Oh - oh, retro blood test for CERA for Tour Riders

chances of that are close to zero. It’s physically possible. That’s about it.

To what end, I have no idea. But no way does a guy about whom there were already questions get by after winning two chronos.

I don’t know what it would cost if the team didn’t cover it, or how it would hold up in a legal sense, etc, but I’m not sure I would put 100% trust in the process. If I’m a bigshot, win races, and make a lot of money, no way I would not do it. I’m thinking specifically about LA.

The same as the other samples. They’ve been sitting there in the lab waiting for analysis.

The problem with posting your numbers is that they are subject to a great deal of misunderstanding. There was an article during the Tour – Lindsey at Bicycling, I think? – about looking at Vandevelde’s numbers. There were some fluctuations in his numbers, that were explanable, but could have been mis-read to be suspicious. A rider posting all his values could consequently open himself up to trouble, even if he had never done anything forbidden.

At least, I hope, that Piepoli’s samples will be scrutinized, as rumors say he just about admitted to his team that he’d “done what Ricco did.”

OTOH, I hope riders names are not leaked before hard data can be released to the press. We have enough rumors to keep track of without that kind of unprofessionalism (again) on the part of the labs (and L’Equipe, their fave paper to leak stuff to.)

They are just now officially releasing the B sample results for Duenas. It makes sense to me that the B samples on the known positives would be the first priority, since the federations need to rule on those cases. Then, the lab would double back and go to work on the “difficult” cases. The analysis takes time – They did not exactly return the Riccò positive overnight, and in Riccò’s case, available evidence suggests they knew exactly what they were looking for. As a potential race winner, or at least, race-maker, Riccò would have been a priority, especially since they had the suspicious Giro samples in hand.

In August, just about everything in France shuts down for vacation. Make whatever cultural comments you want about that, but it’s just what they do there. A government-run lab, yes, they were on vacation for possibly as much as the last three weeks there. So, there’s going to be a delay in the results.

Agree, though I’m guessing that this batch of positives won’t really surprise us. That is to say, it’ll be riders we expected to see declared positive.

I don’t really consider this retro testing. It’s not like it’s a year later. They are, after all, still working on the B samples. Given the complexity of the analysis, it isn’t terribly practical to expect all the analysis to be done by the race’s end.

The WADA code allowed for an 8-year statute of limitations on doping in the last version I read. If the Tour had been run under the UCI, there would have been no question whether going back and checking samples was OK, because the UCI operates under the WADA Code.) In my opinion, the race results should be revised to reflect doping convictions within that statute of limitations.

Plus, all of the NACSAR-like rules we already have in cycling are problems. The race owners have all the power in both systems; the silly 6.8 kg rule is very NASCAR-like; and the unfathomable bike design rules are also NASCAR-esque. Bike racing, in my opinion, is what NASCAR would be if NACSAR was a sport, and we don’t need to make it more like NASCAR.

but nascar certainly conducts post-race inspections, and busts teams accordingly.

Google Joe Gibbs racing, for instance . . .

… they’re the ones that say PEDs don’’t enhance performance, aren’t they?

[hands over ears] la la la I can’t heaaaar you