And in other news…..
Posted April 24th, 2007 in Dope
………Boris Yeltsin is still dead. Yep, there will be the usual wailing about process by the Floyd Fairness Fanboys, riffs about another French conspiracy, there’s a third man on the grassy knoll, and it’s L’Equipe, yada, yada, yada. Well actually the L’Equipe bit is true but that’s another story and you know what I mean.
The analysis of seven of Floyd Landis urine ‘B’ samples, taken during the 2006 Tour de France, show traces of synthetic testosterone, according to the French newspaper L’Equipe. The analysis of the seven samples which were initially classified as negative after the ‘A’-sample test panel was carried out at the Châtenay-Malabry (LNDD) laboratory, but were subjected to further testing on the ‘B’-samples at the request of the US Antidoping Agency (USADA).
The ‘A’-samples had been subjected to the routine screening test panel which includes the testosterone:epitestosterone (T:E) ratio analysis but not the IRMS analysis for synthetic testosterone.
So, we’re back where we started and the facts haven’t really changed, the ratio was unusual and the synthetic testosterone still exists. That still has to be adequately explained by the defense. We shall see on the day of the hearing. But ultimately, furphys about process and athlete confidentiality aside, this is looking like a slam dunk.
technorati tags: cycling, bicycles, doping, floyd, landis
What others have to say…
I agree in principle with all that you say. As to collateral damag……the only riders to have been “damaged” are those where circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, Ullrich is an example of this.
If the others are subject to (and agree to)the same tests of the blood products then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Basso and others would be on the sidelines….and rightfully so because there isn’t anyone in cycling that does not believe that Puerto uncovered something nasty and that it needs to be pursued with a vengeance.
Methinks they protest too much.
Wasn’t there an Australian rider, Alan Davis I think? Didn’t he do all that and still had trouble getting a ride?
I stand to be corrected on this.
they protest too much
Perhaps, but the difference in the way the leaks (by L’Equipe) regarding Landis and Ian Thorpe have been handled is quite stunning.
Between the outbursts of Dick Pound and the, ah, opaqueness of the “independent” testers means that the high moral ground has been well and truely lost.
No wonder outside observers just shake their heads in wonder.
Euan, Davis is riding with Discovery now, and he got the ride straight after he was told he had no case to answer by ASADA. If only the other athletes took his approach we’d be further ahead and a lot wiser.
Thlogette, yes, agreed the moral ground has been lost with comments made by folks who should know better.
But the athletes, through their mouthpieces have gotten away with all sorts of rediculous claims in the past and need to be called on it.
Now the dog ate my homework/it’s for my mum excuses don’t work anymore and it’s down to the science of testing and the process.
Anyway, I think the landscape needs to change to one of total openness if the fight against doping is to be won.
I want to know what’s kinds of banned drugs are in an athletes TUE and why.
If there is a positive I want that announced and the athlete stood down.
I then want the hearings and all evidence made available online and absolutely transparent for all to see and judge.
BTW, Pound is an outlier and far too much has been made of his comments. He may have a big mouth, but he doesn’t do the testing, and the leaks don’t come from him.
And there is no possible defense that can be mounted for having your blood in bags in Spain.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Sure looks like it.
As an aside though I was having dinner with some friends who are not in to cycling, although one is in to sport in a big way. I was asked the question, are all pro cyclists on the sauce?
My answer was that I didn’t know however let me qualify. It’s my opinion that no other sport goes to the extremes that pro cycling does in rooting out drug use, with the possible exception of track and field. On hearsay alone dozens of cyclists were exluded from competing in last years TdF…
Which was about as far as I got. On hearsay you say? Well yes, a list was found in a blood doping lab which indicated taht some riders may have blood of theirs in the lab. So nothing was actually proven then, the athletes didn’t test positive? Well no, but there were indications that they may have been involved with dispreputable agencies so rather than have the possibility of a tainted competition they were excluded. But that’s just wrong, was the reply.
The conversation went on, contrasting the AFL and other pro sport’s drug policies with that of cycling. Catch the cheats, punish them so harshly that the penalties outweigh the possible reweards, no problem with that. But IMO there’s way too much collateral damage at the moment.