There's also a [url= http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2012/behind-scenes-contador-cas-hearing-michael-ashenden ]huge interview with Ashenden on NYVeloCity about the CAS hearing for Contador[/url]. The summary is that because Contador was never chased for doing blood bags, it was outside the remit of CAS to assess so they ignored most of it and also then didn't take into account blood bags as a source of contamination.
here is also a suggestion that it's more potent than salbutomol, now I accept that has no proven performance benefits for non-asthmatics, but that doesn't seem to have stopped an awful lot of cyclists being registered as asthmatic in order to be allowed to take it for therapeutic purposes...
I can confirm it has no benefits 😥 or could it be that I am even slower than I thought!
Does Ashenden have a view on whether the positive test could have come from a pork pie? A lot of them northerners can ride up big hills and they all eat those crusty porky portions.
I see Greg Lemond has been calling out the chuckle twins at the UCI, will he be in court with Kimmage? Pat and Hein must starting to really feel the heat, mind you the that other crook at the IOC backs them as leading the fight against drugs.
I don't believe there's any record of illicit flights from Madrid to Leeds for "preparation" by El Pistolero.
I appreciate what you have done for cyclingJesus, who'd have thought Tinker Juarez hated cycling so much
I think its a US thing, I have US cycling friends and to them Lance can do no wrong and is still a national hero, no matter what he did. Bit like David Miller and STW.
Julich and SKY end relationship.
Come on now Tinker is a very nice guy and has many skills and talents. He is limited in some areas though above the shoulders, the hair is a give away.
The reason plasticizers in the blood are allowed is because there are legitimate ways for it too get there, it's not uncommon for a rider to be put on a drip at the end of a hard race.
The way national bodies assume a position of innocence for their own athletes is a big problem, its no good pointing the finger at the Spanish over the bertie affair, the same has been done for British athletes.
Brailsford starting to wriggle?
"People will be given an opportunity - if they represent a risk to the team going forward - to talk about it, to see if we can reconcile that and support people. It's actually been a very constructive process."
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20072758 ]Here.[/url]
And we wonder why cycling has a credibility problem regarding doping?
its no good pointing the finger at the Spanish over the bertie affair, the same has been done for British athletes.
For example
None spring to mind
i dont recall the PM saying someone was innocent or anything like this here ever.
Can you cite any actual example for British athletes
I doubt you will find any for cycling which is more relevant on this thread
Re cycling we need truth and reconciliation. if they get an automatic sack and removed from cycling it is hardly likely to lead to truth from folk
Many riders and people will have cheated we need to make sure it has stopped not that every last one of them is forced out of cycling [ clearly some should be]
And we wonder why cycling has a credibility problem regarding doping?
I think we've already worked out that it's pretty much impossible to staff any team with crew who have never ever been involved in doping in any way. It was just too endemic, too entrenched and the tentacles went right through, from riders all the way up to team managers.
So Sky's initial response of "sign this piece of paper - if you don't you're fired and if you lie, and we find out about it, you're fired" isn't constructuve, it gives no incentive to own up.
The best response is to say "we realise this took place, Sky are committed to a 100% clean approach and, regardless of a crew member's past misdemeanors, we will give them the chance to talk openly about it, confess, help the anti-doping movement and give them an environment where they can work without the need or opportunity for doping, rehabilitate them (if you want to use that turn of phrase).
The best advocates for anti-doping are ex-dopers (like Millar) in the same way that the best thing for youth rehabilitation centres is to have an ex con/ex druggie talking to them, telling them how crime messed up their life, not to do it. The thing about ex dopers - they know how they did it so they can ensure that the riders never have the werewithall to dope in the first place, even if they want to.
footflaps - MemberI think its a US thing, I have US cycling friends and to them Lance can do no wrong and is still a national hero, no matter what he did. Bit like David Miller and STW.
Boring troll is boring.
I think we've already worked out that it's pretty much impossible to staff any team with crew who have never ever been involved in doping in any way. It was just too endemic, too entrenched and the tentacles went right through, from riders all the way up to team managers.
Aye, but that's not my point. Maybe the initial statement a week or so back wasn't practical to implement (though there was nothing really preventing a clean broom approach imo, but I accept that I'm no expert on building a sport from the ground up). However,Joe Public reads one week that Sky has a zero tolerance, past and present approach to doping, then sees the following week that the stance shows signs of softening.
Now while we are used to this sort of thing in most walks of life, in a sport that has such a high profile for it's problems, backpedaling, even in the name of pragmatism, would seem to me to suggest a less than serious approach to problem solving. Akin to those the sport has seen in the past.
The reason plasticizers in the blood are allowed is because there are legitimate ways for it too get there, it's not uncommon for a rider to be put on a drip at the end of a hard race.
Illegal in pro cycling unless medial treatment requires it and then they need to leave the race. The basic rule is "no needles"
@vinnyeh: yep, fair point and I'm amazed that Sky (being like, a media company and all), didn't actually think it through.
Usual classic knee jerk response to bad news then realise that oh, that's not really practical.
I think we've already worked out that it's pretty much impossible to staff any team with crew who have never ever been involved in doping in any way. It was just too endemic, too entrenched and the tentacles went right through, from riders all the way up to team managers.
Absolute nonsense, it may be impossible to get untainted folk with experience of particular roles. In that case though, if any credibility is to be expected you HAVE to just go with inexperienced but untainted folk and rebuild from scratch.
Sorry if this has been linked before but does Mark Cavendish really believe or understand what he has said in [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20049387 ]This interview[/url]
Which sports do you think are cleaner?
F1?
Moto GP?
The absolute latest
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/armstrong-now-taking-mushrooms-2012101144612
shocking stuff
Woody, a similar situation from my youth to illustrate.
I was at one of them posh schools, innit. The school had a drug problem, nothing "seriuous", and almost certainly in line with any other school of similar size. The headmaster wanted to deal with it, so he did. He found people. He expelled them. He made it very, very public.
Of course, there were then the headlines, "Rich toffs in drugs shockah!" and the school was tainted with that reputation for a while. Was the school dirtier than others? Hell no. It just [i]actually did something about it![/i]
I see cycling in the same light. It has a problem, as do many other sports. Cycling's gone very public about it's problem, and therefore gets far more than a fair share of negative press. Much like my school did, while other schools of similar type were just quietly expelling their drug busts.
Much like my school did, while other schools of similar type were just quietly expelling their drug busts.
In that case, I'll compare my school to the UCI! The Head flatly refused to believe that nice posh children in his school could possibly be doing anything like that.
That all changed when a new Head came along.
Wellington, CrazyLegs? 😉
F1?
Moto GP?
Both require physical endurance that is enhanced by EPO, plus low body mass so clenbuterol type drugs would certainly help. During a race betablockers would help keep a driver calm under pressure.
Is either sport signed up to wada rules? do they have random in and out of season testing, the whereabouts system, biological passports?
It#s the naive belief that cycling is the bad boy in world sport, that is starting to irritate.
that can be
It's the use of modal verbs to make a point just a teensy weensy bit more dramatic that does it for me. 😈
I reckon they were probably Lance's 😉Berties name (or at least [b]CONT[/b]) being written on blood bags in Puerto
Flashy: not *that* posh!
Absolute nonsense, it may be impossible to get untainted folk with experience of particular roles. In that case though, if any credibility is to be expected you HAVE to just go with inexperienced but untainted folk and rebuild from scratch.
But who is teaching these inexperienced people? Dopers or ex dopers. And besides, you simply can't run a pro cycling team with a bunch of people off the street. You don't learn this stuff by reading a book, it comes from years and years of being in the thick of it, being a pro racer, 'reading' races.
While you're rebuilding your team from scratch, you're not winning anything, the sponsors walk away, and bang goes your team. That's why the problem is so endemic and why it needs not some PR friendly "zero tolerance" bullshit (which always comes back to bite you on the arse) but a proper top-down clean out, "truth and amnesty", reconciliation. Accept that people used to do that kind of thing. Rebuild the sport together through support, and a proper independent body. The UCI has for too long been in a position where it has to promote the sport, make it interesting and exciting while also policing it.
But who is teaching these inexperienced people? Dopers or ex dopers. And besides, you simply can't run a pro cycling team with a bunch of people off the street. You don't learn this stuff by reading a book, it comes from years and years of being in the thick of it, being a pro racer, 'reading' races.
From the outside that just sends the message, "OK, you doped, but we'll still let you make a living from the sport, so doping is ok to get your fame, your reputation, your titles, even if you get caught, you've still got a career." It also says, "we're a team where dopers work, where dopers are rewarded, because although we could take non dopers and do less well, we must win at all costs", and when you are willing to go that far, why would you not be doping today too?
There are plenty of clean former riders to choose from I'm sure but the question is do men who've had their best years in cycling stolen from them (dramatic phrase I know) really want to go back to the sport where dopers were accepted as the norm and clean riders were considered to be somehow less valuable (look at Bassons who was offered 5-10 times the salary if he doped).
As an aside, on the subject of riders supporting Armstrong, Marcel Kittel had this to say on twitter:
[quote=@marcelkittel]I feel SICK when I read that Contador, Sanchez & Indurain still support Armstrong. How does someone want to be credible by saying that?!
Well done that man. People like him, Greipel, Phinney are all reasons to feel positive about the future. There's a wave of riders coming through that simply abhor the idea of doping.
I was surprissed by Contador given he is the current LA [ best and a doper] you would have thought he would have STFU- I took it as a sign their is still a problem if he can say that openly tbh
When an unrepentant doper comes out in support of another unrepentant doper and feels safe doing so, there's a sign that something is wrong. Sadly, given he rides for Riis, the team is hardly going to stamp down on him either.
It's quite revealing to see the few prominent names sticking up for Armstrong, when everyone else is trying to run away as quickly as possible. I think there will be a few squeaky bums wondering if they can still rely on omerta to keep things quiet, or whether someone is going to spill the beans on them as part of the current confessional tidal wave.
I think Sky are taking a tough road, but fair play to them. It's another deterrent if doping could mean the end of your nice post race career in team support or management. They just need to be consistent, because they have flip flopped a wee bit on whether they will use people associated with doping or not.
It would be difficult, but not impossible to run a team with clean staff. Wiggins' performance coach came from swimming, I believe, so you can look outside the traditional cycling world (of course you have to make sure you are not just getting dopers from a different sport!). As for sponsors leaving; that cuts both ways. Rabobank have taken a commercial decision that the current model is not a good deal, so failure to really clean up could hurt teams just as much as trying to be squeaky clean, in the current climate.
[quote=Jim Ochowicz, owner Team BMC]"There's been so much said I don't even know how to keep up with it anymore. It was a difficult decision by those that had to make them and one that's going to live with us for a while yet, but I'm looking forward to the future,"
"I feel bad for him, I do," he added.
So we add BMC to the teams you have to be suspicious about.
I think there will be a few squeaky bums wondering if they can still rely on omerta to keep things quiet, or whether someone is going to spill the beans on them as part of the current confessional tidal wave.
Part of me wonders if that's the key. By getting it out there that bans without positive tests are "wrong" you wonder if these riders are getting ready to have the whistle blown on them and getting the defence in early.
Good article here by Bradley McGee:
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/how-dopers-stole-the-best-years-of-my-career-20121026-28aif.html
It's a good article but I can't believe he's talking about his team being one of the ones leading the way to a cleaner sport when it's run by Riis and their lead rider is supporting Armstrong publicly. Doesn't diminish his experiences and what he's trying to do though, I just can't help but wish he was doing it elsewhere.
It is a team led by a doper both on and off the roadI have one simple rule – no doping. It's really not that difficult.
Riis is owner and manager Bertie the top man.
Shame though he seems genuine but he is in the wrong team to achieve that never mind rule three
3. Know the people around you. Be sure they will support you in success or failure and will never support unethical choices.
Just shows how close to Fubbar cycling actually is if he believes all that and then works for them
No re-allocation of titles then.
The ASO already said as much so there was no chance the UCI could change that.
uci have announced no reallocation of titles, suspension of the paul kimmage case and an external investigation into themselves
oh and the operation puerto case is just around the corner - lets see if bertie can explain away blood bags mark 'cont' that were found in his fridge - quick blood / dna test should settle that...
uci have announced no reallocation of titles, suspension of the paul kimmage case and an external investigation into themselves
Do you know if suspension means it's been binned or just put on hold until after the external investigation?
Edit: and the answer appears to be that it is on hold during the investigation but it isn't clear whether or not it will be restarted - which is crap for Kimmage as he will just be left on hold for longer
Orff with their heads
on hold following the investigation, this link is expanding as its coming out, should be full story now:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-management-committee-will-not-reallocate-armstrongs-tours
Suspended pending the inquiry. Poor Paul, being dicked around for even longer.
