner as CONI. However, they do not own or run the labs although the LNDD lab is funded through the French Ministry of Youth and Sport.

wrong. châtenay-malabry is directly operated and controlled by afld.
http://www.afld.fr/

 

[Dr. Maserati]

wrong. châtenay-malabry is directly operated and controlled by afld.
http://www.afld.fr/

You beat me to it - I was going to correct my original statement as I found this:
The French anti-doping agency, the Agence Francaise de Lutte Contre le Dopage (AFLD), which oversees the controversial French national anti-doping lab (LNDD).

 

[Highlander]

I know that there is a desire to clean up the sport, but I really don't understand this. What's the point of retesting all these samples over a year later. Besides nullifying results from last year, what effect will it have on current results? Just because someone wasn't clean last year doesn't mean they were still dirty this year. Many will reduce such a statement to simple naivety, but fears of better testing may have scared some off the juice. Finally, it just runs the risk of becoming an ongoing drag on cycling. We are still dealing with Puerto over 3 years later with the UCI appearing to simply hope that any rider ever remotely associated with it just goes away. Will we have the same situation with this retesting? I think if they can't catch you in a calendar year, you're home free.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I know that there is a desire to clean up the sport, but I really don't understand this. What's the point of retesting all these samples over a year later. Besides nullifying results from last year, what effect will it have on current results? Just because someone wasn't clean last year doesn't mean they were still dirty this year. Many will reduce such a statement to simple naivety, but fears of better testing may have scared some off the juice. Finally, it just runs the risk of becoming an ongoing drag on cycling. We are still dealing with Puerto over 3 years later with the UCI appearing to simply hope that any rider ever remotely associated with it just goes away. Will we have the same situation with this retesting? I think if they can't catch you in a calendar year, you're home free.

That is what any athlete who plays with the 'hotsauce' would love to hear.

One of the constant arguments made is that the cheaters are one step ahead of the testers.
Applying testing to older samples is a major deterrent to those hearing that there is a new undetectable product.

Also the AFLD are working on specific information in regards to the samples being tested in 2008.

 

[python]

You beat me to it - I was going to correct my original statement as I found this:
The French anti-doping agency, the Agence Francaise de Lutte Contre le Dopage (AFLD), which oversees the controversial French national anti-doping lab (LNDD).

it's no problem at all. we all occasionally rush to say things. I appreciate your honesty. cheers.

 

[dienekes88]

That is what any athlete who plays with the 'hotsauce' would love to hear.

One of the constant arguments made is that the cheaters are one step ahead of the testers.
Applying testing to older samples is a major deterrent to those hearing that there is a new undetectable product.

Also the AFLD are working on specific information in regards to the samples being tested in 2008.

Exactly.

If they test positive, they'll be taken out of the results for the past year, because they should've been serving time. It doesn't mean that they've been doping in the past year. Who knows. They could've been scared straight. However, they were taking part in races that they shouldn't have been allowed to start.

 

[ggusta]

Numerous things, but his results since his return being number one.
If he is doping, he should get his money back.

I know when I buy drugs, if they don't get the expected result I usually get my money back.

 

[ggusta]

The scenario is quite obvious. Menchov and the Schlecks are nabbed. The RCS lose their Giro winner and have already lost Di Luted.
Upset, the RCS retaliate by getting the CONI mafia to pop a positive on "Bertie's beach blood", with the result that Armstrong is eventually crowned 2009 Tour champ,(April 2011, or there abouts) with Wiggins as RU.

They all lived unhappily, ever after.

Thanks, you just saved me the trouble of going to sleep just to have a nightmare.

 

[pmcg76]

Since I read the story earlier today, I have become a bit sad about this whole affair. Whilst I have never been in doubt that doping is still common at the top level in cycling and I would love to see all the cheaters get busted, a few things really bother me.

They are retesting the samples from 08 and all I keep thinking is would any other sport even consider doing this retrospective testing, I dont think so and if this whole affair turns out to be as bad as some predict, then cycling will lose whatever credibility it still has in the general publics view. Why is cycling the only sport suffering because of their attempts to clean up the sport.

It also bothers me that the Astana/Radioshack boys have dodged another bullet. If all the other guys are busted, they will be left as the only top guys still standing. In the world of the general public and fanboy world, Lance, Alberto and their ilk will be worshipped even more as clean athletes which is simply ridiculous. But then we could always try the Lance line that its all a French conspiracy and that the French lab is completely unreliable or trustworhy because after all this is the same French lab that found the EPO in the 99 samples from Lance but thats different, isnt it.

I dont think you can take away this seasons victories or results because of previous doping offences. For me, they have to be caught during the event or even in the same year to have the results changed. I didnt think it would be right to take away Valverdes results this year becasue of blood that is 4 years old and the same goes for all the other guys if caught, put a question mark beside their name perhaps but thats it. However, if found positve from 08, they should also receive lengthy bans.

I dont understand how some guys were caught for CERA last year but others were not but now might be. Didnt AFLD do all the testing at the Tour last year, didnt they already have all the samples. It could look very bad indeed if some of the test results were found to be hidden or not revealed.

Again, it just makes my head hurt.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

....
I dont understand how some guys were caught for CERA last year but others were not but now might be. Didnt AFLD do all the testing at the Tour last year, didnt they already have all the samples. It could look very bad indeed if some of the test results were found to be hidden or not revealed.

Again, it just makes my head hurt.

If I remember correctly the AFLD already went back over the 2008 samples looking for CERA. This current investigation is in responce to 'information' gained - I suspect that these samples are being checked for Dynepo.

 

[pmcg76]

Why are they just covering 08, why not 07, 06, 05, 04 ad infitum. Surely the years pre-08 would have full on doping with CERA and Dynepo even though they were relatively new to the market.

 

[BroDeal]

If I remember correctly the AFLD already went back over the 2008 samples looking for CERA. This current investigation is in responce to 'information' gained - I suspect that these samples are being checked for Dynepo.

Anyone who was using Dynepo in 2008 is an idiot. After the 2007 Tour there were reports that Dynepo had been detected in Tour samples. It should not have taken a great leap of logic to figure out that a certified test could be developed at any time.