Pro News

[Lister Farrar]

Maybe. But rockfish generally doesn't come with sky-high plasticizers either.

Questioned about claims made in the New York Times and L'Equipe that Contador's levels were eight to 10 times higher than normal, Segura said, "Those reported parameters are an unequivocal indication [that a blood transfusion took place],"

(Segura is the developer of plasticizer test)
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/segura- ... ransfusion

[JohnT]

You missed a bit: Those reported parameters are an unequivocal indication [that a blood transfusion took place]," Segura told AS. "However, we should look at all the data and see if there are any sudden changes in the levels in the samples taken before and afterwards."

The last part seeks to show that the two things (clenbuterol and plasticizer) are linked. If the plasticizer remains high after (or was high before) the positive clenbuterol test, then the plasticizer data isn't a confirmation of doping.

I just started to look for plasticizer data. I don't recommend it. As a follow up from my previous note, we'd probably all test positive for plasticizers. Food packaging, chewing gum, for example, contain them. To make this thorough, I thought I'd try to find out exactly which one they found in Contador's sample, but then I decided to work instead.

JT

[Lister Farrar]

You missed a bit: Those reported parameters are an unequivocal indication [that a blood transfusion took place]," Segura told AS. "However, we should look at all the data and see if there are any sudden changes in the levels in the samples taken before and afterwards."

The last part seeks to show that the two things (clenbuterol and plasticizer) are linked. If the plasticizer remains high after (or was high before) the positive clenbuterol test, then the plasticizer data isn't a confirmation of doping.

I just started to look for plasticizer data. I don't recommend it. As a follow up from my previous note, we'd probably all test positive for plasticizers. Food packaging, chewing gum, for example, contain them. To make this thorough, I thought I'd try to find out exactly which one they found in Contador's sample, but then I decided to work instead.

JT

Apparently the plasticizer used in blood bags is distinguishable from other plastics, is stable, and indicative of transfusions.

The test works by looking for signs of a specific type of plasticizer such as di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP). This is used in the bags used to store blood, leaving a unique signature which can then be compared to the typical background values that might be picked up from food and other sources.

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5931/ ... z1Dn9LgkjC

It may be that plasticers don't confirm that he had clenbutrol in him, or that he got it that way. But they make it awfully likely he transfused something, which is agaisnt the rules without a medical reason. I see it more like a guy caught at the scene of a shooting with gunpowder residue on his hands, who's arguing it wasn't the gun that shot the dead guy.,

Even more telling is that the UCI hid the fact his sample had the plasticizers until the German journalist revealed it.

[AlW]

Even more telling is that the UCI hid the fact his sample had the plasticizers until the German journalist revealed it.

What I think Lister is trying to say.....

[sylvan]

Apparently the plasticizer used in blood bags is distinguishable from other plastics, is stable, and indicative of transfusions.

You haters need to stop hating and love Alberto like I do. And like his federation does. He has been cleared to start racing. Happy Valentine's Day, Pistolero. No word yet on whether the UCI (less likely) or WADA (more likely) will appeal to the CAS.

[sylvan]

This Wendesday, Volta ao Algarve in Portugal, look for Contador to be racing with CSC, or whatever they're called now.

[Josh.E]

Well, WADA appealed the german decision for Dimitrij Ovtcharov.

Wouldn't the UCI have to clear him to race this week though, as they imposed the racing ban he's under right now?

Contador is discrete in his doping and likable, unlike the embarassment to the sport, Ricco. The nerve, almost killing himself in a very public and embarassing way. Doesn't look good for anyone.
I, for one, applaud the Spanish decision.

[AlW]

Sad that this has come down to a popularity contest.

Look for an appeal from Li Fuyu (Radioshack) who tested positive for the same drug, in similar quantities. Had the same excuse (meat) and had the same evidence (none).

http://www.cyclingnewsasia.com/en/news/ ... erts-agree

[sylvan]

[RyanC]

[Team] Sky may relax ‘zero tolerance’ doping policy

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/02/ ... icy_159909

Team Sky general manager Dave Brailsford told The Guardian that the policy may be softened because of the difficulties in finding support staff who had not been tainted by the drugs scourge.

Now let's see if I have this correct. If you are valued and needed for the team, we're looking the other way. However, if you're a d*ckhead (e.g. Rasmussen), stupid (Ricco), or a loose lip (Andreu), you're expendable. OTOH, if you're a cash cow (Contador) or a scare resource (team support) then we're to fudge it. Is that about the size of it?

Honestly, the doping is not the problem. To paraphrase Lister et al., it's the hypocrisy, corruption, and incompetence that are poisoning pro cycling.

I love riding. I am tired of the personality disordered clown that is masquerading as the pinnacle of the activity.

R

[sylvan]

I love riding. I am tired of the personality disordered clown that is masquerading as the pinnacle of the activity.

Yeah, it's nuts. Landis is the now the hero of the picture: http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/ ... ten-landis

[Lister Farrar]

I love riding. I am tired of the personality disordered clown that is masquerading as the pinnacle of the activity.

Not to get all political on you, but almost none of us with CBC memberships ever say peep about this, even though we are the essential voters. In the CCA, each province has three votes, often controlled by the provincial president. The CCA president helps elect secret delegates (think US electoral college mysterious) from the Americas, who barter their votes to Paddy for appointments to UCI commisions, invitations to races, and other UCI goodies. And bottles of Irish whisky. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/schenk- ... ion-of-uci

20 cyclists angry enough to show up at a Cycling BC AGM could demand action or change the Cycling BC leadership, who with 10 phone calls could demand action, or change the CCA president. Who with 20 more phone calls could demand action, or change the America's delegates, and their swing votes for UCI president.

But we don't.

Here's the last email I got from the Cycling BC president, Wayne Pomario, about the CCA position on the UCI:

From: Wayne Pomario [mailto:wpom@telus.net]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 4:28 PM
To: 'Lister Farrar'
Subject: RE: time for UCI inquiry?

Hi Lister

To be honest, I don’t honestly believe a huge amount that Landis states. Let’s remember, not only did he dope, but then he also denied doping, and took a lot of money from a lot of people (none of whom, I believe, have been repaid) in his quest for innocence. And then, only when he realised that he was just not going to get what he wanted, did he suddenly decide to that he was the saviour of cycling.

I do believe cycling does a huge amount in the fight against doping. Probably more than any other sport. It spends millions of dollars in this fight. It spent huge amounts of money fighting Landis, and will no doubt have to spend huge amounts with Contador.

I am aware of quite a lot that the UCI does, as well as the way the UCI works with WADA and the IOC. I think part of the issue is that people just do not have the whole story, and also only want to see the bad.

The fact is, as I have said many times before, there will never be no doping in sport. All sport. It is human nature, unfortunately, to look for the easy way. Sometimes, that easy way is manifested through cheating, or breaking the law. Sport, all sport, is a business endeavour. And just like in any businesses where money is involved, there will be those people who look to gain an unfair or illegal advantage. People are going to jail or being kicked out of organizations all the time for this. In sport, doping is one of the ways this is done. And it is no different that we should be responding in the same way.

I believe, as is done now, that we need to continue working to try and get ahead of the dopers, although that will probably never happen because of the money involved, and the way in which pharmaceutical companies work. And lets be realistic, doping is far more prevalent in sports where there is more money involved than in cycling. While we should strive to make cycling as clean as we can, and never relent on the war on doping, we should also stop tearing our sport apart as it serves no positive purpose. Anyone who actually believes that athletics, gymnastics, swimming, soccer, hockey, etc are cleaner than cycling just does not understand what is going on out there.

We are currently the only sport that has such a strict whereabouts regime. When they tried to introduce it in soccer there was revolt and it was hastily withdrawn. Cycling is working hard to clean itself up, and the fact that a rider like Contador can be caught shows this (remember, he was a bright star for the UCI, which kind of kill’s one of Landis’ argument about protected riders).

And doping is only one issue. Just last week Rogge brought up the scourge of betting as the new evil in sport. We see the impacts in tennis, soccer and cricket where games have been thrown.

I am not saying we should not fight for a clean sport, but we should also not be tearing our sport apart. It is working to improve itself all the time. But it is an expensive battle, as well as a highly technical, and extremely litigious one (look at the case of Keisse and the way in which this is being fought not just through CAS, but through various national court systems, and every time the UCI is required to go in with its lawyers and spend money). We should recognise the positive work.

There is a federal investigation taking place at the moment. If there is anything there I have no doubt that they will uncover it. They are probably best suited to do this with the resources they have at their disposal. And if they do uncover anything this will be a criminal matter which will lead to harsher punishments than if a sports body did anything.

My suggestion would be to find out exactly how the UCI and WADA and the various national anti-doping agencies work together, as well as what is being done to combat doping, and then promote a clean sport rather than tear it down.

A lot of stuff may have happened in the past, but we should look to the future, and I believe that is what is happening now, and I believe that the UCI is working very hard to have a clean sport. I am not sure what purpose an inquiry would serve. Further, I am not sure we should continue to single out cycling. If there is going to be an inquiry, let there be a full, honest, and open inquiry about all sports, and we should also consider the impact of the distortion of results through throwing games. I don’t see why cycling should continue to be punished just because it is taking very real concrete steps to root out doping, while others should be allowed to continue to bask in the limelight because they are not being examined. Totally unfair.

Unless every sport was subjected to the same honest and open scrutiny (and lets be honest here, most sports would not – just see what is happening in Spain and the whole issue around the various raids and the reference to sports other than cycling, and yet to a large extent only the cyclists have been singled out) I will not support an inquiry as it would serve no positive purpose.

Cheers

Wayne



From: Lister Farrar [mailto:listerfarrar@telus.net]
Sent: January-31-11 3:52 PM
To: Wayne Pomario
Subject: time for UCI inquiry?

Hi Wayne:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~ewoud/cycling/landis2011.pdf

I think it’s time for CCA to call for an enquiry of the UCI by WADA and or IOC. Would you consider adding your voice to that request of the CCA?

Lister

[Josh.E]

the fact that a rider like Contador can be caught shows this (remember, he was a bright star for the UCI, which kind of kill’s one of Landis’ argument about protected riders).

yeah, that's a great example. Contador should keep that in mind as he races tomorrow.


That letter pisses me off.

[RyanC]

I had earlier started a rant about the relative ethics of the corporate environment, under which trade teams are undeniably and necessarily subject, and then I rethought it after I read Lister's point.

I also came across this article which reminded me that I can point my finger all I want but in the end, I benefitted from the 'Lance' era, which clearly has become synonynmous with corruption.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/02/ ... ogy_160248

It reminds me that Lance may be a lot of things (many of them arguably bad) but I argue that cycling might not have its longevity, with all of its trickle down economics, had he not accomplished all he has.

I am old enough to remember that he almost single-handedly revived and (pardon the pun) injected new life into a sport that nearly died out over night when his predecessor, Greg Lemond faded gently into that good night (albeit likely as an indirect result of the EPO era's dawn). For a while there in the early ninties it sure looked bleak for sponsorship and racing. Lance changed all that.

Lets not forget that, on the whole, we demand winners and we rarely question success in the absence of glaring evidence to the contrary (Ben Johnson, anyone?). Those in the know may even have watched the 99 and 03 tours with crossed fingers because we wanted a miracle. We demand heroes and outstanding performances. Personally, despite all I suspected, I really liked the mano a mano drama. But it wasn't just the win, it was also the margin. I don't think I am alone in that I wanted Lance to win and win big. With respect, I argue that while individually we might say marginal wins at lesser speeds are acceptable, in reality we find these results boring. Collectively we demand our heroes impress us -- in cycling we mostly want them to break records and win by large GC gaps.

We have some amazing natural, un-enhanced, amateur athletes in Canada. Most of us don't know their names unless they're winning. We forget about them soon afterward. Hockey's a great sport and we know all the names. Why? I suggest it's because there's big coin behind it. Because it's dramatic and flashy, which costs huge money, which is provided to serve the corporate agenda. Professional sport needs flash to hold our interest and to fuel its own economy. It's a circle we can only break by refusing to dance. Or, as Lister suggests, getting involved, asking for something different.

Until our expectations change, until we directly support and reward excellent athletes that exemplify other human values (dedication, sacrifice, indomitable spirit, and courage) over winning, we're going to be stuck with variations on the current theme. And we are all complicit in the sense that we have indirectly profited from the 'Lance' era in North America when most of us knew better. Professional sport won't change until we demand something different.

R

[Lister Farrar]

And we are all complicit in the sense that we have indirectly profited from the 'Lance' era in North America when most of us knew better. Professional sport won't change until we demand something different.

R

+1

[AlW]

Regardless of our personal opinions on the guy, I think we can all agree that the Lance era (and to some extent, professional cycling in general) has benefitted us all in terms of equipment quality and availability.

Without that, we might still be riding these things:

http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2011 ... es+2%29%29

[Plawless]

what do you mean "might"? I saw Lister out on his yesterday doing intervals around Beacon Hill!

[Lister Farrar]

what do you mean "might"? I saw Lister out on his yesterday doing intervals around Beacon Hill!

Also good in strong cross winds.

Re the Lance effect on equipment, that idea makes me gag a little. Let me see, he brought us the too-big-shifter-like-a-paper-boy-cowhorn-handlebar, which has now been dumped by shimano and sram, the moulded plastic frame that breaks after one fall that is not customizeable for different body shapes (but is moldable into marketing shapes that have little to do with performance so customers will be forced to buy from a big company that can afford the mold), he delayed the more rational sloped top tube frame (clearance, rigidity, fewer stock sizes needed) because "it looks like a girl's bike", plus we all wear knee socks now (how exactly does that help?).

Sorry, I think most of Lance's effect was jock sniffing cuz he won. The evidence being revealed now that he did it while on an industrial doping program (there's a suggestion he caused his own cancer by his doping), combined with bribing and intimidating others, should make us remove the jaune-coloured glasses. I just regret the hit the cancer cause will take.

[JohnT]

This is getting bizzare. He might be guilty, but if there was evidence for an industrial doping program, we wouldn't still be having these discussions. And, what does the word 'industrial' mean in this context? The powers that some are attributing to The Lance, seem boundless. I joked about him controling the weather a few weeks back, but it seems you (Lister and some others) are getting close to making that claim: He's responsible for poorly fitting frames, knee socks, and his own cancer. "Some have suggested that ..." Come on. These things lead us down a path where we believe in seat tube motors. Carbon frames can be made to measure. In many cases the tubes are made individually and then assembled. The only reason they aren't is expense - just like steel and aluminium bikes. You don't really believe that Lance's bike is exactly the same Madone as the one we can buy from ProCity do you? Now who's got their head in the sand?

Lastly, cancer isn't going to take a hit. Maybe the $100,000,000 that LiveStrong contributed (a number I just made up, but you'll get the point) will go away, but the people who bought daffodils, and sent money in lue of flowers, etc., before Lance will keep doing it afterwards. Whatever his program contributed was a bonus.

JT

[AlW]

Re the Lance effect on equipment, that idea makes me gag a little.

Lister, I'm getting the impression you don't like the guy Admittedly, I'm not a big fan myself but I'm trying to be objective and not let my opinion of the person taint my argument.

As Ryan alluded to, I think it's hard to deny the positive effect on cycling that his era had. Prior to this, professional cycling was primarily a European sport with little exposure in North America. Access to high end equipment that we enjoy today was limited and expensive. His success (questionable though it may be) raised the profile of the sport and in turn drove the market to the point where high quality equipment is both available and affordable.

I also think your statement regarding customers being forced to buy from big companies is not accurate and is in fact that exact opposite. Look at the number of custom builders that have appeared in the last 10 years. The increased custom and semi-custom market actually provides more choice to the consumers who don't want to "jock sniff".

How is this a bad thing?