Le Tour de France [R]

Others who follow cycling more closely than I will undoubtedly have more detailed answers, and I need to make sure that by officially accused, you mean by the UCI.
I am also be concerned with the effect that unwarranted suspicions prematurely released into the public domain have on the sport. The riders that were bumped from the tour this year because of the Spanish investigation that have now been reinstated, along with riders like Vinokourov who suddenly found themselves without teams because of accusations, have clearly been hurt by the mere suspicion of doping. I'm not sure they were ever officially accused by the UCI, but clearly the accusations of the Spanish authorities were enough to make them miss a major part of their seasons as well as depriving fans of some of the sports biggest stars.
IMO this is indicative of a bigger problem. Too much of the process is played out in the public eye where an accusation is perceived by many as a conviction. It seems to me that this hurts the sport even more than it hurts the rider.
Despite those that seem to think I am in love with a rider, it is the sport I love. The cheats will be forgotten long before the scandal is. This is why it is important to follow the process and not pass judgement without all of the facts. In the early stages of an investigation it is important for the privacy of the rider but much more important for the credibility of the sport that vigorous investigations be conducted outside the public eye. When enough evidence to officially accuse a rider is obtained then it should be released. We did not see this in the Landis situation. Results of the "A" test should never be made public unless the rider admits to use. It seems to me that only after the "B" test is complete should the results be made public. Furthermore, why should the lab even know who the samples are from? A trusted intermediary could keep the list of who the samples are from. Blind testing like this is used in clinical trials to reduce the possibility of bias. This would eliminate one possible source of press leaks while reducing the possibility and perception of bias. At this point in the sport, we need to do all we can to catch the cheats while preserving the ability of the non-cheaters to perform and to make sure the process is as clean and unbiased as possible.
It seems to me that to do this would be better for the sport as a whole as well as for individual riders. To do it requires that labs and the UCI withhold incomplete results from the press. I know in my career it would be considered (at best) unprofessional to reveal trusted information from my company or my customers. Should we expect less from those who play such a vital role in both the daily life and the future of our sport?

I would definitely agree that the anti-doping authorities need to treat individuals with more respect, even hinting at someone being guilty can ruin a career after all. I once saw a documentary that filmed one year of the life of olympic swimmer Pieter van den Hoogenband and was appalled to see how these random doping tests are executed (he even got surprise visits when he was on holiday with his girlfriend). He was treated like some class of criminal even though he hadn't done anything and I imagine it's much the same for the riders.

Anyway what I meant to say in my previous post is that I can't think of a single rider that was found innocent after he was found guilty in the B-test. I can think of one footballer though: Frank de Boer.

Just to wrap up -- I definitely do NOT have a problem with logic. It was one of my favorite subjects in school. And one reason I steer clear of political discussions is that logic is rarely, pardon the pun, part of the equation.

The problem is with assuming the points. Logic is useful for determining that C must necessarily follow from A and B. But if A and B are in dispute, then it's just "garbage in, garbage out."

That's an interesting question. ESPN's John Eustice and cycling veteran Jonathan Vaughters both claim that many cyclists beat the testosterone test in arbitration.

It's tough for us to know because we only know the high-profile cases. I've followed a lot of track and field cases in detail, as well as Tyler Hamilton's case. In Hamilton's case, a mishandled "B" sample cleared him on a technicality in the Olympics, though he had no such luck in another test. In that second test, one of the three U.S. arbitrators wrote a blistering dissent in Hamilton's favor, but that didn't sway anyone at CAS.

Bernard Lagat was cleared by a negative "B" sample, which rarely happens.

Olga Yegorova was cleared to compete after a positive EPO test in 2001. At the time, EPO testing was in its infancy, and the test she took was essentially tossed aside.

I've seen athletes' explanations accepted, with varying results. I recall (can't find citations in a quick search) that Torri Edwards gained some sympathy for her claim that a therapist misunderstood a label. Her ban was commuted from two years to 15 months, but the substance she took was downgraded in severity at the same time. (It's funny how these substances bounce around -- it's a warning one year, then a two-year ban, then a one-year ban.) Justin Gatlin's first doping offense was commuted from two years to one because they accepted his explanation of medicinal use, but they made clear that it was still a doping offense -- which is why he faces the prospect of a lifetime ban now.

Here's the thing -- anti-doping protocol is such that we're not supposed to know someone has been accused. That's one of Landis' complaints, and it's legitimate, though you could argue that people would've put two and two together as he skipped races. We've had situations in the past in which a marquee name has slipped out, and the official agencies still keep their mouths shut. U.S. rules are confusing -- when I researched this in 2003, USADA and USOC had different rules for when they released names -- but it's typically after some review process beyond the "B" sample. Quite often, the first you hear about a doping positive is the USADA press release that an athlete has accepted a sanction or, less frequently, lost on appeal.

So the bottom line is we don't know how often athletes are beating these tests on appeal.

I think everybody knew the score on Landis even before it was officially announced though as he didn't turn up for a race in Holland and didn't have an excuse, and someone within the Tour organisation leaked that one rider had tested positive. It was just a matter of putting two and two together.

*TWEEEET!*

Just a second. What about the tests that Landis would have had to have taken the last three days of the tour when he was in the Top 3 in GC (therefore being required to give a sample)? Where are those results? Why have they not been released? Who's responsible?

I believe he tested negative in those tests. The whole thing has been bungled by the authorities so they may not have released it.

Would testosterone stay around for a few days, or is it in and out of your system quickly?

Thx,

Jay!

I've read that it clears out of the system pretty quickly.

I have also seen differing reports of who is tested after each stage, but I believe it's only three riders - the stage winner, the race leader, and one rider chosen at random. If so, that would mean Landis wouldn't have been tested again until after the TT, two days later, when he took over the yellow jersey.

The UCI rules say two riders at random each day of a stage race (in addition to the overall leader and stage winner). I'm not sure if the Tour adds a couple of tests in addition to that. IIRC (pardon me for not documenting it, but it's a relatively trivial point), Landis says he was tested eight times, and I don't think anyone has any reason to dispute that part of it.

ASSUMING he was using, this is definately a good theory. However, it made sense tactically as well so it really doesn't prove guilt (not to say that you were attempting to).

probably through research sn.

Interesting though.

Did you have a read of the other article that I had found that spoke about Jans Ulrech having his drink spiked by the spanish doctor, sn? I am just hoping that it didn't happen.

Specifically, he said 4 times before and 3 times after that stage. He wore the yellow jersey after Stages 11, 12, and 15 and then again after 19 and 20. I'm thinking they might do some additional testing for the time trial stages. Yes, I just found a source which indicates, for TTs, the top 3 finishers are tested, and he finished in the top 3 in both TTs. So that adds up. No, not quite because it counts Stage 19 twice. Perhaps he was also tested randomly once.

I wouldn't think so -- the chance of a random test would be too great. Besides, you can't count on someone actually taking the yellow jersey from you. It's too easy to see a group of guys an hour back get into a breakaway with no one else chasing.

(Funny thing about this Tour -- how stupid must T-Mobile feel right about now? If they'd ever organized any sort of coherent chase for Kloden, they would have at least beaten Pereiro -- maybe Landis, too, without WADA's help -- and been in position to inherit the Tour win. They bungled this one.)

ESPN cycling commentator John Eustice stands up for Landis:
http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/24752

Here's something I hadn't thought of:

His stumbling, Eustice says, makes Landis that much more believable. If Landis had taken testosterone to enhance his performance during the grueling Alpine stage, he would have known he would be tested and would have had a story ready, Eustice said.

Good article.

Here's the thing, antifan. Nobody NEEDS you to say it doesn't look good for Landis. Everybody knows that. 95% of articles on the topic say that. Most of the posters here are not blind Landis supporters but just folks who, while skeptical, truly WANT to believe Landis, even if there's only a shred of hope.

That's why, when anybody has anything positive, optimistic or hopeful to say on his behalf, it's interesting and gets posted here. It's not really necessary for you to refute every pro-Landis item that's written on the subject - it's quite well-documented elsewhere.

Thanks.

Actually, anti, if you go back through my posts in this thread, you'll find that I have pretty much the same theories as that blogger of what probably happened. That doesn't mean I don't want to be shown to be wrong.

Also, I don't really fault Landis because, look at the guy, he's just a big lug (a term I used for him in a post here very early in the race). He's not the mastermind behind this. If he did it, he was just doing what he's been taught or told to do. That doesn't excuse him, but it does make the current situation sort of ... well, hypocritical on the part of the others who do it or are aware of it and and are tsk-tsking, and especially the team who fired him and those in the background who will not be penalized and can continue to use these methods on other cyclists (with a cautionary tale and a helpful lesson learned from whatever they did wrong on this occasion).

Excellent article. In it Eustice brings up an interesting question of the absolute level of testosterone and epitestosterone. Have these figures been published? What is the normal range? How is it measured? I looked on the UCI site and could not find them. Anyone have any ideas?

Cycling's a little bit better off today:

Phonak closes up shop