Emerging Italian Doping Story, Rebellin and Sella
by Jen See on Jul 16, 2009 12:04 PM EDT
Email
Print
The Italian press is lighting up after a press conference today announced that a doping investigation in Padova had snared 30 people, including 12 professional cyclists. This investigation has been on-going for some time now, and allegedly included Davide Rebellin's long-time doctor. This case also prompted the re-testing of last year's Giro d'Italia samples, after the district attorney of Padova secured them from the UCI. Aleksandar Nikacevic, a former professional and technical director of the Serbian national team was arrested on charges of possession.
The case, known as "Via col Doping," has caught out twelve professional cyclists. According to Tuttobiciweb.it, the names include Davide Rebellin, Emanuele Sella, Matteo Priamo, Andrea Moletta, Julio Munoz, Amerigo Novembrini, Sasa Gajicic e Francesco Rivera, mentre i tre direttori sportivi denunciati sono Simone Mori (ex Amica Chips), Donato Giuliani (Nazionale Elettronica Hadimec), and Rodolfo Massi (Team Massi).
Here is a bit of background on the Padova investigation and Rebellin's past doping history.
More info: Sportpro.it, Tuttobiciweb.it, Gazzetta dello Sport.
Update: One additional detail to add here. Apparently, Sella cooperated with the authorities in this case, and provided key names and details that furthered the investigation. Source, Tuttobiciweb.it.
129 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
And to show how far the doping culture goes in Italy
one of those arrested is described as “una minorenne” i.e. a young girl.
apparently
NAS have film of a 16 year old girl being accompanied by her father to a doctor’s surgery where she was then filmed injecting herself intravenously with some unnamed doping substance.
Well we've had people putting on dresses already
it’s not a much further step to do your hair in pigtails, walk on your knees, speak in a squeaky voice (while sucking a lollipop too?) and hiring some random stranger to pretend to be your daddy.
Capodacqua puts it differently
un padre di una minorenne che portava la figlia a frequenti e ripetuti appuntamenti con un personaggio già noto ad altre inchieste doping per effettuare strane operazioni di prelievo e reinfusione di sangue
The father took his daughter for frequent and repeated appointments with a person already known to other doping inquiries in order to carry out strange operations of drawing and re-infusing blood.
How long before a home centrifuge becomes a must have accessory for that pushy parent about town?
About Jeanson
Did anyone read Alain Gravel’s book on that? Has it been translated?
I did read it (in the original French version)… very interesting read. Jeanson obviously had her faults, but the more you read about her coach, the worst it gets.
In other news
Press-release from CAS
"The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has filed an appeal at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) and the American cyclist Tyler Hamilton, relating to the eight year sanction for a second doping offence agreed between USADA and Hamilton which came into force on 17 March 2009.
[…]
In its appeal to the CAS, WADA requests that the resolution signed on 11 June 2009 be set aside and that a lifetime period of ineligibility be imposed on Hamilton."
Staring at the swim team gets you killed by a gang of dancing ninja men who know how to twirl.
Oh for fuck's sake.
Can we stop with the idiotically draconian penalties already? Yes I know its purely a matter of principle, but there are somewhat plausible mitigating circumstances, he’s already accepted a massive penalty that effectively ends his career, and this just reeks of symbolic crucifixion just to prove how ‘tough on doping’ we are. How utterly grotesque.
Not a matter of principle
I think the idea is to prevent him managing or directing UCI teams at any time in the future. So it’s not just his current career, it’s also about any future career in cycling.
+1
and I don’t really see the draconian here. It’s saying "You got a second chance and didn’t take it. We don’t think you can be trusted to work with younger riders in the future. "
sort of like
Bjarne Riis … admitted Doper while actually winning the TdF and currently DS of major team?
just asking as BR seems to have gotten a free pass (to be clear I may be misinformed as usual)
I understand that digging into historical results is more than a slippery slope ….. but …..
sometimes life is a false flat
The list is long and undistinguished
Aldag and Holm on Columbia are others in the same group. I don’t have an easy answer but in some ways I have to come back to the old “another era”-argument. Hamilton has clearly demonstrated a lack of understanding of the new rules of the game. The others mentioned here have at least in words shown a willingness to work in another direction.
That said I too have serious questions if it is a good idea for BR to be allowed in the sport.
If you punish those who admit past drug use
no one will admit past drug use. And you’ve been catch-22ed.
My problem here may well be that I'm the son of a psychiatrist...
…but what he says vis a vis clinical depression, and the nature of depressive thinking, rings absolutely true to me. And yeah, I have a huge chip on my shoulder about what more or less any juridical or quasi-juridical institution seems to do with regard to questions of responsibility where mental illness is concerned. The prevailing standards in the american courts are ridiculous. Here, they seem to be acting as if it simply doesn’t matter at all.
From the point of view of whether we let him come back as a rider we can trust to play by the rules, that doesn’t necessarily seem wrong to me. But I’m still trying to figure out why this incident means anything at all with regard to him as a coach or DS. This may be someplace where we need to agree to disagree, but I’m not at all sure that this whole ‘you did it and we can’t believe you can’t learn or move on, and anyway, your very presence would make others do it’ perspective really holds up.
Anyway, I find the idea of life bans pretty much draconian in almost any circumstance. Period.
I guess I see discrimination as having two parts.
And they line up with the two definitions of the word.
The meaning we generally abhor involves creating a barrier where one should not exist, because (at least in the theoretical abstract) people on each side of the line have similar potential. The meaning we use less, nowadays, is “drawing distinctions” to separate people or objects by actual differences (as in, “discriminating tastes”).
It is certainly true that depressive people may self-medicate, make bad choices, be self-destructive, etc. as a function of their condition. When they are properly medicated, advised, etc. the problem may disappear, or at least be mitigated. And training youngsters is actually not a critical job, in the sense of, say, solo pilot of test aircraft—or even bus driver.
However, that assumes he’s got managed, controllable depression. If that’s the case, he should be willing and able to confess his past mistakes. Discriminating against someone with unmanaged, uncontrollable depression (or denial in dealing with his depression) who has engaged in illegal acts (arguably) due to that depression…is that really more wrong than not hiring someone as a typist because they can’t spell, or not dating someone because they don’t turn you on? You can even see this as some form of tough love—“stop deceiving yourself about a cycling career, and get help.”
Besides, in a world where a lot of people are depressive, and a lot of cyclists doped, I sort of wonder how clear that cause / effect actually is. We’d have to figure out if cyclists who were clinically depressed were more likely to start doping (rather than depression following doping, or the two co-occurring randomly, based on the prevalence of each).
The distinction between managed / controllable and not is important.
Critically so.
On the other hand, and this again is something I’m getting both from my mother’s experience and the amount of time I’ve put into studying issues surrounding mental health, it’s not a terribly clear line. If you truly have chronic clinical depression, managing it is something that you do relatively more or less well, and at times of stress or difficulty things can and do go off the rails. The guy was in the middle / aftermath of a divorce, which is exactly the sort of transitional / adjustment situation that you would expect to produce an acute crisis.
One of the things that’s wrong with the judicial regimes surrounding MH issues is that there’s this expectation that you either are or are not ‘in control’ or ‘capable of distinguishing right and wrong’ (as if being able to make the distinction and being able to act in accordance with it are necessarily the same thing, but don’t get me started). The reality is, this is a false dichotomy a great deal of the time.
Undoubtedly the sport and its authorities have to decide how much slack they want to be bothered cutting someone with TH’s obvious problems. But if they don’t want to deal with the extent to which he may be unreliable, they should just say so. What upsets me greatly is the attempt to set this up as a punishment that he somehow clearly deserves.
Sure, everyone's on some sort of continuum.
And everyone has their own weakness.
If we really think that the only problem was the one time that he was feeling low, and thus careless, and therefore with a foggy head, did not question the potential ingredients in an “herbal formulation,” or was desperate enough to not care…then, eh, maybe there’s not much to apologize for, and no reason for the draconian ban. But the earlier blood doping has been mentioned… I don’t know of that as being a treatment for depression, though one can certainly argue that depressed people may have low self-image, or go along with whatever they’re pressured to do. (Except that many don’t.)
They can’t, legally, phrase it as an either/or, I suppose, but that’s what it boils down to: either he did something willfully that he could very well have chosen not to do, and he’s not sorry, and they want to ban him from DSing as a…moral risk, I guess you could call it. Or he did something because he was out of control, and his lack of openness suggests he’s still out of control and therefore there’s the risk that he could break the same way again.
But just as they have drawn lines for riders in the attempt to create a new era, I suppose they’re now trying to draw new lines for DS’es (or rather, the same lines, but with a temporal offset). I doubt the timing is intended as a personal affront for Tyler. In general, people retiring in the next 5 years should have been racing clean for at least 6 or 7 years, if they intend to get a sinecure on some team. Seems like something they really have to push for, no?
I think I answer most of these questions below.
Specifically, I have no issue with him being guilty of blood doping. I have no reason to doubt that he was. I don’t think that makes any appreciable difference in what is appropriate vis a vis this case. Others, obviously, disagree.
+1
A lifetime ban is appropriate for Hamilton.
There’s no place in the sport of cycling for someone like Hamilton, and he doesn’t seem to get that, as shown in this bit from the cyclingnews story reporting his retirement:
When asked what the future holds, Hamilton said, “I’ll take some down time and make sure I’m OK, and then move forward from there. It’s a beautiful sport. Cycling’s not done with me yet.”
I have mixed feelings about the continuing presence of Riis, Holm, and Aldag in team management positions, but there are significant distinctions between them and Hamilton. For one thing, Hamilton has yet to confess to the majority of his doping activity, includeing his blood doping in 2004. Also, unlike Riis and the Columbia DSs, Hamilton has done absolutely nothing to advance the anti-doping movement in cycling.
by Susie Hartigan on Jul 16, 2009 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions
I have no problem with Riis, Holm and Aldag...
…precisely because they all pretty clearly have gotten on board with the Anti-Doping movement.
personally I think that is
picking and choosing favorites Just my 2 cents.
all pretty clearly have gotten on board
Who knows until a scandal on their team?
Hamilton is a sad case ….. but why is Mr 60% (Riis) any better …. just for making an admission now that his riding career is over?
I guess I am OK with draconian punishments as long as the findings are clear BUT one can’t add punishments after the fact.
sometimes life is a false flat
PS
just edited Riis Wikipedia page to simply add on the line that said he won 1996 TdF
the following:
(has admitted doping in this Tour)
sometimes life is a false flat
They're making a visible and by all appearances credible effort.
And I think that until and unless there is some solid reason to doubt the seriousness of that effort (i.e., real evidence that they are encouraging or permitting doping on their team) then we have to take it for what it is.
TH is a separate question. He surely has not done anything at this point to make himself welcome back into the peloton. But I find it pretty disheartening that there are some agencies in the sport that feel the need to say that he never will, and deny him the opportunity in any case. I don’t see where the precedent there is healthy.
The question, it seems to me, is whether we want to give up all the experience, knowledge, and whatever else these people have gained in a career as riders permanently, or whether we might at least allow for the possibility that they would be willing to come back under different terms and could earn some trust to do so.
Er, re TH, that should have read welcome back into the 'sport'...
…his career as a rider is obviously done.
See, this is where you (and Jens) and I just fundamentally disagree...
…I don’t see us ever getting beyond this if we’re not going to allow ourselves to move on. Yes, 2003-4 is technically within the statute of limitations, but realistically the cultural change that we’re all trying to nurture and support came after that.
I really believe that as long as we keep up this quixotic pursuit of some kind of full and complete accounting of what happened during the EPO era, we’re just killing our chances of getting past it. I could write a long rant about why I think that, but it wouldn’t be adding anything new. Simply put, the further we get away from it, the less value I see in digging around the early part of this decade or the 1990s.
But that would be looking away from the fact that these were doping long before meeting Riis
and that JJ has said there was no organized doping on the team, he had to do it himself. That’s quite important when including all the things JJ has said about the other teams he rode for.
There’s a pretty big difference between accepting that the riders might be doping behind one’s back and directly injecting the riders.
The difference is made even bigger when the team smell which direction the wind is blowing and actively fight doping.
Just think of it, right now you are saying Lotto should be shut down for having hired doped riders. A notion I just can’t agree with.
Forgot that detail
about Jaksche. That does make a difference—and the lack of clear memory about whether or not there was systematic doping at CSC is why I wrote uncomfortable implications.
I take your ideas seriously Ed, but as to the culture change occurring after 2003, I disagree. What was 1998 about? I don’t think thatwe can find a clear befroe/after date, but it seems to me that that change was occurring at that time.
This is clearly one of those fuzzy boundary scenarios...
…where any line is going to be somewhat arbitrary. For me, drawing the line relatively recently has the advantage of providing real encouragement to those who are currently trying to change their ways. It would be nice to reward those go did so much earlier, but I’m not sure the practical payoff is so great.
Tyler sez
Statement from Chris Manderson, Attorney of Record for Tyler Hamilton, in response to WADA’s decision to seek a lifetime ban
“Tyler Hamilton took Mitamins, an herbal anti-depressant, in a moment of crisis while out of competition, with no intention or possibility of enhancing his cycling performance. Despite that, the rules do not distinguish between an intentional doping violation and Tyler’s attempt to self medicate for depression. Based on their protocol, USADA imposed the minimum eight-year penalty in this situation, which was within the acceptable range of sanctions established by the World Anti-Doping Code, and we accepted that so Tyler could focus on his health and his future.
Now, contrary to Tyler’s settlement with USADA, WADA is pursuing a lifetime ban as if Tyler’s self-medication for depression had been an intentional violation to boost performance. There is no reasonable basis to have the maximum penalty imposed upon Tyler Hamilton for taking an herbal anti-depressant that happened to contain DHEA. Tyler has been diagnosed with and is battling clinical depression, an illness which many people suffer from, and which took the life of his grandmother and has afflicted his mother and sister.
Even worse, WADA has stated that the 8 year sanction “warrants scrutiny from an independent tribunal” because “it was the result of an agreement between USADA and the athlete,” as though Tyler and USADA had somehow colluded in wrongdoing by agreeing to a sanction within the acceptable range under the WADA code. WADA did not even notify Tyler nor myself (Tyler’s attorney of record) of its intent to pursue this action; we learned of it through the media.
WADA’s insistence on a lifetime ban against Tyler is a vindictive, personal and ruthless attempt to destroy a man who suffers from a serious illness, has ended his career, and has already accepted the penalty imposed upon him."
True enough, except
for the glaring omission of acceptance of guilt for the doping infractions that resulted in the FIRST ban.
And I think the value of the whole I accept responsibility speech...
…is vastly overrated. I’ve argued at length why before. And I think whether or not he did so remains flatly irrelevant to the arguments above, which I take to be pretty darn solid. But again, obviously we disagree.
I've got quite a few friends
who really want to believe Hamilton. They contributed money to his defense fund, they believed in the image of himself that he projected—even though it has since turned out that that image was partially fabricated (the ‘diary’ entries written by Haven, lying about graduating from UC, the list goes on).
I do pity the level of self-loathing that could come about from knowingly doing those things.
But that potential self-loathing—as well as taking advantage of other people—would seem to make it even more necessary for TH to accept responsibility for his actions. Otherwise, he’s only medicating the symptoms and not dealing with the root cause.
I don't believe any attempt to deny the earlier stuff, at all.
My point is that a great deal of what he did with RR seemed to be about trying to put that all behind and start over. I’m a lot less convinced that doing that requires some kind of tearful confession, especially given that he likely got correct advice from a lot of lawyers that admitting to anything would potentially have put him in more jeopardy. However that may be, I take his earlier doping, which clearly was an attempt to enhance his performance in an environment where that sort of activity was quite common, and this latter incident, which seems fairly clearly not to have been of the same order at all, to be two rather different things. When he’s already retired and accepted an extremely long ban that is within the range of punishment for a second offense (irrespective of cause), under those circumstances, I find it obnoxious that WADA is now seeking a life ban. I just do.
Life bans, if they exist at all, should be reserved for much more egregious and less ambiguous cases than this.
Finally, I really don’t think that TH’s depression is situational in this respect where somehow just fessing up will make it go away. If he’s got a long family history of clinical depression, including a suicide, what’s at stake has very little at all to do with this sort of moral order of things.
Why should second offence lifetime bans be reserved for especially bad cases?
This is a ban from participating in sports, it’s not jailtime, it’s not robbing a man of his ability to make a living, it’s just sports.
So it may be a good chance an athlete plans to make a living in sports after his/her active career but people are forced to make careerchanges for a million different reasons every day.
Also I don’t know why TH’s mental health is even an issue. It does nothing to excuse his actions nor can it be held against him in this case. It offers us an explanation but changes nothing.
Well, in many ways it is taking his profession from him...
…what else have most professional riders done with the time when most of us are developing the knowledge and expertise that forms the basis of our career? Ridden bikes.
I think lifetime bans are draconian on their face, so I’m probably not the best person to ask. I surely don’t think a lifetime ban for a second offense is anything other than draconian. So my response would be, I don’t think they should be handed out at all.
People have their professions taken away every day
look around you and I think you encounter people frequently who’s chosen careerpahths are derailed due to unemployment, jobs/professions moving abroad and workinjuries/ illness etc. and are forced to retrain and seek alternative ways of making a living.
That athletes should be so unfathomably stupid that they are unable to do the same I simply refuse to believe. Hence I don’t see the drama in lifetime bans from sports.
This point is of course well taken.
And yes, misconduct in a profession can and should have serious consequences, including the possibility that one is no longer able to practice that profession. I have no problem with bans for doping.
My objection is to lifetime bans, generally, and especially those impose after only two incidents. Heck, since the process is so slow, one could easily get caught twice before even being aware of the fact that they’d been caught once. The potential for that policy being applied in a grossly draconian way is considerable. Furthermore, I just find the idea of saying to someone who’s 25 or 35 that at no point in the rest of their life will it ever be appropriate for them to have anything to do with this sport again very very unfortunate.
Oh definitely.
I understand where you’re coming from, no doubt. I just have different feelings here.
One could get caught twice with no warning, but...
a) some / most agencies seem to compensate for that—either by not testing additional older samples, or treating further positives after admission of doping as a "yes we know about that.
b) it’s not relevant in this case—long time period, different doping methods, lots of publicity, plenty of warning.
I agree it's not relevant to this case.
But my point was to justify a general opposition to lifetime bans after two incidents. I take it to be relevant to that.
In that regard your first point is good, except that my other concern, raised by this case, but also others, is that there seem to be so many overlapping agencies, each with their own agenda, that riders don’t really have any reliable assurance that they won’t just stop compensating when it suits them.
Overall, I hate the apparently ad hoc aspects of this process. The more I see, the less I blame riders for refusing to admit anything at all and fighting tooth and nail, because as far as I can tell no ‘plea bargain’ has any real guarantee of being respected. WADA jumping in after UCI/USA cycling had settled the case with an 8 year ban seems to be a case in point. However much you do or do not like Hamilton, the precedent, and its hardly the first time this has happened, for ‘altering the deal’ because some new player decides they don’t like it, isn’t making getting some kind of resolution to any of this any easier. And I do think that this is a systemic problem that’s impeding the smooth and consistent application of standards or rules of conduct in the sport.
And yeah, the more arbitrary and inconsistent the application of the ‘rules’ are, the less just it becomes. If there’s one thing I really am stuck on about this in terms of not liking it, its the degree to which it just begins to seem arbitrary and endless. No matter what resolution you come to with what appear to be the relevant governing bodies, someone always seems to be able to appeal to CAS and at least threaten to toss the whole thing out. From the point of view of judicial practice, that sucks.
Image of the sport
go to his wikipedia entry, and what dominates?
First paragraph:
“Tyler Hamilton (born March 1, 1971, Marblehead, Massachusetts) is a former American professional road bicycle racer and Olympic gold medalist, whose career and reputation were repeatedly marred by doping scandals. He counts a 2008 U.S. National Championship and a gold medal from the 2004 Olympic games among his palmarès. The first public evidence of his blood doping came in the 2004 Olympics, when he was accused of blood doping by olympic officials. Later that year, he was accused again of doping, in the Vuelta a España, and subsequently served a two-year suspension from racing. He returned to the sport in the 2007 season only to be suspended by his team after being implicated in the Operation Puerto drug scandal. He returned a second time only to fail an out-of-competition check for performance enhancing drugs, and retire in April 2009.”
But mostly, I think everyone was really offended by the “vanishing fetal twin” excuse. That’s not hapless/hopeless/depressive. It’s a partially-well-constructed lie, and it makes the dude look kinda pathological. People who think others are stupid, and therefore deserve to be lied to? If that’s what’s going on with him, it’s edging a little ways into sociopathy, not simple depression.
Two different cases.
Yes, the blood doping excuse was implausible and I have no doubt it was a sporting violation. That said, I’m quite certain that he didn’t come up with this defense any more than Floyd came up with his. Lawyers, etc.
And given cases just like this, where no matter what deal you make with what you take to be the relevant authorities, someone else deems themselves to be another relevant authority who haven’t yet gotten their pound of flesh and tires to, in the immortal words of Darth Vader, alter the deal, I can’t find any terribly good reason why anyone would cop to anything or give said authorities any more leverage than absolutely necessary.
I would like to know, btw, how WADA got jurisdiction to try to overturn the ban that USA Cycling / the UCI imposed here? Since when does WADA have any standing in determining the outcome of particular doping cases?
I don't think doping cases come much more egregious than Hamilton's
Even if Hamilton’s most recent doping was motivated in whole or in part by his desire to alleviate his depression, his doping history as a whole warrants a lifetime suspension.
Hamilton is a guy who, from all indications, was never interested in competing as a clean athlete.
Already in 1996, near the beginning of his career, and seven years before he says he began to suffer from depression, Hamilton was asking Prentiss Steffen, then the US Postal team doctor, for doping products. The Fuentes files from 2002 and 2003 show that Hamilton was on a long-term, comprehensive doping program of truly frightening proportions. Early in 2004, he was warned that he was under suspicion for blood doping, and he kept on doing it, fraudulently and apparently unashamedly winning an Olympic gold medal in the process, until he was finally caught. And after all that, he went off his prescription medication for depression and opted instead for a product that he knew contained a banned substance.
I feel sorry for Hamilton, as I would for anyone suffering from depression, but enough is enough. There’s no place for him in the sport of cycling. The vast majority of pro bike racers don’t get jobs as DSs or team managers, and have to go back to the farm, go to college, or whatever, and find themselves another career. Hamilton is now one of the many, rather than one of the privileged few who can work in cycling throughout their careers. And that’s the way it should be.
by Susie Hartigan on Jul 17, 2009 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe it's that I'm confusing Marblehead
with Long Island, but TH really reminds me of Jay Gatsby . . .
This is the best argument for a long term / life ban I've seen.
Thing is, in this context, the second offense is sort of an afterthought. Its what he did the first time that makes him untrustworthy.
I still don’t like life bans, and I don’t think his second offense warrants discussion of one, but this is the best counter-argument I could imagine.
Third offence
Actually it is his third:
Puerto (could be proven without much difficulty if they got Basso and Valverde).
Vuelta positive
This year
His lack of candor means that he deserves maximum penalty.
Depression excuse
I also believe that this is another lie along with the vanishing twin defense.
I disagree with you there, for reasons stated above...
…but you’re right that the vanishing twin thing hurts his credibility. Crying wolf can have bad consequences.
I'm agnostic on it
willing to believe Ed K’s gut feeling, also willing to agree with Crazy D that if this is a lie, it’s a really vile lie.
Oh . . . I believe in TH's depression
1. His changed behavior has been attested by MANY people.
2. It makes perfect sense.
and yet again cycling gets on the front pages for all the wrong reasons...
sad really, because here in Australia, that will probably be bigger news than Sorenson’s win today…
"If winning isn't everything, then why do they keep score?" Unknown
I guess that no-one
has heard any more on baldy-Piti’s two year ban being ratified by the UCI?
If only.
Last I heard, he’s racing tomorrow in the Vuelta a la Comunidad De Madrid.
At the end of the day, it’s only the Tour de France--Bradley Wiggins
Here's a thought
Why don’t we make Spain the Freezone for Scumbagos? Let people who want to mainline donkeysperm and ride around hooked up to IV bags of Fuentes best hanging from their helmets ride all those fine races in Spain. They don’t give a shit anyway so let them have the dopers.
They could make it a 20 year experiment. Those who want freedom do do as they damn well please can ride in Spain, the others can ride in the rest of the world.
We forced them into Portugal last year
why not let them have a little more space to run around in.
Umm, excuse me, but....Scumbagery doesn't adhere to borders or nations...
BAH!!!!....Cavendish?!
by bradBordeaux on Jul 16, 2009 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions
But this is my suggestion
Make Spain a reservation. a freezone, an open city. Let scumbags from all nations gather in one place and race amongst themselves. Spaniards, french, swedes, canadians and so on. All joined by a common desire to race dirty and win. Give them a place of their own, free from the bigotry and condemnations of the ignorant masses.
I'm sure the LARGE percentage of clean spanish riders may disagree....what then...
BAH!!!!....Cavendish?!
by bradBordeaux on Jul 16, 2009 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions
how bout we just set up a neutral reservation and leave Spain to the celan Spanish?
BAH!!!!....Cavendish?!
by bradBordeaux on Jul 16, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions
should read...'clean Spanish'
BAH!!!!....Cavendish?!
by bradBordeaux on Jul 16, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions
And another story that's just popped up on Tuttobici
here and is probably elsewhere too, today Roselyne Bachelot, French minister for Health, Youth and Sport, said to RTL (don’t know which one. This is probably an Italian translation via French and German):
e io voglio ricordare a ciascuno le sue responsabilità e che in particolare l’incidente occorso sabato, quando ci sono stati ritardi e movimenti sospetti in occasione di un controllo nell’hotel della Astana, non deve più ripetersi. I corridori devono assolutamente restare ben visibili agli occhi degli ispettori perché non ci sia poi alcuna ombra a proposito dei controlli stessi
“I want to remind everyone of their responsibilities, and [emphasize] in particular that the incident last Saturday [taking occorso as a misprint] on the occasion of a test in the Astana hotel must not be repeated. The riders must absolutely stay in clear sight of the testers so that there are hence no doubts regarding the actual tests”
So what exactly happened in the Astana hotel. Did Lance take another shower? has anyone heard anything about this?
What on earth is going on there
is this JB’s way of saying “Nah Nah Nah, you can’t touch me.”
There have been
apparently a couple of incidents in which Astana has kept the testers waiting, which is strictly verboten in the rules. This is what provoked the reaction from Bodry of the AFLD that the UCI is not treating all the teams and riders the same.
Kick them the fuck out.
I am fairly lenient around here when it comes to doping issues. That said, and from personal experience, if Astana is fucking around with the procedures they should be kicked out ASAP. I don’t care who on the team is doing this or if it’s orchestrated by Bruyneel, this smacks of political corruption and a Chicken-shit caving in by UCI. Grrr. I’m seeing red here and I don’t mean David Moncoutie.
by ursula on Jul 16, 2009 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
+1
As far as I can tell no other team on the protour level at least has had multiple complaints about riders screwing with protocol. This absolutely is a problem and at very least they need to be told in no uncertain terms that one more incident and they’re out of whatever race it happens in, or the rider in question should get a short suspension if its out of competition.
I feel like flooding vs's inbox
with complaints about why they haven’t bothered to cover this angle.
I’d love to see Andreu ask Armstrong THIS question.
doesn't he test bikes for Procycling.....
BAH!!!!....Cavendish?!
by bradBordeaux on Jul 16, 2009 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions
good Astana got invited this year, eh?
I, an unashamed Astana fan, feel like this is once again blown out of proportion.
Personally I wonder
how often this happens with other teams, but since it doesn’t sell papers for L’Equipe we don’t hear about it. But let’s not let that idea spoil another round of rough chatter between AFLD and UCI.
Also, fhe story says the testers choosing not to “announce” themselves was the actual cause of the delay. How does that work, anyway? Do they suddenly stand up and declare “I am now myself!”?
The Superman trick with the glasses?
Hmm, I wonder if Astana invites everyone from the street on coffee and cake, because that would make them my favourite team. :D
CN
Seems like the UCI testers are lazy.
Staring at the swim team gets you killed by a gang of dancing ninja men who know how to twirl.
by TheFigurehead on Jul 16, 2009 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions
+1000
looks to me to be blown out of proportion… and maybe a witch hunt by the French press (big surprise there).
I don’t know about the other Astana riders, but LA has been tested constantly since his return announcement… DOZENS of times… hair, blood, urine, you name it…. and often surprise tests…
I understand the seriousness of the matter, and really want to see cycling cleaned up, but some riders are pin cushions by now… with the latest testing procedures… and ZERO positive results…
I for one am satisfied for now.
who knows?
Maybe the tester was just human?
“We did not keep him waiting – everybody was sleeping,” Maertens said of that morning. "The controller apparently came too early. He realized that our hotel was right at the start line, so we needed no transfer time, and [he] decided to wait some time before announcing being there.
sometimes life is a false flat
In a way I tend to agree with you and IowaAC here but
In this case where Bordry, the leader of the organization that in one try managed to catch a handful dopers, is giving advice on how to do it to the UCI who has basically caught no one ever…….
I think at least it’s worth hearing him out. Results seem to indicate that he has some idea of what to do and not do if you actually want to catch cheaters and not just be a mensch.
+many
There are protocols. They need to be followed, strictly. That’s why they call them protocols. You’d think after all the suits about this technicality or that calling various tests and cases into question these assholes would have learned that you do not cut corners, at all. What part of standard protocol don’t these morons understand?
It's not like they have an infinite supply of mystery testers
I bet that most of the riders recognise most of the testers by now. In which case it’s not too much to suggest that when they arrive early they go and have a coffee in a different bar.
"I know enough not to hope to know"
BAH!!!!....Cavendish?!
Rebellin has been tested for years . . .
. . . and only recently has gotten caught. Perhaps he only turned to dope in the waning years of his career to milk ought a few more good seasons. Or, may he has been playing the game all along — like many retired riders that have confessed to doping during their careers and who never tested positive.
In sum, a reasonable observer has got to conclude that the doping controls are quite ineffective and only catch out riders that somehow slip up. In sum, doping is still rampant in pro cycling. (This would also seem to be the case among top Track and Field athletes.)
Perhaps?
In which case it’s been a long slow wane
certainly some unease with Rebellin for years.
Priamo (of course) and Molleta (of course, he of the driving dad with the mega car stash) no surprise.
And now the UCI is spitting out a couple more names
From the Spanish-but-I-thought-he-was-OK corner comes Euskie rider Inigo Landaluze, apparently nabbed for CERA at the Dauphine. Didn’t someone tell him they found a test for that a year ago? And following up the bio-passport “positive”, Ricardo Serrano has tested properly positive at the Tour of Suisse.
Hmm, yes
So that reporting about additional positives wasn’t far off. There are supposed to be five or so of them. Either the number was wrong, or we have a few more yet to come.
Vediamo.
Imagine if none from the next batch of positives came from le Tour...
Mon coeur appartient à les forçats de la route.
Well
These reports were before the Tour – that is, there were supposedly positives to be announced from races like the Dauphiné and Tour de Suisse.
Josenka raises an interesting point though...
…the ‘new’ people here have very effectively, and with no apparent fanfare, been kept out of the Tour. Just as McQuaid seemed to want.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Podium Cafe
Related FanShots on Podium Cafe
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Celebrate the Giro d'Italia at Podium Cafe!
Check our Giro Section for race updates, on-the-scene reports, and other hijinx.
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
