Tom Zirbel

[BroDeal]

USADA waited over 10 weeks to notify Tom of the positive A test. After 10 weeks, the guilty supplement(s) were long gone. Tom had at least two tests since then that came back clean.
The lab test numbers from the A and B results were done months apart, and came out surprisingly diverse, even though they came from the very same urine sample. After these differences were noted, testing was moved from Utah to UCLA, and done again.
Weeks and weeks passed.
Something is not quite right at the lab.
USADA offered Tom a reduced suspension if he'd "confess"
USADA offered Tom a reduced suspension if he'd "rat"
Tom declined both offers. USADA does not like to hear "no"
USADA surprised no one with a two year suspension for Zirbel.
Yes, Tom tested positive for DHEA on Aug 29, but he tested clean 8 days prior and again 3 days after. Tested again in Switzerland Sept 25--clean there too.
Although Tom would not have been able to provide anybody with a precise definition of what DHEA was at that time, he first Googled it, then did more intense research to learn about it.
Synthetic DHEA is a common-but banned substance, and it is very easy to detect in careful testing--remember, this urine sample was given at Greenville SC during the US National Time Trial Championships--Tom knew for certain that(unless he crashed or flatted) he was going to be tested that day. Many experts say DHEA has no benefit anyway. And as a masking agent-it's a red flag.
In the time trial, Tom came in with a dissappointed 2nd place finish, so was sure to be tested right away. He immediately complied with the testers.
Tom was severely dehydrated after the time trial, and had dificulty providing the required sample. That was August 29, 2009.
Tom Zirbel had been under signed contract since MARCH 2009 to ride for Garmin Slipstream in 2010. Garmin has a famous, very well known policy of 100% zero tolerance for doping. On the verge of his dreams coming true, and joining a huge continental team like Garmin, would anybody knowingly do DHEA at this point? Do you think Vaughters hires crazy people? Chances are less than zero, pal. No, Tom did not dope. Never has.
Tom has denied knowingly taking any banned substance all along.
USADA is not fair and unbiased--they are arrogant, vindictive and bullying. They are not interested in guilt or innocence, just convictions and renewing their government funding. Ask Zach Lund of the U.S.Olympic Skeleton team. Travis Tygart (Mr USADA)even admits that Lund probably didn't cheat, but WADA / USADA suspended him anyway-for using Rogaine to fight baldness.
Try getting answers from USADA about anything.
I'm sure that a number of folks will regard what I'm saying as unbelieveable, and others had their minds made up for a guilty verdict long ago. I can't help those people. That's too bad, cuz this is the straight truth. Thanks for reading.

Yup. It's always the lab's fault. Those Nazi frogmen sure do get around.

 

[Hugh Januss]

just posted the same thing Huge Rectum, but in the doping forum.

I think I actually posted first, blackpussy.
But yeah great minds think alike.

 

[blackcat]

la pussie noir actually Huge.

 

[Moondance]

If he is this great, tragic, innocent figure I have no idea why he would "accept" the decision. Maybe he doesn't have the dough for a high-powered legal team, but if it is bad supplements, those decisions can get overturned.

I know Christophe Brandt got caught and received a two-year ban for methadone (which I only know as a drug for people who are trying to kick heroin addiction). But he got his entire suspension lifted because he was able to prove that the pharmacist who made his (perfectly legal) supplement had just used his equipment to fill out a methdone perscription just making Brandt's stuff and his sh't got tainted. Brandt got caught at the TdF, just after having rode the a very good Giro (top 10 i think) which had completely surprised people. If Brandt was able to prove to the satisfaction of a doping tribunal something as convoluted as that, surely a completely innocent Zirbel could do the same.

 

[blackcat]

If he is this great, tragic, innocent figure I have no idea why he would "accept" the decision. Maybe he doesn't have the dough for a high-powered legal team, but if it is bad supplements, those decisions can get overturned.

I know Christophe Brandt got caught and received a two-year ban for methadone (which I only know as a drug for people who are trying to kick heroin addiction). But he got his entire suspension lifted because he was able to prove that the pharmacist who made his (perfectly legal) supplement had just used his equipment to fill out a methdone perscription just making Brandt's stuff and his sh't got tainted. Brandt got caught at the TdF, just after having rode the a very good Giro (top 10 i think) which had completely surprised people. If Brandt was able to prove to the satisfaction of a doping tribunal something as convoluted as that, surely a completely innocent Zirbel could do the same.

I think you are misconceived. TZ was in the $hit, cos of the sport, and he was gonna get the sanction unless he pleaded and turned states.

I dont know how the Belgian triathlete got off the epo, yeah, I know he showed a plausible reason, science based, but on weight of reason, you think a triathlete based in a cycling country is not gonna be widely exposed to a ped regimen. Rutger Beke had a solid case, but I am struggling to see how they could find for him, in preponderance of evidence burden. Dirty sports, positive, gees, you are up against it then...

 

[Moondance]

I think you are misconceived. TZ was in the $hit, cos of the sport, and he was gonna get the sanction unless he pleaded and turned states.

I dont know how the Belgian triathlete got off the epo, yeah, I know he showed a plausible reason, science based, but on weight of reason, you think a triathlete based in a cycling country is not gonna be widely exposed to a ped regimen. Rutger Beke had a solid case, but I am struggling to see how they could find for him, in preponderance of evidence burden. Dirty sports, positive, gees, you are up against it then...

Well, I don't don't know what 'argument' or 'explanation' Zirbel has for his positive tests, but all I'm saying with the Brandt case is that if there is contamination of supplements (which had been discussed) you can get off without having to plead guilty to jack. Although Brandt's positive wasn't for EPO or anything, so that probably had something to do with the relative leniency.

 

[blackcat]

Well, I don't don't know what 'argument' or 'explanation' Zirbel has for his positive tests, but all I'm saying with the Brandt case is that if there is contamination of supplements (which had been discussed) you can get off without having to plead guilty to jack. Although Brandt's positive wasn't for EPO or anything, so that probably had something to do with the relative leniency.

Brandt, Leukemans, I don't buy it. On the balance of probabilities, they were on more than showed up in testing. Just read on Lefevere's program he has his Quickstep boyz with Van Mol. It is like the 80's and stimulants with USAT&F team. All "inadvertent" positives.

 

[Francois the Postman]

This is the inherent problem with trying to have a seperate doping and racing section. Inevitably almost any pro cycling discussion (unless between LA fanboys, or others who don't know what's going on) will touch on the doping question.

I understand the problem, but there is a fine line between a general statement or announcement or reference that touches upon it (like the initial answer to the OP and the post that revived this thread - Zirbel tested positive - Tom retires because of dope) and blow by blow discussions about the percentage of supplements that tested positive in Switzerland or what Tom did or didn't do at 2am on Mon the 24th of August.

Personally I would prefer if there was some sort of protocol, whereby a moderator should allow these general statements and announcement posts, as most of us can post a suitable announcement or reply with common sense self moderatian, and then lock the thread has served its purpose (inform those that use this forum to follow the general news and events here).

And especially the moment it goes off course. Just lock and point on to where the discussion can continue for those that want to discuss the detailed ins and outs. I bet there will be a good sister thread in the Clinic area if a post has been made in this area that would be a great alternative landing strip.

I think most of us are quite capable of spotting which posts here are suitable for this area, and which should really be posted elsewhere.

 

[Ripper]

Look, I agree. It sucks that Tom tested positive. He is a good guy who was on a roll. It was great to see him make it to the Pro Tour and I was looking forward to seeing him race the classics......but you are hurting, not helping, him with this rant. Some helpful advice

Don't obfuscate How long it took for him to pee, that he passed other tests, None of this explains his positive.

Don't play clueless Tom is a Pro. He lives in Boulder. He knows what DHEA is. One of the more *** things that Landis said was he had never heard of doping in cycling and that Testosterone did not help recovery. Playing stupid only hurts.

If he went to Google it then he would have seen the rumors that it might be in some supliments. Start digging through your trash. Walk over to Moninger's house and ask him how he did it. Hire his lawyer.

Rules are rules The rules do not take into account that Tom is a hard working nice guy with a clean reputation. Every athlete gets the same deal, Reduction if you tell who your supplier is, confession, or a tainted bottle of vitamins. It is not a conspiracy, the rules are there in writing.

Don't question the lab It is the worst thing you can do. By questioning the time frame and saying that there is "Something wrong with the lab" you are inferring conspiracy to sink Tom. You are welcome to use this tactic....but do not expect it to work on anyone but the few remaining guys who "Believe Tyler"

Well said. This pretty much sums it up. I agree with the initial sentiment as well - it sucks for Tom.

 

[BikeCentric]

Well, I don't don't know what 'argument' or 'explanation' Zirbel has for his positive tests, but all I'm saying with the Brandt case is that if there is contamination of supplements (which had been discussed) you can get off without having to plead guilty to jack. Although Brandt's positive wasn't for EPO or anything, so that probably had something to do with the relative leniency.

Remember Gibo Simoni got his suspension anulled after getting popped for cocaine in the Giro and then proving the coke was in some candy his Mom got him.

Surely Zirbel knows what supplements he is taking and can get them tested for DHEA. If he was clean that is.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well, right on cue - TZ has done a Q&A on the front page of Cyclingnews.

I have dragged up the Zirbel thread in the Clinic. Probably the most appropriate place to discuss this now.

 

[Inner Peace]

Like many before him, Zirbel is claiming innocence and that something just doesn't quite add up with his samples. He seems to be convinced he is clean and that there must be a reasonable explanation.

This case raises the questions of what you would do if YOU tested positive, yet you knew you were innocent (becoz, after all, YOU and only YOU know if you knowingly took drugs) ?

I raised this question in a new clinic thread and would like everyone to contribute if possible. It's a topic I've always wanted to discuss, and the Zirbel case highlighted my intrigue.