"UCI Corruption // Contador cover-up attempt" (Karsten Kroon interview)

[Velodude]

One might say that leaving things like this in the hands of the individual federations is the UCI's way of simultaneously getting what's commercially best for it while washing its hands clean. They hand it over to someone with a shared financial interest in the outcome of the case, and so get their own way, while technically not being part of the decision process. The laughable fact is that China has a well-known problem with clen abuse amongst livestock, whereas Spain does not.

I am certainly not a UCI apologist. They are a corrupt organization and need to be purged to rid it of the endemic corrupt culture. Armstrong's mate Verbruggen has a lot to answer for.

However, it was not UCI's decision for national cycling federations to be first cab off the rank in the quasi judicial process. It is a WADA requirement and applies to all signed up sports.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Of course the fact that he's a top athlete is very important. Even the UCI fully admits that. Both Contador and cycling had a lot to lose, so it's understandable that both UCI and WADA wanted to be sure...

Do you realize you are making the claim that all the complicated rules processes they have for anti-doping enforcement still comes down to some secret process?

Being a top athlete also works both ways.

Another secret process at the UCI. Contador/Armstrong, some Operation Puerto riders are treated as 'top' athletes. Meanwhile Bauge,Landis,FuYu Li, other Operation Puerto riders are harshly punished. Where is the criteria for qualifying for Contador/Armstrong treatment vs. FuYu Li?

We're supposed to trust your word that it's okay? The UCI has proven time and again they cannot be trusted to do the right thing. So, it's time to get them out of the middle of anti-doping enforcement.

Nice summary: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=826273&postcount=50

Velodude, both WADA and the UCI cannot superceed sovereign law. The system requires a national federation to be the first cab. I think many would agree that the UCI uses that to their advantage for Nilsson's 'top athletes.' The rest? not so much...

 

[Caruut]

I am certainly not a UCI apologist. They are a corrupt organization and need to be purged to rid it of the endemic corrupt culture. Armstrong's mate Verbruggen has a lot to answer for.

However, it was not UCI's decision for national cycling federations to be first cab off the rank in the quasi judicial process. It is a WADA requirement and applies to all signed up sports.

Ah, my bad. I still think that if there was much will do do anything about doping, they would find a way to deal with it that didn't introduce such a giant conflict of interest. I reckon if the UCI really wanted to, they would get control back from the national federations - they bankroll WADA, after all.

 

[Caruut]

Of course the fact that he's a top athlete is very important. Even the UCI fully admits that. Both Contador and cycling had a lot to lose, so it's understandable that both UCI and WADA wanted to be sure...

Being a top athlete also works both ways. You don't think it's unfair that he's tested 20 times as much as the average cyclist, do you? You don't think its unfair that, because of that, they have more data to work with, which, as well, works both ways and, very importantly, was essential for UCI and WADA to decide to do more research to understand the findings, because of the combination of a small amount and preceding negatives, the plasticizers, the necessity of some form of contamination and the possibility of another doping violation...

Can you find a statement by the UCI saying that they have treated him like this because he's a top athlete, not just some José Promedio? Because otherwise that's just you making that up.

I agree it is "understandable", because I believe that the UCI's primary concern is the financial interests of itself and its top people. Otherwise, why would they protect the wealthy stars and kick the rest to the gutter? By saying that "Contador and cycling had a lot to lose", you are effectively acknowledging that the system is set up to protect the big guys.

Is there any evidence that he's tested 20 times as much as the regular guys? The authorities publish no data on who is tested when, as far as I am aware, so that's just baseless speculation.

 

[Nilsson]

Can you find a statement by the UCI saying that they have treated him like this because he's a top athlete

Yes, McQuaid answered that exact question to AS. Why not make the positive public immediately? The first reason is respect for the rider and not wanting to damage his reputation irreparably without conducting further investigations first...

¿Por qué no hizo público la UCI su positivo en cuanto lo supo?
Por dos razones: por respeto al corredor, al que podríamos haber dañado su imagen de manera irreparable sin llevar a cabo un estudio previo, y porque tampoco fue un positivo con EPO, sino con clembuterol, una sustancia que en la ínfima cantidad en que se encontró no mejora el rendimiento del deportista.

http://www.as.com/ciclismo/articulo/tas-dijo-dopara-contador-clembuterol/20120304dasdaicic_1/Tes

By saying that "Contador and cycling had a lot to lose", you are effectively acknowledging that the system is set up to protect the big guys.

No, only that if you are on the brink of losing big time, and the facts are blurry, you better be sure of what you're going to do.

It's also pretty clear what UCI and WADA were doing. After the B sample confirmed the clen positive on september eight, UCI and WADA decided to conduct a series of investigations in an attempt to understand the finding obtained and, in particular, whether the finding might indicate that other anti-doping violations could have been committed than just the presence of clenbuterol.

On September the 30th Contador was forced to come out (because of the leakings). On November the fifth WADA filed their report to the UCI and on November the eight the UCI concluded that the report contained a sufficient basis to proceed with the case and asked the RFEC to to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Contador...

[/QUOTE]Is there any evidence that he's tested 20 times as much as the regular guys? The authorities publish no data on who is tested when, as far as I am aware, so that's just baseless speculation.[/QUOTE]

It's not baseless speculation. In the Tour he got tested 9 times, in the first half of 2010 he had undergone 32 tests, and more than 500 in his career so far (following the CAS award). I think it's pretty clear...

 

[Caruut]

Yes, McQuaid answered that exact question to AS. Why not make the positive public immediately? The first reason is respect for the rider and not wanting to damage his reputation irreparably without conducting further investigations first...

¿Por qué no hizo público la UCI su positivo en cuanto lo supo?
Por dos razones: por respeto al corredor, al que podríamos haber dañado su imagen de manera irreparable sin llevar a cabo un estudio previo, y porque tampoco fue un positivo con EPO, sino con clembuterol, una sustancia que en la ínfima cantidad en que se encontró no mejora el rendimiento del deportista.

http://www.as.com/ciclismo/articulo/tas-dijo-dopara-contador-clembuterol/20120304dasdaicic_1/Tes

He says that he did it out of respect for Contador - not that he did it to protect the interests of his organisation. Why on earth does Li Fu Yu not deserve equal respect?

No, only that if you are on the brink of losing big time, and the facts are blurry, you better be sure of what you're going to do.

And when they aren't going to lose big-time they just don't really care who gets hurt, as long as it's not them.

It's also pretty clear what UCI and WADA were doing. After the B sample confirmed the clen positive on september eight, UCI and WADA decided to conduct a series of investigations in an attempt to understand the finding obtained and, in particular, whether the finding might indicate that other anti-doping violations could have been committed than just the presence of clenbuterol.

Is it? You seem so certain, yet none of this was made public at the time, they only said it after the fact.

On September the 30th Contador was forced to come out (because of the leakings). On November the fifth WADA filed their report to the UCI and on November the eight the UCI concluded that the report contained a sufficient basis to proceed with the case and asked the RFEC to to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Contador...

Leaked by a lab that were frustrated that nothing they came up with ever came to everything, and he carried on riding for well over a year after that, bringing the total ban time to less than 6 months. Ultimately, prize money isn't a major part of his salary, so he's fine there, he will always have won the TdF 2010 and Giro 2011 on the road, and the hearing ended up saying he wasn't doping, so his sponsorship deals shouldn't fall too dead due to it all. Strange that guys with so much less to lose seem to manage to lose it all, yet one who has so much loses so little.

It's not baseless speculation. In the Tour he got tested 9 times, in the first half of 2010 he had undergone 32 tests, and more than 500 in his career so far (following the CAS award). I think it's pretty clear...

And how does that compare to other riders? All riders get tested a lot - maybe the winners get tested a bit more - that makes sense, really. It's all a bit of a sham anyway. Dope tests catch out the stupid, the poor, the unlucky and the lazy. The rest all have their own ways around it, such as using drugs there's no test for. Bernard Kohl used to get up early, have HGH with his breakfast, go for a ride, have some water and be fine for when a tester arrived in the afternoon.

I class Contador as unlucky. He almost certainly had his system in place and some clen got through.

 

[Nilsson]

He says that he did it out of respect for Contador - not that he did it to protect the interests of his organisation. Why on earth does Li Fu Yu not deserve equal respect?

I never said the first thing, and you never asked that. It was about treating Contador differently because he's a top rider. McQuaid pretty much acknowledged that...

Why not Li? For the trillionth time: because he's not as important as and because the facts were different (no preceding negatives, no plasticizers).

And when they aren't going to lose big-time they just don't really care who gets hurt, as long as it's not them.

Exactly, it's always about what's at stake...

Is it? You seem so certain, yet none of this was made public at the time, they only said it after the fact.

If you want to do preliminary investigations first, it's logical that you only announce something after the investigations. It's not that hard to understand...

Leaked by a lab that were frustrated that nothing they came up with ever came to everything

The last part is speculation, like saying they got (too) excited about catching a big fish and talked too much or wanting to reassure their budget by showing their importance and great work...

More importantly, the Lab and WADA knew about the positive test, which contradicts every cover up operation. I hope you realize that. Like I said earlier: the UCI may have been very unhappy and may have been hoping that the B sample and the investigation could turn things around for Contador (and themselves) but the lab and WADA have the opposite interest: they thank their existence because of catching dopers.

Strange that guys with so much less to lose seem to manage to lose it all, yet one who has so much loses so little.

Not necessarily. You tend to forget that guys like Contador lose a lot of money. They lose contracts, have to pay a (much) bigger fine and probably will never earn as much anymore as they did before. Someone with less lo lose, can't lose much and, if he returns, will more easily be able to return at the same (income) level...

Contador, because of the fact that he hasn't been explicitly suspended for doping, and his status isn't completely damaged, can probably come back relatively easy. Just like his case was, his return will not be standard. Nevertheless, I think it will take a lot of time repair the financial and personal damage, if it is even possible to repair most of it...

And how does that compare to other riders? All riders get tested a lot - maybe the winners get tested a bit more - that makes sense, really. It's all a bit of a sham anyway. Dope tests catch out the stupid, the poor, the unlucky and the lazy. The rest all have their own ways around it, such as using drugs there's no test for. Bernard Kohl used to get up early, have HGH with his breakfast, go for a ride, have some water and be fine for when a tester arrived in the afternoon.

You really have no idea about how much riders get tested, do you? Most World Tour riders (apart from starting up the bio passport, which is about six extra tests) will get tested maybe five times a year, if not less. I've heard about pretty good riders only being tested once or twice and even the IO-report noticed 'high profile' (read: suspect) riders who weren't tested for months...

You're right that Contador was unlucky and that being catched for doping is due to bad luck, being stupid (trust the wrong people), walk in the 'they can not find it' trap (the CERA-trap is well known, even Kohl, performing well in the Tour, thus getting more tested and therefore acting stupid, fell for it) or simply being to aggressive and greedy...

There will always be new products, which can't be found (immediately) and old products that can be used safely (if you use wisely, are not too greedy, and preferably do not get tested too often) although the bandwidth is definitely more narrow at the moment...

 

[Caruut]

I never said the first thing, and you never asked that. It was about treating Contador differently because he's a top rider. McQuaid pretty much acknowledged that...

Why not Li? For the trillionth time: because he's not as important as and because the facts were different (no preceding negatives, no plasticizers).

Exactly, it's always about what's at stake...

Are you messing with me here? You've just said that they're all basically cynical business decisions (which I agree with). What I'm arguing is that you cannot let the status or profitability of a rider affect how they are treated, that is just downright immoral.

If you want to do preliminary investigations first, it's logical that you only announce something after the investigations. It's not that hard to understand...

Yes, I understand that, and maybe it's all innocent.

However, I think the behaviour would be very similar if they were guilty of a cover-up. If you want to cover up the positive of your biggest star, you keep it quiet, and do some preliminary investigations. If those prelims come out saying he's innocent, you publish them, that way no leak can bring you down. If not, you just keep quiet.

The last part is speculation, like saying they got (too) excited about catching a big fish and talked too much or wanting to reassure their budget by showing their importance and great work...

More importantly, the Lab and WADA knew about the positive test, which contradicts every cover up operation. I hope you realize that. Like I said earlier: the UCI may have been very unhappy and may have been hoping that the B sample and the investigation could turn things around for Contador (and themselves) but the lab and WADA have the opposite interest: they thank their existence because of catching dopers.

Given how sceptical I ma of the UCI, do you really think I believe that WADA are a bunch of angels?

Not necessarily. You tend to forget that guys like Contador lose a lot of money. They lose contracts, have to pay a (much) bigger fine and probably will never earn as much anymore as they did before. Someone with less lo lose, can't lose much and, if he returns, will more easily be able to return at the same (income) level...

The little guys who text positive lose everything. They become persona non grata in the sport

Contador, because of the fact that he hasn't been explicitly suspended for doping, and his status isn't completely damaged, can probably come back relatively easy. Just like his case was, his return will not be standard. Nevertheless, I think it will take a lot of time repair the financial and personal damage, if it is even possible to repair most of it.

My point exactly. How is it that a huge rider can go on earning money for himself and the UCI, whereas other riders are just scapegoats for the UCI's "tough-on-doping" image?

You really have no idea about how much riders get tested, do you? Most World Tour riders (apart from starting up the bio passport, which is about six extra tests) will get tested maybe five times a year, if not less. I've heard about pretty good riders only being tested once or twice and even the IO-report noticed 'high profile' (read: suspect) riders who weren't tested for months...

No, I don't, to be perfectly honest. You haven't shown me any reason to believe that Contador is tested that much more than the rest though. Even if he is tested a lot, so long as he knows when and what, he's okay.

 

[Nilsson]

Are you messing with me here? You've just said that they're all basically cynical business decisions (which I agree with). What I'm arguing is that you cannot let the status or profitability of a rider affect how they are treated, that is just downright immoral.

No, I'm not. It's not chique to imply that. You asked me to quote the UCI on the matter of giving him a preferential treatment because he's a big star. I did give you a quote, and than you sweep over to '(but)not that he did it to protect the interests of his organisation' which isn't quite fair of you to me...

About finding the treatmen immoral. I can understand why you find that, and do not necessarily disagree. Although I tend to see the fact that it's simple reality and has everything to do with what's at stake. I can understand that, because of blurry facts and the profile of the rider, UCI (and WADA) wanted to be more certain about the findings, before making the case public....

Yes, I understand that, and maybe it's all innocent.

However, I think the behaviour would be very similar if they were guilty of a cover-up. If you want to cover up the positive of your biggest star, you keep it quiet, and do some preliminary investigations. If those prelims come out saying he's innocent, you publish them, that way no leak can bring you down. If not, you just keep quiet.

Why would you do preliminary investigations if you want to cover up? Why would you spend money, test more samples and create extra evidence if you want to make a doping case go away? It doesn't make sense, and you will inevitably fail in your attempt...

Given how sceptical I ma of the UCI, do you really think I believe that WADA are a bunch of angels?

I can understand your skepticism of the UCI, and I party agree with you, and WADA are certainly not angels. But you have to understand that WADA only can exist if they catch dopers. Catching guys like Contador is gold for them, shows their importance, assures them to keep the budget coming and allows them the powerful position they have.

As for the UCI, we should give them some credit. Eventually they initiated a case against Contador, and they have done the same against many of their big athletes. There are not much sports doing it like that...

A very good and recent example of the UCI initiating cases is the appeal against Kolobnev, while everyone knew that it was going to be a failure and a simple waste of money. CAS, in the very similar case of Cesar Cielo Filho (a swimming champion), had already decided on the matter at stake. The UCI simply ignored that and appealed anyway to get him a suspension. Noteworthy as well is that, by doing that, they also seemed to have acted against the will of one of their 'main men' Igor Makarov, who now made sure Kolobnev is back with Katusha...

The little guys who text positive lose everything. They become persona non grata in the sport

Not necessarily. There are plenty of 'little guys' who have come back, just as 'big guns' who have become persona non grata. You have Ullrich, Mancebo, etc. on one side and Astarloza, Keisse, etc, on the other...

My point exactly. How is it that a huge rider can go on earning money for himself and the UCI, whereas other riders are just scapegoats for the UCI's "tough-on-doping" image?

Like I said, I can understand your skepticism, but I don't think it's completely fair to the UCI. The UCI has, more than any other authoritive sports body, initiated doping cases against their top athletes. Almost every star they've had, has been punished or marked for doping. From Merckx to Contador.

Of course they are not happy about that (although it gives to wonder, if you ask me, with so much over acting and damaging your own sport) and there have been cases of preferential treatment, like Contador's, but that is quite understandable. Interests, reality and circumstances inevitably lead to different treatment of different riders and different cases...

No, I don't, to be perfectly honest. You haven't shown me any reason to believe that Contador is tested that much more than the rest though. Even if he is tested a lot, so long as he knows when and what, he's okay.

If I haven't shown you any reason to believe Contador is more tested than the average rider, I'm very sorry for that and the apparent need you seem to feel to troll me a bit. You know way better...

 

[Caruut]

No, I'm not. It's not chique to imply that. You asked me to quote the UCI on the matter of giving him a preferential treatment because he's a big star. I did give you a quote, and than you sweep over to '(but)not that he did it to protect the interests of his organisation' which isn't quite fair of you to me.

Well you initially said that the UCI acknowledged that it was because he was a big name, and to protect their interests. Then you provided a link saying that it was "out of respect for the rider" as proof - but that's a different reason altogether.

About finding the treatmen immoral. I can understand why you find that, and do not necessarily disagree. Although I tend to see the fact that it's simple reality and has everything to do with what's at stake. I can understand that, because of blurry facts and the profile of the rider, UCI (and WADA) wanted to be more certain about the findings, before making the case public.

Yes, and my point is that riders should be treated equally, with no bias shown to riders who are more commercially beneficial to the UCI.

Why would you do preliminary investigations if you want to cover up? Why would you spend money, test more samples and create extra evidence if you want to make a doping case go away? It doesn't make sense, and you will inevitably fail in your attempt.

In case there was a leak - then if you had some results that suggested the leak was wrong, it would all blow over.

I can understand your skepticism of the UCI, and I party agree with you, and WADA are certainly not angels. But you have to understand that WADA only can exist if they catch dopers. Catching guys like Contador is gold for them, shows their importance, assures them to keep the budget coming and allows them the powerful position they have.

Indeed. Except for the fact that Contador has managed to escape with about 6 months of ban. They focus on absolutely burying some athletes and gaining their credibility by sacrificing those guys. That is wrong - athletes should be treated equally, but they are just not.

As for the UCI, we should give them some credit. Eventually they initiated a case against Contador, and they have done the same against many of their big athletes. There are not much sports doing it like that.

I agree, in that respect they are good. Much of what they gain in my eyes, however, is wiped out because of the wildly different outcomes of similar cases.

A very good and recent example of the UCI initiating cases is the appeal against Kolobnev, while everyone knew that it was going to be a failure and a simple waste of money. CAS, in the very similar case of Cesar Cielo Filho (a swimming champion), had already decided on the matter at stake. The UCI simply ignored that and appealed anyway to get him a suspension.

Noteworthy as well is that, by doing that, they also seemed to have acted against the will of one of their 'main men' Igor Makarov, who now made sure Kolobnev is back with Katusha...[/QUOTE]

Indeed, another good result, but Kolobnev is not superstar.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of 'little guys' who have come back, just as 'big guns' who have become persona non grata. You have Ullrich, Mancebo, etc. on one side and Astarloza, Keisse, etc, on the other...

I'll accept that point. Ullrich was, however, set up as the rival to the UCI's teflon Texan.

Like I said, I can understand your skepticism, but I don't think it's completely fair to the UCI. The UCI has, more than any other authoritive sports body, initiated doping cases against their top athletes. Almost every star they've had, has been punished or marked for doping. From Merckx to Contador.

Of course they are not happy about that (although it gives to wonder, if you ask me, with so much over acting and damaging your own sport) and there have been cases of preferential treatment, like Contador's, but that is quite understandable. Interests, reality and circumstances inevitably lead to different treatment of different riders and different cases.

Inevitable with corrupt governing bodies, operating with massive conflicts of interests, yes. What I have been saying all along is that that system needs to change so that the current shambles is not inevitable.

If I haven't shown you any reason to believe Contador is more tested than the average rider, I'm very sorry for that and the apparent need you seem to feel to troll me a bit. You know way better.

You have simply stated some statistics, but didn't provide any links or articles whatsoever. Is asking for some kind of evidence for a claim is trolling?

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Corruption that is unchanged will eventually come out again as corruption, even if the corrupt do things to look clean in the interim. McQuaid has to go. Too bad for Kroon, now that he is most definately on the UCI black-list.

 

[thehog]

Corruption that is unchanged will eventually come out again as corruption, even if the corrupt do things to look clean in the interim. McQuaid has to go. Too bad for Kroon, now that he is most definately on the UCI black-list.

They're dusting off his passport data as we speak....

 

[Polish]

They're dusting off his passport data as we speak....

Probably a good idea.

Karsten has been riding since the Days of Festina, and he still has not figured out the whereabouts routine?
Seems a bit fishy. And what kind of example does that send to the young riders? Checking that passport might be warranted.

 

[thehog]

Probably a good idea.

Karsten has been riding since the Days of Festina, and he still has not figured out the whereabouts routine?

Seems a bit fishy. And what kind of example does that send to the young riders?

Checking that passport might be warranted.

Karsten is trying to destroy cycling with his comments.

Whilst the lab rats are going over Kroon's data someone needs to accidently spill some coffee all over Popo's file..... no one really wants to be a 9 on the suspect list. It's not good for cycling.

 

[Nilsson]

Well you initially said that the UCI acknowledged that it was because he was a big name, and to protect their interests. Then you provided a link saying that it was "out of respect for the rider" as proof - but that's a different reason altogether.

I provided the link solely in relation to your specific question, and you know that. Apart from agreeing with you earlier on that the UCI probably wasn't happy with cases like Contador's, I never said anything about the UCI's own interests. More importantly, You sweeping this into this (sub)discussion is nitpicking and not really fair towards me. I'm not the one who talks about the interests (or even financial gains) of the UCI (at best about those of cycling) and really try to be a fair discussant...

Yes, and my point is that riders should be treated equally

I agree, but what is equally? Treat equal cases equally and unequal cases to the rate of inequality. No case is the same. I've been over this many times, but you have to take in account all circumstances. I think UCI and WADA did well in the Contador case, and that a different treatment in this case was understandable and justifiable..

In case there was a leak - then if you had some results that suggested the leak was wrong, it would all blow over.

If that's the case, you should ask yourself why they didn't do that? No, it makes no sense and a smart guy like you knows that. Let's not walk this road, it's leading nowhere...

Indeed. Except for the fact that Contador has managed to escape with about 6 months of ban. They focus on absolutely burying some athletes and gaining their credibility by sacrificing those guys. That is wrong - athletes should be treated equally, but they are just not.

The fact that Contador effectively only has a six month ban is a different and more technical discussion. Although, I want to state that I think it's a justifiable and logical conclusion of the award...

I agree, in that respect they are good. Much of what they gain in my eyes, however, is wiped out because of the wildly different outcomes of similar cases.

Glad to see that we agree, apart from the fact that I think that different outcomes can be defended because of the fact that similar cases are not always similar. Can you give an example of such cases, where the UCI is responsible for the different outcome where such outcome isn't justified?

Indeed, another good result, but Kolobnev is not superstar.

I never said he was, only that he is a good example of UCI's stance against doping (which is maybe even to stressed, because it seems to blow up in their face and even damages their reputation because it is questioned)...

I'll accept that point. Ullrich was, however, set up as the rival to the UCI's teflon Texan.

I think we come to a very important point now. Armstrong, probably the biggest mistake the UCI ever made. The fact that they could and did protect Armstrong (by not making public the adverse analytical findings from 2001 that weren't positive, but highly questionable, and not actively pursuing the frozen urine samples that contained EPO from '99 but easily accepting the legal ) blows up in their face and, how hard they try, hunts them til the end of day. Every attempt to be good, cautious or agressive will be seen as an example of their unreliability. I don't like the UCI myself, because of many reasons, but I feel kind of sorry for them and the vicious circle they got (themselves) into...

Inevitable with corrupt governing bodies, operating with massive conflicts of interests, yes. What I have been saying all along is that that system needs to change so that the current shambles is not inevitable.

I agree that the system has to change, although I understand that every system will contain faults and there will always be some sort of shambles...

You have simply stated some statistics, but didn't provide any links or articles whatsoever. Is asking for some kind of evidence for a claim is trolling?

I referred to the CAS award for Contador and the IO-report to back up my statement about the suspected rider who wasn't tested for months. I also thought you know something about cycling and I'm sure you understand that a guy like Contador undergoes more tests than his average colleague (not accepting that, is a bit trolling IMO), that you know that most riders do not get much OOC's and (because they do not win, aren't high profile, etc.) are not much tested in the races. There are a lot of rider statements available on this matter and it's also free knowledge to find the testing statistics at the WADA website to compare the total numbers to Contador's and draw a conclusion...

 

[Polish]

Karsten is trying to destroy cycling with his comments.

Whilst the lab rats are going over Kroon's data someone needs to accidently spill some coffee all over Popo's file..... no one really wants to be a 9 on the suspect list. It's not good for cycling.

C'mon Hog, do you really think that Alberto was involved in a cover up? Don't get me wrong, I think he would jump at the chance to have it hidden. But seriously, no way the UCI and WADA could hide it. No way.

And what is your issue with the UCI assigning a level 9 to Popo? I would think the UCI had its reasons. Maybe Popo missed some whereabout reporting like Kroon? Who knows. Although that info should not have been leaked. Just like the Alberto info should not have been leaked. Made both investigations tougher. Not good.

 

[Nilsson]

Sorry to jump into your discussion, Polish and Hog. Popovych had a priority index of ten, just like Barredo, on the 'suspect list'. A list that's mainly based on suspicious blood values...

This is what the IO-report mentioned on top of that in relation to one of them...

A rider identified as having a priority index of tenwas not tested for either urine or blood from 3
April to the start of the Tour. Recommendations made by the Laboratory following testing in the
first three days of the Tour resulted in no further blood samples being collected but rather only
urine and approximately ten days later. The IO Team became aware of the remarks made by the
laboratory regarding the analysis of this rider’s specific sample that raised the suspicion of the
use of proteases. No further information regarding any actions taken by the UCI for further
analysis of that sample was made available.

 

[thehog]

C'mon Hog, do you really think that Alberto was involved in a cover up? Don't get me wrong, I think he would jump at the chance to have it hidden. But seriously, no way the UCI and WADA could hide it. No way.

And what is your issue with the UCI assigning a level 9 to Popo? I would think the UCI had its reasons. Maybe Popo missed some whereabout reporting like Kroon? Who knows. Although that info should not have been leaked. Just like the Alberto info should not have been leaked. Made both investigations tougher. Not good.

I'm with you my friend. For a while there I was worried about Lance but Verbruggen calmed my nerves by telling me he never never doped.

When Phil Liggert backed this up by Lance looking him in the eyes & telling him he was clean I knew everything would be ok.

The UCI are our friends. We should trust them more.

I think McQuaid phoned Alberto and told him just like Floyd to give himself up and confess.

Not to worry the UCI caught the bad guys and they went down.

Viva la cycling. Hard work wins it. There are no secrets.

 

[Ripper]

Popo!

Wha a a a a ahhhh! He's likely doped to the eyeballs, at least in comparison to the rest of the peloton. Back when he placed in the Giro he was likely running 70 hct. The fact he is still alive ... wow