Gerolsteiner's Holczer accuses Leipheimer of blood manipulation in 2005
by umwolverine on Aug 4, 2010 12:43 PM EDT
Email
Print
Gerolsteiner director Holczer accuses Leipheimer of blood manipulation during 2005.
Holczer made the accusation during the presentation of his book called “Garantiert Positiv” (“Guaranteed Positive”) in Germany on Wednesday.
He claimed that the UCI informed him on the first rest day of the 2005 Tour de France in Grenoble that Leipheimer's blood values had an off-score co-efficient of 132.8. That is just 0.2 under the limit of 133. A normal score is 85-95 and scores over 133 can be considered evidence of doping.
Photo: Robert Laberge, Getty.
160 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Bizarre that he would go to press with this information
Very non-Omerta like, and I wonder why he singled out Levi. I’m sure he has dirt on a ton of riders. Any past beef between the two?
"Thanks again, Floyd Landis, Yellow Jersey Wearer: Nuisance Category"
original story is from the German wire service Sid
Before he was in cycling, Holczer was a math teacher. He is now planning to return to his former profession. He also said a doping scandal would have meant the end of Gerolsteiner’s sponsorship, which may be true, but also sounds a bit self-serving. Like, I did nothing about this information because I feared the loss of my team’s sponsor and the financial loss that would go with it.
And he let him race
not only in the Tour but in more races that season AND the entire 2006 season when he was certain Levi had “manipulated”. Good going Hans!
One wonders about Kohl's, Schumacher's and Rebellin's scores
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Aug 4, 2010 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions
They were good.
It was the evil Levi who was the only Gerolsteiner doper 5 years ago.
It is too bad that Levi is getting mixed up in this mess. He is such a nice guy.
Nice guys dope.
What’s interesting about this is the claim that the UCI informed Herr Mineralwasser.
If that claim is true, once again, the UCI has some ‘splainin’ to do.
What 'splaining?
The levels were beneath the UCI’s threshold for doping—they informed Holczer presumably so he could keep an eye on the situation, but if the levels were still legit there’s no action the UCI could have taken themselves.
I'm no Tom Danielson. He's a great guy, but I think there are people that can handle pressure, and people that can't.--Taylor Phinney
Yep
And there’ve been a number of reports along the way to suggest that the UCI was doing this kind of thing. Ie, warning teams that their riders were showing abnormal – but unsanctionable – levels. There was talk – and now I can’t remember if it was ever confirmed – that Hamilton’s abandon from the Tour one year was a consequence of a UCI warning.
Heh, I think I need more coffee, that was so totally vague right there.
regarding hamilton, wasn't it about blood values from lbl and romandie, iirc
"Wizard's first rule. People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true." -- Terry Goodkind
hm
maybe, though he had a pretty convincing story about his injuries. Am I being naive?
"Good thing I never said out loud that I was pulling for France, before this all started." -Mark Blacknell
by Chris Fontecchio on Aug 4, 2010 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions
yes, there was that
(and tmob’s almost entire abandon due to food poisoning, no?)
"Wizard's first rule. People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true." -- Terry Goodkind
The time he looked like he was run over by a truck?
Color me naive too…
2010 Tour de France Stage Predictor Game Champion - Just Sayin
by JustJoshinYa on Aug 4, 2010 10:19 PM EDT up reply actions
not to judge this particular situation
i don’t know much about the uci’s threshold values, and the regulations governing them, but the concept of telling the team that a rider is looking suspicious seems a lot like warning the rider to watch his doping so that he doesn’t return a positive which could look bad for cycling in general. i would think you’d want to keep that quiet so that the rider may be caught doping. you know, if doping is what you’re trying to fight, as opposed to doping positives.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
good point
It does show the conflict of interest for the UCI. On the one hand, they are under pressure to clean up the sport – and maybe even genuinely want to – on the other, doping scandals bring bad publicity which runs counter to their goals of promoting international cycling.
The warning system has always dinged my cynic bell.
The way I see it.
Change is better brought out slowly.
If it takes 6 years to have a clean peloton with few casualties that is better than an immediate clean peloton with lots of casualties.
But of course.
A couple of fall guys, martyrs if you will, the boys who serve a sentence and come back.
from a safety angle,
I don’t want to see guys sick or dying. I don’t want there to be constant upward pressure to dope harder and more. From a sporting angle, it works out to the same thing, really. Sure, I’d like them all to be clean, but I’ll settle for “only adds half a percent boost, fairly indistinguishable from having a good day” if I must. I prefer not to drive people to trying out ever newer (and thus potentially riskier) forms of dopage.
Personally I do not care what they do to themselves.
I have a problem on selling a product as clean, when it become increasingly obvious it was not.
That shift is occuring to the point where the riders are human again.
If it's pressure from the team,
does that create some sympathy from you for the riders? Lose your job or dope? Produce better, and we won’t ask why or how, or you get cut?
I don't know how the score is measured
But I would guess that it’s a number with a confidence interval attached to it, and that 133 is within that interval. That’s a pretty good reason to tell the Holczer.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Aug 4, 2010 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions
True, lots of people dope.
I still think it is a shame that Levi is getting mixed up in all this mess.
why?
This helps support, it should be noted, Landis’s allegation that Leipheimer manipulated his blood with him during 2005.
If the UCI had information that would have also supported that allegation—in the form of a blood value within 2 hundreds of a percent from mandating a suspension—they should not have been so quick to slam Landis.
I have a soft spot for good guys in bad business.
If it is true that Levi indeed was modifying his blood (most likely) then he gets his just desserts.
Me too, actually
Circa 2003-2004, Leipheimer was my fave rider in the peloton.
And, actually, I sort of agree with your post down-thread: cleaning up the peloton needs to avoid becoming super-nasty—
Except, I still harbor lots of resentment about the way Jesus Manzano was treated, so part of me wants all of the crap he was made to face to be targeted at those who also participated in the fraud.
Moving forward should be the important thing.
Learning from the past is good, dredging up the past to sell books or to stay in the press is not.
These ongoing scandals from 5-12 years ago aren’t really good for the sport.
individually they may not be
but looking at them as a whole, if a pattern of some sort of collusion between the uci, the team managers and the riders emerges, and that is a big if, then i think it would be good for the sport to do something about that.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Holczer
not a great messenger. I am trying to be responsible and focus on the message instead, but it isn’t easy.
As for Levi, who from the early 2000s was clean again?
"Good thing I never said out loud that I was pulling for France, before this all started." -Mark Blacknell
by Chris Fontecchio on Aug 4, 2010 1:31 PM EDT reply actions
good point
some might say the answer is whoever did not have any positive test ;)
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Or
Those who finished at the back of the field, or after promising careers in the juniors and U23s, left the sport entirely.
exactly
which is the tragedy that rarely gets discussed.
I’d like to see a top junior whose career fizzled …. come out and sue every doper for lost wages (OK, maybe I wouldn’t like to see that)
moo
Well
it was a legal value, and i can see him wanting his rider to keep going if he was alotted the chance, but Holczer is a coward. He permitted a doping culture, may have even promoted it, for pretty much his entire tenure with gerolsteiner, even once the sport was working towards cleaning up the mess. There is a reason why he has to write a book for money, because no one would sponsor his sorry ass. He played innocent when all his top riders tested positive, he made himself out to be the victim, and now he comes out saying he had suspicions like this? Maybe that should’ve been a warning that he needed to put a halt to the doping culture he had permitted (or promoted), but he just played dumb and acted like he was wronged. I believe his allegations, but it’s similar to Landis in that after playing the victim, and then turning around and saying maybe i wasn’t so innocent, it just makes you shake your head.
"You know if there's any contact at all Cristiano Ronaldo's gonna go down...maybe even just a puff of wind"
I think that 'revelations' are most likely to come from figures
like Landis and Holczer, who once they come to terms with the fact that they will never ‘make it’ within pro cycling, decide to tell what they know . . .
Doesn’t necessarily fit with the “crusader for truth” concept, but it’s an understandable response.
Doing something because it is the right thing
Is much better than doing something to garner attention or money.
The scandals now seem to stem from the latter. It is disappointing.
unless you have splendid job protection,
a trust fund, a skill that’s always in demand that makes you instantly hirable, or you are otherwise not dependent on making a boss happy to keep a job, I’m wondering how you can equate “keeping a job” with “attention and money.”
“Making enough to keep a roof over my head” or “to feed my kids” despite having only (in most cases) a high school education and a talent for cycling—that’s the bind most of the peloton is in.
I'd argue that Erik Zabel's confession
was motivated by nobility. He didn’t have to say a damned thing, but he refused to allow his buddy to be pilloried alone.
I doubt that his admitted everything he did wrong, but he spoke up because he couldn’t live with watching Aldag be set up as a scapegoat. It wasn’t perfect, but it was noble.
Vlaanderens Mooiste
He all ready tested positive for some amphetamines early in his career but it was noble for him to stand by his man
Tommeke!, Tommeke!, Tommeke!, Tommeke!
mutatis mutandum
all of those who are still playing the game, and STILL cashing in on it are as culpable, if not more so than folks like Holczer.
Aside from the profit motive
could this report emerge from Holczer’s inclination to preserve himself from whatever fall-out might emerge from an interpol investigation into fraud related to Humanplasma?
This already amounts to a public abandonment of his previous insistence on a strict no-doping line . . . so is he copping to a little bit of moral conflict to try to forestall being accused of running a team-wide doping program?
Hmm, this makes some sense.
I’d forgotten the Holczer-HumanPlasma connection, honestly, but this makes some sense. Look, see, my riders, some of them were up to no good. But me, I was just stuck between a rock and a hard place. If there was a doping scandal, I’d have been bankrupt. What was I possibly to do? Hand wring, hand wring. This angle does offer a nice PR counter to an accusation that he set up the doping programs or was in any way involved. I’d guess by naming Lippy, he’s also trying to hitch is wee wagon to the star of the Novitzky investigation, which is grabbing its share of headlines. See? I knew all along, but I couldn’t say anything. Insert more handwringing.
Which brings about the UCI adopting a slow change.
That way no one gets egg on the face. A couple of people have undone this for selfish reasons.
i don't disagree with the slow change
and not going crazy with harsh penalties – but would be nice to see a true desire on the part of the uci to clean up the sport as well as possible even if going about it gradually.
Interesting.
2005 is the year Landis claims he and Leipheimer worked together to coordinate their blood doping programs, according to the Wall Street Journal.
So is Guido Squinzi the only honorable guy out there?
He quit when he realized that he couldn’t keep doping off his team. With the way Holzer is being treated for breaking Omerta, I can’t think of any other option that would satisfy people.
Vlaanderens Mooiste
One interesting angle here
is that HMH benched Rebellin’s protegé Francesco DeBonis quite openly after his bloodvalues were noted as questionable. He had some great results and was then sidelined and HMH made no secret of the reason for it. So why did he not do the same with Leipheimer? Because he was the marquee name of course.
I think it’s a positive thing that HMH is coming clean but I’m equally glad he’s out of the sport because besides all his posturing and grandstanding on the doping issue it seems he did very little to clean up his own back yard.
I was afraid to mention it before this accusation was made public
but back in 2005 I would often wake in the middle of the night to find my blood be drained by what at the time I thought was a shoe cobbling gnome. He would inform me that the blood withdrawal was payment for the work done on my shoes. Of course said gnome was storing the blood in an empty Gerolsteiner bottle, and no work was done on my shoes.
by Logy on Aug 4, 2010 2:49 PM EDT reply actions 3 recs
chupalogys
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on Aug 4, 2010 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions
As for the UCI
I am with those who think they come in for some blame here. If you set this kind of limit, then you’re winking at all behavior that results in coming in below the limit. This is the argument against Verbrugge, and given the sport’s track record in that time, I think it’s convincing.
"Good thing I never said out loud that I was pulling for France, before this all started." -Mark Blacknell
by Chris Fontecchio on Aug 4, 2010 3:03 PM EDT reply actions
is there any other way than the UCI picking a limit?
I assume they have chosen a limit that feels defendable in court – while probably knowing that those near but below it are likely guilty.
But if there is no alternative to picking a ‘somewhat arbitrary’ limit then they are in a no win situation whatever limit they choose.
moo
by Willj on Aug 4, 2010 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
i agree with picking a limit
you need something to differentiate between positive or not, and have it be defensible, but it’s the warning the team/rider when they are getting close that’s not ok, in my opinion.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
agreed . . .
implies collusion rather than enforcement.
by R Mc on Aug 4, 2010 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
It's just another symptom of the underlying problem
which is the same organization in charge of promoting the sport is also in charge of doping-control.
I think that's precisely it.
WHY were the UCI even informing Holczer?
The only possible reason surely has to be that they were trying to avoid a positive for a rider they were aware was almost certainly doping.
In other words, trying to get a suspicious rider to stop doping before he tested positive and caused a scandal
when his levels were still at a point they couldn’t bust him for.
What’s wrong with that?
I'm no Tom Danielson. He's a great guy, but I think there are people that can handle pressure, and people that can't.--Taylor Phinney
It means the UCI's priority was avoiding scandal, and not avoiding doping
Or, more precisely, the UCI’s efforts were aimed at avoiding scandal while giving the public appearance of trying to prevent doping.
MJB
by MJB on Aug 4, 2010 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions
one could say
that they were trying to get a suspicious rider to not dope too much rather than stop doping. a kind of ‘good job, you’ve managed to maximize your non-positive-returning doping. please hold it right there.’ it’s tough to say. did they, after warning him, start targeting him for much more testing in an attempt to bust him? did they do the opposite? did they do nothing more?
overall, combined with some of the other accusations made as of late and a lot of people’s dissatisfaction with the uci in general, it makes the uci look even more sketchy in the fight against doping. in my opinion.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
I'm not arguing for the UCI
I’m arguing against the idea that fighting doping is easy or cut and dried. It’s not—it’s messy and complex.
If things were truly black and white, the UCI should have done absolutely nothing: Leipheimer was within allowable limits. But they knew his levels were suspicious, and probably knew if they did nothing there’d be no guarantee that they’d catch him later. We all know by now how imprecise testing is, and that it’s relatively easy to beat.
So what should they have done? Nothing, as above, and hope that maybe they’d someday stumble into a lucky positive test? Warn Leipheimer himself so that he could monitor his program more closely? That’s what you might expect if they were truly in collusion to hide doping instead of fighting it. Instead, they told his boss. Holczer now knew that something was suspicious, and had the opportunity to address it when the UCI was powerless to do so themselves.
Like I said, it was a tough situation. I’m not sure what better they could have done in those circumstances.
I'm no Tom Danielson. He's a great guy, but I think there are people that can handle pressure, and people that can't.--Taylor Phinney
i agree it's not black and white
and the uci’s intent in warning the team plays a big factor in determining if what they did was the right thing, or the preferable thing, to do, and that’s what’s being debated here (i think). what would i have done, or liked for the uci to do? not tell anyone and at the same time, test the hell of of levi. to me, it stinks to high heaven. it’s like the cops telling a suspected criminal that they’ve noticed he’s up to no good and that he should stop, because if he does it just a little more, they’ll do something about it.
regarding telling his boss, i can see how that could be seen as different from telling the rider. but in this post festina era, can you really believe that the two are not playing the same game?
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
coupla points I'm not sure about
1. Where the “speed-limit” was set: Scores above 120 were suspicious. How suspicious? Should we be fixating on the .02 percent instead of the nearly 30 points that the score deviated from normal?
2. Why was the “speed limit” set there? What was the reasoning? Who were the players in setting the limit there?
3. Why WAS the UCI notifying anyone instead of using the number as probable cause to step up testing? Did this policy change or get modified with the introduction of bio-passport? If Holczer’s correct about this, it’s concrete evidence that Lemond is right: the UCI has no business enforcing doping since they have a conflict of interest.
no clue, but that won't stop me from guessing
1. i think the 30 is much more significant than the .02. anything above 120 is probably something that only the craziest circumstances could explain, but maybe still possible if you’re pregnant, dehydrated, on anticoagulants, living at altitude for 30 years, left handed, and have an extra x chromosome, or some other highly unlikely scenario.
2. it could be statistics. something about a 95% confidence interval, or 99%. it could be a certain amount of std deviations above mean. maybe it’s the first round number above the highest recorded (non sports related) score.
3. that’s the big question. i guess to keep the image of cycling as clean as possible. not sure about the bio passport. can athletes see the numbers that the panel of experts look at anytime? i don’t think holczer has to be right for it to be obvious that there is a conflict of interest.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
I don't share your optimism about the motives of the UCI
Because I think a drug-testing organization that is actually out to catch people, having found someone that close to the limit, would (discreetly) watch them like a hawk. The last thing they should be doing is (indirectly) informing the individual that they were on to them.
Right. Because suddenly testing the hell out of a rider
is nothing like indirectly informing the individual they’re on to him.
Just out of curiosity, why do you think the goal should be to catch people instead of deterring them from doping?
I'm no Tom Danielson. He's a great guy, but I think there are people that can handle pressure, and people that can't.--Taylor Phinney
Why do I think the goal should be catching, instead of deterrence?
Because catching people is 100% effective at stopping doping. You can’t cheat while you’re banned – because you’re not going to be riding.
On the other hand, deterrence is patchy. Hypothetically speaking, why would Leipheimer – or indeed any rider in a similar situation (hello Tyler Hamilton) – have been deterred from doping after this incident? I imagine in many cases a rider would continue doping, while being more careful.
(And watching like a hawk, while being, as you say, a possible indirect indication of suspicion, is certainly far less direct than informing the DS – I think that distinction counts for something).
I call bullshit on that.
Catching people is hardly 100% effective. Ask Di Luca or Rebellin. Me, I think the goal should be to clean up cycling without destroying it—even if that means some people get warned instead of busted. The UCI is hardly perfect, but so far no one has come up with a better answer to even this particular situation, much less the overall problem.
I'm no Tom Danielson. He's a great guy, but I think there are people that can handle pressure, and people that can't.--Taylor Phinney
Ha.
You think warning di Luca would have stopped him doping, more than a two year ban?
Come on. Be serious.
Huh?
I was responding to your claim “catching people is 100% effective at stopping doping.” Di Luca and Rebellin had both been caught in the past, both continued to dope. Unfortunate but true: some people won’t stop until they’re banned for life.
That’s a pity, but it doesn’t change the overall question of how to best clean up the sport.
I'm no Tom Danielson. He's a great guy, but I think there are people that can handle pressure, and people that can't.--Taylor Phinney
Perhaps I did not express myself exactly enough.
Catching people is 100% effective at stopping people doping, during their ban.
If Di Luca had been ‘deterred’ during the 08 Giro, he would still be in the peloton, and still doping. As it is, he hasn’t been cheating since he was caught. That is why I am in favour of catching, rather than deterring.
Granted, he may come back and dope again – but a two year ban is better than no change in behaviour at all.
And I would still maintain that, if deterrence is what we are really after, catching people is itself a greater deterrent than talking to teams.
“I might get banned for two years”
vs.
“my DS might be informed of my high off-score coefficient”.
What do you think will have more of an effect?
First, you have to catch them.
At the root of this particular situation: Leipheimer hadn’t done anything he could be sanctioned for. Yep, the UCI could have done nothing at that point, and hope maybe they would catch him somewhere down the line. Given the imprecision of testing now (even more so back then), I still don’t see that it would have been a better choice.
I'm no Tom Danielson. He's a great guy, but I think there are people that can handle pressure, and people that can't.--Taylor Phinney
Okay, I think this is where the disagreement lies.
The UCI knew almost certainly that Leipheimer was cheating.
You and I both – I presume – want to see a peloton without cheating. The question is, if Leipheimer was warned by his DS, did he stop cheating?
Of course, we have no idea of the answer. But I suspect not. He probably just scaled it back a notch. “I was doing X amount of transfusions, and that put me right on the limit – so I’ll do X-Y transfusions from now on.” Possibly. Maybe he went straight! I doubt it though.
The alternative scenario is – don’t warn him. My thinking is, if Leipheimer was that close to the edge, he’s bound to go over it at some point, and get caught, and then banned, and then (at least for two years) there is one less cheater in the peloton.
And – even if he’s only banned for two years, and comes back, and carries on doping – that is a better outcome than him remaining in the peloton doing his ‘refined’ (X-Y) transfusions.
These are all hypotheticals, of course, but feel free to argue away.
And this is where I think the disagreement lies:
My thinking is, if Leipheimer was that close to the edge, he’s bound to go over it at some point, and get caught, and then banned
I’ve tried to hammer the point that there’s no guarantee the UCI would catch him (if he was cheating—we should keep in mind that the guy never did go over the limit). Their resources aren’t unlimited, their tests aren’t perfect, plus if they suddenly ramped up testing on him he’d effectively be warned anyway.
Might be easier, cheaper, less destructive to the sport, and just as effective to talk to his boss. Would it definitely work? No. But would Leipheimer definitely be caught if they didn’t speak to Holczer? No.
I’m glad these aren’t the kinds of decisions I have to make every day.
I'm no Tom Danielson. He's a great guy, but I think there are people that can handle pressure, and people that can't.--Taylor Phinney
Good points.
I would counter that that the fact he never subsequently went over the limit could – of course – be a direct consequence of Holczer being warned. We just don’t know.
(I’d also suggest that an off-score coefficient that sky high is essentially proof of doping.)
Here's where I disagree:
If Leipheimer was blood doping, but just not enough for his off-score to go aboove 133, he had done something for which he could be sanctioned. He just hadn’t done einough of it to be caught with this particular test.
The difference between this kind of warning to a rider and the deterrent effect of something like cameras to catch speeders on the highway is that driving just below the speed limit is not just something you can’t be punished for, it’s something that is perfectly fine. Blood doping isn’t ok even if done on a small enough scale to keep your off-score within the testing margin.
If Holczer’s story is accurate, this strikes me as very strong evidence that Leipheimer was blood doping, and that the UCI knew it. Warning him (and for my money, warning the DS is essentially the same as warning the rider) reduces the chance that he’ll be caught in some other way, either thrugh a future off-score test going over the limit, or by some other means, while allowing him to get away with the doping the UCI was pretty sure he was doing.
by Susie Hartigan on Aug 4, 2010 8:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Because let's be clear -
the choice, as you framed it, was between ‘catching’ and ‘deterring’.
Now this may be an leap into the great unkown, but I strongly suspect that actually catching di Luca has hada better effect on stopping him doping, than deterring him. Don’t you?
He hasn’t doped in any major race for two years, that’s for sure.
Nope. I never made that dichotomy.
Deterring is on a continuum that includes catching. Think in terms of those cameras they put up at traffic lights: a lot of people see them and think, “Damn—I’d better not run this light.” The ones who still do run the light should get caught and punished. Which in turn further deters the ones who were considering running the light.
I'm no Tom Danielson. He's a great guy, but I think there are people that can handle pressure, and people that can't.--Taylor Phinney
Oh, I fully understand that it's a continuum.
I just read this comment of yours
“why do you think the goal should be to catch people instead of deterring them from doping?”
as rather dichotomous.
Good. We're finally on the same page
or at least in the same book.
I'm no Tom Danielson. He's a great guy, but I think there are people that can handle pressure, and people that can't.--Taylor Phinney
so far no one has come up with a better answer to even this particular situation, much less the overall problem.
I guess that is a matter of opinion. I think the basic idea put forward by Chung (and repeated here by me a few times) would be better. I mean “sporting penalties for sporting infractions” with smaller, faster, cheaper punishments based on peer pressure, like time penalties for the team or 3-strikes-you’re-out for the DS.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
And, of course
Actually catching people is – in and of itself – a far greater deterrent than having a quiet word with the team.
the goal should be catching instead of deterrence
because pro cycling has adopted the maxim of “if I don’t get caught, it’s legal.”
What Mark wrote above is correct: in the past, a UCI warning has not served to deter riders from doping, but simply to remind them to dope at a more acceptable level.
Mr. Hamilton is an excellent example of that: warned by the UCI about his suspicious blood levels in April, he proceeds to get popped for doping thrice in August and September.
Now . . . I suppose the goals of deterrence and detention could be complementary—kinda like when a police cruiser parks on the interstate with lights flashing to remind you to slow down—and then only goes after the drivers who fail to slow down . . .
I think the UCI have been doing just that.
This was back in ’05, now they send people home.
The limit is a good idea, the drugs with the markers in them great idea.
They have to find a good way to stop autologous transfusions more precisely.
I think where I'm skeptical...
…is the idea that a rider’s DS has an interest in doing anything other than getting him back far enough under the threshold as to be genuinely safe.
If the DS want’s to help clean up the sport, and has no other pressures (such as sponsorship demands for sporting success, etc.) getting in the way of acting on that desire, then perhaps this is a good approach. But I think the history we all know shows why in the mid-2000s those assumptions simply don’t hold water.
ayup . . . look there was no more outspoken anti-doping ds than Holczer
which gave rise to much eyebrow movement among folks when they considered riders like Rebellin, Schuhmacher, and Kohl . . .
but then place this admission of . . . some practical duplicity with respect to a potential doping case . . . in connection with the equally bizarre behavior of Theo de Rooij et al wrt to Rasmussen during the 06 Tour.
I think when one sees the phrase “I want to clean up the sport” one needs to be certain that what the person uttering that phrase doesn’t really mean is “I want to make sure that no one tests positive.”
Back then, and even in some cases now.
This is going on…a positive is bad press, but keeping levels low while finding news ways of getting that edge are most likely still going on.
Good points all around
For me, the problem comes in with the UCI and the shadow of it’s previous history of hiding doping, rather than trying to end it. That is, if I had better trust in the UCI’s integrity, learrning about these warnings wouldn’t trouble me. Better still, if it had been more transparent – ie, yes we warn riders when they are approaching the sanctionable levels. And by transparent, I don’t mean telling which riders or anything like that, more just putting it down in the rules that the teams will receive a warning.
I think it’s entirely possible that the UCI was acting in good faith with these measures and hoping the teams would actually act on the warnings. There is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that this informal system worked on occasion, though not always. But I remain skeptical, because the overall integrity of the UCI as an institution hasn’t been especially high.
This might be totally wrong of me...
but I can’t help thinking it would make a hell of an absorbing video game. Forget Pro Cycling Manager—let’s play Doping Control! You’re given a budget of X number of Euros, and have to decide how much of it should go to random testing, targeted testing, bio passport, education, PR, whatever.
If you catch too few dopers, cheating becomes rampant in the peloton and you lose. If you catch too many, sponsors pull out and teams fall apart. At the same time, you have a public opinion meter that rises and falls based on your actions. The goal is to clean up the peloton (at least within a given margin) without losing too many sponsors or fans.
If only I had any computer skills…
I'm no Tom Danielson. He's a great guy, but I think there are people that can handle pressure, and people that can't.--Taylor Phinney
Oh yeah
It totally would. And I agree with your premise for sure – that you have limited resources, a big problem, and imperfect tools.
putting it in terms of a sim game clarified my thinking! seriously.
i’m lowering my criticism level because maybe, just maybe, the uci is playing the game perfectly.
"The motor happens to be me." -Fabian
The UCI had to run a very thin line.
Change done slowly is better accepted by all parties involved.
Change done quickly brings about sudden chaos.
Good points
If I may briefly chime in here, I agree with Majope. I rarely praise the UCI, but I think at the time they had very poor methods to ascertain if riders were blood doping. The vague warnings to teams are like a parent telling a teenager that they really shouldn’t stay out so late cuz something bad might happen….(after the parent finds lots of empty beer bottles in the car). A nod and a wink, a subtle warning in the hopes that things will be better.
that only works if
a) the teen really respects and trusts the parent
b) the parent has a reservoir of serious consequences
and
c) the teen KNOWS that the parent WILL use b.
I don’t think any of these are the case with UCI.
That said, perhaps we should not assume a uniform series of intentions within UCI. I.e. what if there has always been a split between “collusion” and “enforcement” that would roughly equate to a family in which one of the parents wants to be friends with the teen, and the other wants to kick the teen’s butt every other day?
I don't agree with the argument, but I do buy the idea of divided goals.
Teens (and perhaps riders) develop a certain sense of invulnerability, based in part on a “the old fogies don’t know / the people who do know don’t care” mentality. Pop that bubble of self-deception, and they may act differently.
i also partly agree with majope
in fact i basically would agree with her except in this particular case the test was so so close – personally i would have preferred giving warnings at lower levels and at levels this high i would switch to thinking more of catching the guy. But it’s not simple and in general i don’t think it’s ridiculous that the uci gives warnings when someone is below threshold but probably doping.
Or they were trying to avoid an embarrassment for the team,
if the team was not condoning the doping. Or they were trying to give the team ammunition to put pressure on the rider. Or they were trying to put pressure on the team, if they felt the team WAS condoning doping. Or they were concerned about the health of the rider.
Is that enough other possible reasons?
Does the AFLD or ASO have a crystal ball?
They really didn’t want to leave the testing to the UCI. I’ll bet they suspected if they didn’t know. How long before they have something to say about this.
they knew the uci wasn't trying very hard
the afld has been on the forefront of testing cyclists since festina. they know what it takes to fight doping, and they’re unencumbered by the need to make cycling look good. look at the performance of french cyclists since festina, especially at the tour. do you think it’s because they don’t know how to train as well as other cyclists? do they not care as much? lack of drive? or maybe a testing program that actually works fairly well? throw in a biological passport for cycling in general, and the french start doing a little better. the afld knows that what the uci was doing could be improved upon. they knew french riders were at a disadvantage. they weren’t happy about it, hence the uci vs. afld fights over testing at the tour.
end pro french rant.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Also at play here
and I hate to say it, but there is the concept that when you make a legal limit like that off score coefficient of 133 mentioned above, you run the risk of setting the bar for what is acceptable. It then becomes a race to raise perameters as high as you can within the limitations. If that’s what this case was, leipheimer just shows that doping technique was skillful and intricate, only the idiots and the overzealous get caught, but how many cyclists did or still do play that game?
"You know if there's any contact at all Cristiano Ronaldo's gonna go down...maybe even just a puff of wind"
Autologous is the way to go.
Landis even said it. Recovery times are down now because they don’t have the way to boost properly.
Shocking!
You mean, Levi might have cheated? Holy crap! That’s shocking.
2010 Tour de France Stage Predictor Game Champion - Just Sayin
It's happened before...well it was an "accident" but yeah, its happened.
Tommeke!, Tommeke!, Tommeke!, Tommeke!
but i thought levi was such a nice guy,
he likes dogs for god’s sake! Now it turns out he’s evil. When will it ever end?
It's time to draw the line.
Let’s assume anyone who ever won almost anything in the past doped. It’s probably true, let’s be honest. I met a young French cyclist once in a sports bar in London a few years ago. We were both watching the Tour. He had won an impressive array of Junior classics races. He quit rather than join the peleton as he said it was impossible to compete without drugs. His training partners (he still rides with them) were competing in the Tour we were watching…
I think there should be a complete amnesty (so we stop raking up the past), but then anyone caught afterwards should be banned for life. I must admit to being none too excited at the prospect of Ricco vs Kashechkin at the Vuelta.
I agree with pretty much everything you say
That being said, it’s nice to see Armstrong/Bruyneel finally exposed.
And this is what the past 15 years looks like
- – - – - – -
- — – - - - – - -
- – — – - – — – - – -
So now just do this?
Good luck.
is that morse?
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
- ----- -- ----- ---- --- --- - ---- -- - ----- - - --- ------
back at ya!
(I think I might have just called his mother something nasty. I sometimes mix up my newworldorderish)
2010 Tour de France Stage Predictor Game Champion - Just Sayin
Levi's performance at the '06 Tour raised a red flag for me
I know the report focuses on him allegedly manipulating his blood values in 2005, but let’s suppose he was still cheating in 2006, so he goes out and completely bombs in his speciality (the long TT) losing something like 6 minutes to Landis, Rogers and some of the other favorites. Very strange,
Then he comes out a few days later and finishes a very strong 3rd behind Menchov on the stage to Pla de Berret. I understand that riders are susceptible to the dreaded “off days” in a race as difficult as the Tour, but Levi’s shocking loss of form in a discipline where he was considered an expert was very suspicious for me. Last time I could remember seeing a rider fluctuate so much in terms of performance in such a short period of time was Pedro Delgado at the 1989 Tour when he was dropped by his teammates in TTT and just a few days later recovered to finish 2nd in the long TT.
Landis bombed in '06 as well.
Only to ride a most spectacular break that put him back in contention for yellow…
as all this continues on and on...
I keep coming back to the French success in this year’s tour and wonder…is the peloton really clean(er) and this French resurgence is just more of a reflection that the French bad luck was perhaps more related to pharmaceuticals then anything? And, no, I don’t forget that Festina was one of the major doping controversies…
Just saying…this race “felt” pretty clean, huh? Surprise winners, and a couple strong guys, but people kinda looked human, right?
2010 Tour de France Stage Predictor Game Champion - Just Sayin
that's my (biased) view
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
The French cleaned up after Festina.
I wouldn’t say completely free from PED or doping, but not to the extremes the rest of the peloton was on.
i've heard, yet can't find anything on it so it could all be untrue
that they had some sort of biological passport thing. longitudinal type testing on the athletes. also something along the lines of not letting racers with weird values race. also, the AFLD is a government agency, no? (i’m really just guessing)
why not adopt their model? ask the UCI, they’re the ones who have been fighting AFLD tooth and nail. maybe they don’t give star riders more leeway, or don’t let them know ahead of time when they’ll be tested, or don’t acccept donations from riders. maybe it had to do with other countries’ willingness to jump on the anti-doping bandwagon.
look at what it did to french cycling, for 10 years they haven’t had much success, no superstars, no GT wins (but somehow managed to keep sponsors interested). they were the laughing stock of european cycling, with their ‘outdated training methods’. the french didn’t mind behind a step behind. some countries might think that if they follow the same route, riders from some other nation not as interested in fighting doping might start winning everything and they don’t want to be left behind.
those are my guesses, hopefully someone might have some facts, or better guesses.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
yeah, "why not adopt their model" was rhetorical
Right it has to be the uci who does that. If one country does it then that country suffers. I think afld is governmental but i’ve never heard any details whatsoever of their program that keeps french riders relatively clean. I’m curious to whether there is really anything to it or not.
same here
someone’s got to know. i’ll keep looking.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
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
