Walsh Rips on the Bio Passport!

[pmcg76]

Yeah, I agree. When Armstrong announced his comback I imagined it could have had something to do with his percieved view of the cycling world. No Vino/Ulrich/Basso etc. and the likes of Evans and Vande Velde were up there with Satre seemingly winning on account of excellent team tactics more than anything... There was a believability i thought... I thought maybe he'd chosen to come back and do it in a more-a-less clean peloton, as he would back himself on his genetic freakishness over other known freaks like Evans, who i've always imagined is clean as a whistle.

Contador though, give me a break! when you're beating Riis's records and overpowering Armstrong's best numbers in his glory days, its surely undeniable that something is not quite right.

I agree with this but only because he saw how well Vandevelde done supposedly riding clean last year and probably thought if Vandevelde can do that well, maybe I might have a chance to do it clean this time and **** off the questioners if I won the Tour. I believe he did dope during his best years, not sure about this year.

 

[pmcg76]

I, give a lot of credence to writers like Kimmage & Walsh, they are firstly great sportswriters and both have great connections with cycling, for me they represent the average fan who wants to clean up the sport, they do not have idols or heros.

I have said it before but I read A Rough Ride before Lance was anybody and I equate it to a bible for those wishing to follow pro cycling, it was so spot on in everything that happened in 98. Kimmage actually updated the original just before the 98 Tour and it was freaky how true it was. All the stuff about the Donati report etc. It annoys me when he is painted as some sort of Satan by Lance fans, he may be inappropiate at times but he is never far from the truth.

Just look at the facts, Kimmage first published A Rough Ride in 1990, the content in it was dismissed as sensational rubbish but it was absolutely true as proven by the Festina affair. Why do people then question his attitude during the last decade, he has never changed his stance. People see him as anti-Lance but he questioned even the first victory of Lance in 1999 when most current Lance fans didnt know him from Jack. If anybody similar(French, Italian whatever) to Lance had won, he would have questioned them also. He wrote in an article in Procycling at the time that Bassons was the real hero for him in 99, he didnt believe in the Lance fairytale.

He saw an opportunity for change post Festina but the victory of Lance just confirmed the old way for him. As I said before, if any cyclist had come from where Lance had in 99, he would have questioned them also. Walsh is in the same boat as Kimmage.

 

[pmcg76]

I, give a lot of credence to writers like Kimmage & Walsh, they are firstly great sportswriters and both have great connections with cycling, for me they represent the average fan who wants to clean up the sport, they do not have idols or heros.

I have said it before but I read A Rough Ride before Lance was anybody and I equate it to a bible for those wishing to follow pro cycling, it was so spot on in everything that happened in 98. Kimmage actually updated the original just before the 98 Tour and it was freaky how true it was. All the stuff about the Donati report etc. It annoys me when he is painted as some sort of Satan by Lance fans, he may be inappropiate at times but he is never far from the truth.

Just look at the facts, Kimmage first published A Rough Ride in 1990, the content in it was dismissed as sensational rubbish but it was absolutely true as proven by the Festina affair. Why do people then question his attitude during the last decade, he has never changed his stance. People see him as anti-Lance but he questioned even the first victory of Lance in 1999 when most current Lance fans didnt know him from Jack. If anybody similar(French, Italian whatever) to Lance had won, he would have questioned them also. He wrote in an article in Procycling at the time that Bassons was the real hero for him in 99, he didnt believe in the Lance fairytale.

He saw an opportunity for change post Festina but the victory of Lance just confirmed the old way for him. As I said before, if any cyclist had come from where Lance had in 99, he would have questioned them also. Walsh is in the same boat as Kimmage.

 

[scribe]

I agree with this but only because he saw how well Vandevelde done supposedly riding clean last year and probably thought if Vandevelde can do that well, maybe I might have a chance to do it clean this time and **** off the questioners if I won the Tour. I believe he did dope during his best years, not sure about this year.

The good thing (and annoying to some), is that LA is back in this sport, performing well, under a new set of doping controls. A few things are gonna happen that no one should be disappointed in. Either he will fail one of several tests that he was subject to this season OR he will not fail it AND it will hold up over the years when (if) they develop better controls. For me, this will go a long way when considering previous achievements in the face of utter failure by cycling governing bodies to test their athletes properly during his winning years.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The good thing (and annoying to some), is that LA is back in this sport, performing well, under a new set of doping controls. A few things are gonna happen that no one should be disappointed in. Either he will fail one of several tests that he was subject to this season OR he will not fail it AND it will hold up over the years when (if) they develop better controls. For me, this will go a long way when considering previous achievements in the face of utter failure by cycling governing bodies to test their athletes properly during his winning years.

While I agree with Pmcg that I am unsure about this year - many things still bother me.

Firstly his very public announcements about Don Catlin indicated an effort to show transparency - so his quick removal was a bad signal to send out.

The 'shower-gate' episode as well as the 1 hour delay by the team at the Tour are serious lapses in his comeback.

Also Lance has admitted that he would not be riding the Tour this year if Patric Clerc was still in charge of the ASO -and the UCI let him ride the TDU even though it was against their rules as he was not part of the Anti-doping programme for 6 month's.

 

[Anonymous]

The argumentation for the French ministry of sport lying but Dr. Ferrari somehow having credibility is grasping at a straw.

One think I keep seeing is Lance fans being unsure if they should support Contador being taken down so Lance has a better chance, or if they should support Contador since their also doping appologists and they support all top dopers. Its a mixed feeling thats hurting the argument because your admitting dopers are there.

In the old days of Cycling forums the biggest Lance fans tried their best to hush or censor doping. If doping does not exist in a significant quantity, than Lance isnt a doper.

It's hard for me to believe that this incredibly crooked infrastructure exists to cater to some and not to others. I guess ignorance can be bliss. There is evidence to suggest that LA is a fraud. Since this evidence exists how is it possible that LA is still racing his bike? And what does it say about AC? Or Andy Schleck, Wiggins and the others? I'm asking because if your (and others) arguments are true or even mostly true then how big is the conspiracy? If a doped top level cyclist is even 2 or 3% better than his closest rivals then there can't be anyone in the top 10 that is clean in this year's TdF (or any others in the last 20 years). Why the F does anyone care for this sport if all this is true? It seems like this would be "red meat" for some enterprising journalist/reporter to just expose the dark underbelly of a sport that is as corrupt as the day is long.

It would also seem an easy target based on the volume of information available so how do you suppose this situation has not gained more traction?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It's hard for me to believe that this incredibly crooked infrastructure exists to cater to some and not to others. I guess ignorance can be bliss. There is evidence to suggest that LA is a fraud. Since this evidence exists how is it possible that LA is still racing his bike? And what does it say about AC? Or Andy Schleck, Wiggins and the others? I'm asking because if your (and others) arguments are true or even mostly true then how big is the conspiracy? If a doped top level cyclist is even 2 or 3% better than his closest rivals then there can't be anyone in the top 10 that is clean in this year's TdF (or any others in the last 20 years). Why the F does anyone care for this sport if all this is true? It seems like this would be "red meat" for some enterprising journalist/reporter to just expose the dark underbelly of a sport that is as corrupt as the day is long.

It would also seem an easy target based on the volume of information available so how do you suppose this situation has not gained more traction?

Firstly - I don't believe it is a vast conspiracy - but the UCI is letting many things slip through and there are those who are playing within that grey area.

Doping in sport is bad for business - less people want to support or invest in a sport if it is heavily involved in doping or cheating.

What happened in 2006 was Operation Puerto lifted the lid (again) on how Pro cycling really worked and showed that the UCI was inept in their anti-doping effort's.

A lot of good work was done by the AFLD in catching cheats during the Tours of 07 & 08 - but the double edged sword here is that all the vast majority of casual sport's fans remember is guys being led away by the Gendarmes - and they think that the sport is dirty, instead of seeing this as a sport trying to clean itself up.

Last year -just after LA announcement the UCI met with the owner's of the ASO - the EPA. The outcome of that meeting was that Patrice Clerc was removed from being President of the ASO - Clerc was very strong on his anti-doping stance and was the one to take the anti-doping controls away from the UCI and let the AFLD do them.

So far the Bio Passport - which was meant to be the weapon of anti-doping - has only caught 5 riders out of 800+.
Di Luca's case is interesting - because the UCI says as he was targeted because his values showed inconsistency in his Bio-passport profile. If that was the case why didn't they just look for a sanction going on his Bio-Passport profile?

As for why people don't write about it or highlight this?
Lemond, Walsh, Kimmage, Ballester etc are pretty vocal - but of course they are dismissed as bitter or trolls.

 

[pmcg76]

The good thing (and annoying to some), is that LA is back in this sport, performing well, under a new set of doping controls. A few things are gonna happen that no one should be disappointed in. Either he will fail one of several tests that he was subject to this season OR he will not fail it AND it will hold up over the years when (if) they develop better controls. For me, this will go a long way when considering previous achievements in the face of utter failure by cycling governing bodies to test their athletes properly during his winning years.

The only issue I have with this wait and see in the future is it becomes irrelevant. Look at Athletics in the 70s & 80s, it was dominated by the Soviets and East Germans who were very obviously on drugs, who cares anymore. Likewise, how many young people know the US didnt go to Moscow Qlympics in 80 or vice versa in LA 84. It is forgotten but the winners still remain the winners. If Lance is not doping or not caught this time, it has no relationship to what he was doing during his winning era. I dont want to find out in 20 years time that Lance was doping. Lance was offered the chance to have those 99 samples re-tested using more accurate tests this year but he refused, he never argued they werent his samples so what did he have to hide. It was the same AFLD who done the tests at the Tour this year so there was nothing to fear either.

 

[scribe]

The only issue I have with this wait and see in the future is it becomes irrelevant. Look at Athletics in the 70s & 80s, it was dominated by the Soviets and East Germans who were very obviously on drugs, who cares anymore. Likewise, how many young people know the US didnt go to Moscow Qlympics in 80 or vice versa in LA 84. It is forgotten but the winners still remain the winners. If Lance is not doping or not caught this time, it has no relationship to what he was doing during his winning era. I dont want to find out in 20 years time that Lance was doping.

We are still debating whether LA's results from 1999 prove that he is a cheat. People definitely do care, without limits to time. Time now, unlike then, is not the problem it once was regarding retro-testing. I am confident they will do their best to sling him if possible. I think a positive test will be damaging to the guy at every level of his life. Much to lose.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

In science rules about burden of proof are similar to courtroom.

In science, information is viewed as proof if the level of certainty is quantified and above 95%.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

We are still debating whether LA's results from 1999 prove that he is a cheat. Time now, unlike then, is not the problem it once was regarding retro-testing. I am confident they will do their best to sling him if possible. I think a positive test will be damaging to the guy at every level of his life. Much to lose.

But it is not in the sport's interest - UCI, sponsor's - to catch people by retro testing.
The UCI could have easily retro tested last years Giro sample's for CERA - and they refused that opportunity.

Now that the Carabinieri are about to test those results the UCI have said that would like to retest these samples.

There are tight rules regarding retro-testing, at present I believe they are only able to go back 2 years with the test (that may have changed recently), although the urine samples can still be good to re-sample for many years.

 

[pmcg76]

We are still debating whether LA's results from 1999 prove that he is a cheat. People definitely do care, without limits to time. Time now, unlike then, is not the problem it once was regarding retro-testing. I am confident they will do their best to sling him if possible. I think a positive test will be damaging to the guy at every level of his life. Much to lose.

For me, I understand there has to be procedure for dope testing so I understand why there is no way to sanction Lance on the 99 samples, i.e. there is no positive test, otherwise the whole system would collapse.

This does not disguise the fact that EPO was found in the samples and they were matched to Lance. How did the EPO get into those samples?, I think the others with EPO were matched to Manuel Beltran, Bo Hamburger(both busted later) and Joaquim Castelblanco(Kelme) Those samples are enough for me to believe that Lance doped in 99 and that goes for any athlete.

It could be argued that Lance has made millions at the expense of others and this is the crux of the issue of doping. Guys like Giles Delion & Charly Mottet losing out on their careers because of others doping.

 

[scribe]

For me, I understand there has to be procedure for dope testing so I understand why there is no way to sanction Lance on the 99 samples, i.e. there is no positive test, otherwise the whole system would collapse.

This does not disguise the fact that EPO was found in the samples and they were matched to Lance. How did the EPO get into those samples?, I think the others with EPO were matched to Manuel Beltran, Bo Hamburger(both busted later) and Joaquim Castelblanco(Kelme) Those samples are enough for me to believe that Lance doped in 99 and that goes for any athlete.

It could be argued that Lance has made millions at the expense of others and this is the crux of the issue of doping. Guys like Giles Delion & Charly Mottet losing out on their careers because of others doping.

It seems clear to me that EPO tested out in those samples. It also seems suspicious the circumstances that led to the testing and identification of them, and I really don't appreciate that when forming a damnable opinion. Cycling didn't want to know what was going on back then, and we are left to argue the validity of cyclists as a result. It is difficult to argue that Armstrong didn't come out of that situation relatively unscathed, in the larger perception of legacy (sorry to those who are passionate about LA).

You could also argue that cycling governance played a disservice to those guys you cite, as the losers vs the dopers. I am not willing to lay the blame at the feet of a few who won within that system.

 

[ggusta]

One thing that does bug me about this latest round of Walsh criticism is that he's using a Festina doctor as a source. Might as well be using Ferrari for all the credibility that gives.
Festina was one of the dirtier teams around, and Virenque should be getting just as much of this criticism as LA.

This argument is a bit of a red herring.

 

[Eva Maria]

It seems clear to me that EPO tested out in those samples. It also seems suspicious the circumstances that led to the testing and identification of them, and I really don't appreciate that when forming a damnable opinion.

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Ashenden covers this indepth. Read the follow up interview as well as the comments.

 

[Cobber]

We are still debating whether LA's results from 1999 prove that he is a cheat. People definitely do care, without limits to time. Time now, unlike then, is not the problem it once was regarding retro-testing. I am confident they will do their best to sling him if possible. I think a positive test will be damaging to the guy at every level of his life. Much to lose.

I think the reason people care now, and will care for some time in the future, about Lance is that he has so much going on in addition to cycling. When he does retire, he may well go into politics or something else in the public eye and so the question of whether he cheated in 1999 will still be somewhat relevant.

 

[pmcg76]

It seems clear to me that EPO tested out in those samples. It also seems suspicious the circumstances that led to the testing and identification of them, and I really don't appreciate that when forming a damnable opinion. Cycling didn't want to know what was going on back then, and we are left to argue the validity of cyclists as a result. It is difficult to argue that Armstrong didn't come out of that situation relatively unscathed, in the larger perception of legacy (sorry to those who are passionate about LA).

You could also argue that cycling governance played a disservice to those guys you cite, as the losers vs the dopers. I am not willing to lay the blame at the feet of a few who won within that system.

I know you are consistent in your view that the UCI are more at fault than the athletes, I agree with this but I believe the cyclists themselves can play a big role. For example, I believe the French really cleaned up post 98 and have suffered over the last decade as a result but have been slowly improving in recent years. Maybe this is too simple of an explanation but to me is very plausible. If more teams, riders etc had followed the French, I believe the sport would be much better off.

To solve the doping problem, it is necessary to involve the UCI, Riders, team sponsors, Race organisers and science companies,no one group is responsible for the issue. Unfortunately this is pro sport so I am not holding my breath on that.

 

[Eva Maria]

It's hard for me to believe that this incredibly crooked infrastructure exists to cater to some and not to others. I guess ignorance can be bliss.

I am not sure if I would call it a conspiracy, but Willful ignorance can accomplish just as much.

It is clear that the UCI ignored and inabled the doping issue for decades.

-Silvia Schneck, UCI board of directors, Head of the Ethics committee. She went public to say that Armstrong received special treatment from the UCI. In addition to the special treatment she saw his $500,00 "Donation" as a major conflict of interest as well as an enabler of the special treatment.

-Jesus Manzano, the rider who opened the door for Operation Puerto, said that his team had a contact at the UCI that would warn them of OOC testing. He said that the same contact also notified USPS/Disco.

-Di Lucca was taped discussing testing with his doping doctor. He talks about getting called to CONI for special testing. The funny thing was he was not angry at being called for testing, he was angry at not receiving advanced warning.

-Verbruggen, and his puppet McQuaid, consistently ignored the doping issue and publicly berated anyone who questioned the cleanliness of the sport. The often said there was not an issue with doping in the sport, only to be proved wrong with rider after rider testing positive, doping labs being broken up, etc. When pressed on the issue Verbruggen said

"He said, 'If people don't mind the Tour de France at 25 kilometres per hour, the riders don't have to prepare. But if they want it at 42kph then, I'm sorry, the riders can't do it without preparation', as he called it."

You can see that when fans fall back on the "Never Sanctioned" defense that it is meaningless as the UCI has no interest in facing reality.

 

[scribe]

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Ashenden covers this indepth. Read the follow up interview as well as the comments.

Yes, I have read that article a few times here and there. I am not going to argue LA didn't use PED's in the 90s. I am willing to accept the doping in professional sports in that era. I am also willing to accept those samples proved that he used PED's in the 99 tour. All that stuff said, I am not gonna get excited by the circumstances surrounding those 'positives' attributed to Lance Armstrong by an investigative journalist in what is supposed to be a wholly academic environment. I am sure that was a professional feather in that researcher's cap to come to the fore with statistical guarantee of accuracy of the claim.

If that is the best cycling can do for itself, it is pretty sad. And it's gotta get a lot better to restore credibility to the sport.

 

[scribe]

I think the reason people care now, and will care for some time in the future, about Lance is that he has so much going on in addition to cycling. When he does retire, he may well go into politics or something else in the public eye and so the question of whether he cheated in 1999 will still be somewhat relevant.

I look at this very objectively without passion one way or the other for the guy's character. If the guy comes out with an admission of guilt for '99 or others, it would send pretty big shock wave through the sport on the one hand and his legacy on the other. I appreciate the argument about the man's personal character with respect to this, but he is under no real pressure to admit as much. He probably figured outright and direct denial would nip it in the bud earlier than the coy approach. Is this really important to the greater public for future endeavor? It will certainly continue to be a very grey and difficult for people to define their positions.

More time between that era and the future will paint a clearer picture about what was really going on. Not just with Armstrong, but across the board. It has been obvious to many for some time. We are just now trying to figure out what to do with it.

 

[ggusta]

Is the dope just part of cycling?

ughhh...questions questions questions....

First of all, what sport is not dirty? Football(US), Baseball, any Olympic sport or discipline. I watched Michael Phelps (swimmer) break another record on TV. After he touched the wall he turned, looked at the clock and raised what could best be described as his 'arm' in victory. His arm doesn't look like anything seen outside of a weightlifting competition ....reminds me of something hanging in the butcher's window.... and yet, we are asked to believe this is real. okkkkkkk......

Has Cycling ever been clean? The Walsh interview accused Hinault and named associates of being dirty. That's 25 years ago. Tom Simpson, 1967. 40 years ago. When, if ever was it pure?

Can it ever be clean? Why do we care? Do we have to settle for a certain degree of PED's?

I don't think it can be clean. Even just like 10-20% dirty.

So how should those who cheat get punished?
How would you handle it if 'your guy' got caught?

Is it a realistic goal to clean it up once and for all?

Why do we beat ourselves up over the purity of this sport? Football (American and 'regular' football) is loaded with dirty competitors and that doesn't stop the fans from being as passionate as they are. The level of denial in Baseball is hilarious. Football in the US is not even a concern, it's just taken for granted. Biggest sport in the US by a mile.

If Contador got popped tomorrow, would that mean anything? To me it would mean the next 10 guys on GC are s-!tt!ng their pants. How can we know any of them ARE clean? Is it realistic to ever expect it?

hmmm....feel like I am forgetting something......





oh....yeah

Lance Armstrong

ok, now I'm done

 

[scribe]

Is the dope just part of cycling?

I hope not. Doping culture certainly isn't as acceptable as it once was and that is a good start. How to clean it up is the responsibilities of all professionals involved. The cyclist's (sponsorship) need to foot the bill that will pay for the research and enforcement needed to level the playing field. I have no doubts this will strain the sport in very profound ways. If cycling governing bodies do not get the job done, then the clean riders need to outrage against those who would squander their (sponsorship) money meant to level the playing field until it is acceptable. Who knows, maybe the sport will die in either direction. That is the profound question going forward.

 

[Anonymous]

Ah yes, the apathy argument. Its about time that one showed back up.

 

[ggusta]

Ah yes, the apathy argument. Its about time that one showed back up.

Not apathetic at all. Trying to get a grip on why it seems to matter when obviously it has either never been pure or hasn't been pure for a very long time. And then there are other sports where it doesn't matter at all to the fans (football) and still others where the fans are so obviously willing to ignore something that screams 'dope' (swimming).

Is 100% clean the only acceptable way to go?

How do we get there?

 

[Allez! Allez! AUS!]

I hope not. Doping culture certainly isn't as acceptable as it once was and that is a good start. How to clean it up is the responsibilities of all professionals involved. The cyclist's (sponsorship) need to foot the bill that will pay for the research and enforcement needed to level the playing field. I have no doubts this will strain the sport in very profound ways. If cycling governing bodies do not get the job done, then the clean riders need to outrage against those who would squander their (sponsorship) money meant to level the playing field until it is acceptable. Who knows, maybe the sport will die in either direction. That is the profound question going forward.

Good point because you would think it could potentially reap rewards for the sponsors too if they could be convinced as much so as to put money towards the anti-doping figha team like Agritubel or Cofidis might have some really naturally gifted cyclists that are being beaten unfairly. You never know- possibly by some really sophisticated cheats with enormous budgets insuring they don't get caught. If cycling was cleaner one would imagine it could potentially be 'shaken up' more often with a more even playing field and unknowns coming to the top quicker instead of being dominated by big budget teams whom it could be imagined owe a lot of their success to a very smart doping regime that is ahead of the testing curve- a luxury of course a smaller budget team could never dream of.... (i guess that would be the negative view assuming some top teams and cyclists dope in todays climate)