He will most probably be allowed to race. The reason why riders involved in the Puerto Case most probably not will start in TDF is because the cases will be picked up again shortly before TDF.
Weird case #1:
Lance Armstrong. First of all, it's publicly known that he used EPO to cure his cancer - also as aftercare. And it seems like he never really stopped using it. L'Equipe revealed that old tests of Armstrong had been tested again. Back then you couldn't test for EPO and other doping "products", so the tests were of course negative back then - but now, when tested for EPO, the tests were positive.
Weird case #2:
Hincapie. It simply couldn't be more obvious. TdF, two years ago: The Paris-Roubaix man, the man of the flat, George Hincapie, had suddenly - in his late years - turned into a true mountain goat!?
Weird case #3:
Discovery last year at TdF. That's how they perform when Armstrong doesn't force them to dope themselves
CrueTrue wrote:
I'm certainly implying that Discovery cheats.
Weird case #1:
Lance Armstrong. First of all, it's publicly known that he used EPO to cure his cancer - also as aftercare. And it seems like he never really stopped using it. L'Equipe revealed that old tests of Armstrong had been tested again. Back then you couldn't test for EPO and other doping "products", so the tests were of course negative back then - but now, when tested for EPO, the tests were positive.
Weird case #2:
Hincapie. It simply couldn't be more obvious. TdF, two years ago: The Paris-Roubaix man, the man of the flat, George Hincapie, had suddenly - in his late years - turned into a true mountain goat!?
Weird case #3:
Discovery last year at TdF. That's how they perform when Armstrong doesn't force them to dope themselves
I won't go into more. except take an excerpt from tdfblog.com
"I'm slogging through the Vrijman report (PDF link). It's fairly readable, although I'll admit I fell asleep about halfway through last night.
My initial take, based on the stories about the report, was that Armstrong's exoneration was sort of on a technicality. I no longer feel that way. Here are a few of the findings of the Vrijman report that swayed me:
1) There is some evidence that naturally-occurring (“endogenous”) EPO can undergo changes in storage that cause it to test positive for synthetic (“exogenous”) EPO, also called r-EPO (section 4.54, page 90). As a result, since 2005, labs have been required to perform an additional stability test on any EPO sample. There's no documentation suggesting that test was done on the Tour de France samples from '98 and '99.
2) There's no reliable data showing what effect long-term storage has on EPO tests. Dr. Christian Ayotte, who runs the WADA-certified lab in Montreal, is quoted via VeloNews in the report (section 2.2, page 24):
“EPO is a protein hormone and it is not stable in urine, even when kept frozen”, she said. “This has long had implications for any plan we’ve had to keep samples and specimens for long periods of time with the hope that we might, some day, retest those samples for a new susbtance.”
3) The World Anti-Doping Agency has claimed a number of times that the samples were tested as part of a study intended to better calibrate the EPO test. That study has not been published. As a result, however, the samples were handled differently, and tests were performed differently than they would have been for doping controls (quoting Dr. De Ceaurriz, head of the LNDD, the lab involved, section 4.16, page 59):
“The samples were analysed for EPO in the frame shift of a research program without applying the rules of WADA for anti-doping controls. So, no laboratory documentation packages are available.”
Also:
“Research samples were managed differently from the chain of custody used for anti-doping controls. The missing samples have been used for other research purposes.”
Specifically, they were analyzed using an “accelerated measurement procedure” considered good enough for research, but not for sanctions (section 4.13, page 58).
4) WADA further spent six months twisting the lab's arm, until they finally provided the results with “additional information;” specifically the code numbers, which could be tied back to the rider through the doping control sheets. The lab consented to this only with agreement that the results would be kept confidential and that they could not be used as the basis for disciplinary action. The day after the final report, including the code numbers, was sent to WADA and the French Ministry for Sport, the L'Equipe story was published.
5) L'Equipe got doping control forms from the UCI by claiming they wanted to show whether Armstrong had received medical clearance to use any medications as a result of his cancer (he hadn't). UCI cleared the release of those forms with Armstrong, while LNDD did NOT clear use of his (and other riders' B-samples in a research study.
The report suggests very strongly that WADA chose to urinate all over its own WADA Code (PDF link) in order to plant suspicion that Lance Armstrong doped. It did this even with the foreknowledge that the “evidence” thus generated rose barely above the level of innuendo, and couldn't be used as evidence in a real doping inquiry. That's pretty much the definition of a smear campaign.
Also, my favorite phrase from the entire report concerns the source for synthetic EPO: “primarily produced in the ovary cells of Chinese hamsters.” "
II) Wierd Case #2
I'm not sure how you got hincapie as a true mountain goat. If you notice his mountain stage results, they have been quite unflattering. True, he did win a mountain stage, but tahts only after sitting back and enjoying the breakaway's efforts the entire way. That sprint with Periero was just hilarious to watch. True, he's improved, but hardly anything stunning.
III) Wierd Case #3
I do think last year's TDF had discovery having Hincapie as leader mainly due to his time trialing. However, he faltered in the mountains...which contradicts how he is somehow a mountain goat.
Another thing is, I find it ironic how people put Lance in almost an unwinnable scenario. Take for instance your argument in case 3. So when they do bad, its because they don't dope. When they do good, its because they dope. Win or lose, they obviously dope. Such reasoning is unfair. The most simple answer is, they just aren't that good...and Armstrong's success made them seem stronger than they really were.
The extract mostly says that the handling of the tests wasn't correct - and that might be true. But as in the Landis-case, I still think we need to focus on what really happened - it was tested positive. As the extract says, though, no one knows what happens with EPO tests when frozen down - but there's a possibility that it doesn't do any different.
Considering the fact that Hincapie never had done anything good on a mountain stage I'm sure that it wasn't just all "training". I don't have any proof, I just think it was suspicious.
Yes, that's the funny part - it does certainly contradict that he's a mountain goat. And it also proves that it wasn't just training - otherwise, why wouldn't he be able to do it the following year? After all, he was the leader and seemed top-motivated before the start.
Armstrong's team - not only Armstrong, but his entire team - was unbeatable. They sat at the front of the peloton throughout all stages, and they still didn't seem tired. The following year, none of them had the slightest chance in the mountains. Again, no proof, but it's suspicious.
I'm also wondering how Armstrong was able to beat all riders, even though circumstantial evidence point to them being doped. Again, I have trouble believing that it's all hard work. In fact, I don't have any trust in cycling now. I still find it interesting, though.
The extract mostly says that the handling of the tests wasn't correct - and that might be true. But as in the Landis-case, I still think we need to focus on what really happened - it was tested positive. As the extract says, though, no one knows what happens with EPO tests when frozen down - but there's a possibility that it doesn't do any different.
There's another thing I'd like to add about EPO tests. I believe they can measure abnormal EPO through a abnormally high hematocrit level (spikes) or nowadays they can find it through basically dna. Same way Tyler was caught with someone else's blood.
Armstrong has never shown the sign of taking the synthetic epo...ever. The test has been around for awhile...still nothing. But Doping methods had changed recently to blood doping...mostly autologous blood doping. Just withdrawing someone's blood and putting it in later ...also filtering it for all the good stuff. We saw that in Puerto. If Armstrong was a cheater, he'd be doing that...not using EPO. Same thing with Landis, short term testosterone will do nothing to help him. Besides, his testosterone was never high, just his ratio, and there are even bigger problems with his testing than with lance's. If I am to believe anyone, I believe floyd way more than Lance.
Personal note, i am pretty skeptical of lance as well. But if he's going to cheat, its going to be autologous blood doping. Other means like EPO are too easy to catch now. Its less dangerous, more effective, and harder to trace.
As regards to Hincapie. That mountain stage, he was just on everyone's tails. He did absolutely nothing. The peleton had given them outrageous time.
Its certianly within the realm of my experience that he could win it. I mean He's about as good of a climber as Horner. A decent climber. To improve over his 10+ year career from bad to around above average is not really much. Again, lance is 10x more suspicious than hincapie will ever be.
So what are my opinions on lance? Has he doped before? I'd say highly likely yes. It would be fair to say that he did dope in the 90s. As did everyone else. After the scandal in 98 and improved detection methods, the cheating methods had to change making it incredibly hard to cheat. If anyone were to cheat it would have to be autologous blood doping. Anything else, would be caught so fast it wouldn't even be funny. So do i think he cheated in his later years? the jury is out. I truly believe he "bent" the rules a bit. Taking stuff that would help that were not illegal...the same way McGwire in baseball took androestine which is basically a steroid...it just wasn't outlawed yet. I think the peleton was struggling to find ways to find that "edge" and thus were vastly behind in their "improvement" methods. This resulted in some of those guys going to blood doping...as puerto suggests.
Edited by CrueTrue on 23-03-2007 20:10
To me that's a pretty big indication of systematic blood doping at team level. Furthermore, Andreu and an anonymous rider have admitted that they were on EPO in 1999, when they rode for Armstrong in the Tour. Were they the exceptions on the team? Hardly.
There probably are clean riders in the pro peloton but I doubt many of the big names are. Plus, a lot of the guys who sit in the team cars now were riders themselves back in the "roaring nineties". They're not exactly the best role models, IMO. But it's not the drugs that bother me the most. It's all the lying and hypocracy which makes it really hard for me to keep seing these riders as heroes. Sadly I think it's going to get worse before it gets better.
Edited by Coldas on 21-04-2007 11:19
Don't call me Jens Fuck! It always sounds like that when you Danish people say my name. Jens Voigt
To me that's a pretty big indication of systematic blood doping at team level. Furthermore, Andreu and an anonymous rider have admitted that they were on EPO in 1999, when they rode for Armstrong in the Tour. Were they the exceptions on the team? Hardly.
There probably are clean riders in the pro peloton but I doubt many of the big names are. Plus, a lot of the guys who sit in the team cars now were riders themselves back in the "roaring nineties". They're not exactly the best role models, IMO. But it's not the drugs that bother me the most. It's all the lying and hypocracy which makes it really hard for me to keep seing these riders as heroes. Sadly I think it's going to get worse before it gets better.
Just wait. One of these days, if lance really did cheat, it will come out. It really will come out. For me, the whole 91-99 period from lemonds last tdf win to festina scandal...I just won't trust the results. Its just a black period that I choose to ignore. From 99- onward. I like to think majority are clean. This is mainly because with the new controls and tests it became ridiculously hard to cheat. If LA did cheat, it will come out. Someone should know the truth and could back it up.
ALthough, Puerto really changed my mind. 2,3,4 in the 2005 tour basically got caught for cheating. If i had to estimate. LA is 50-50 a cheater. I'm not sure. Ugh...I'm getting disgusted talking about this. Lets just talk about the giro.
Edited by Phanekim on 22-04-2007 00:42
About doping, the director of Tour de France said that all riders who had not been totally cleaned from the Puerto-scandale would not be allowed to race. Question is if that also includes Basso (which I think it does, because he has decided not to take a DNA-test).
Team CSC has appointed the following riders for this years Giro d'Italia: David Zabriskie, Fabian Cancellara, Alexandr Kolobnev, Andy Schleck, Juan José Haedo, Kurt-Asle Arvesen, Michael Blauzun, Matti Breschel og Volodymir Gustov.
No potential threats for the classement
Edited by AaB-ern on 26-04-2007 15:47
Riis did say, though, that he wants Zabriskie and Schleck to go for the classement - just to see how far they are able to go. I don't think they will be much worth, though.
)
