Bye Lance

[Justin(e)]

How is the UCI constituted ?  If all the riders and teams are now so pissed off with the leadership of the UCI is there no way they can force a change ?

AIUI (this being the internet, I don't need sources), it is the umbrella body that governs the sport which is recognised by the IOC.  Each national federation feeds money and votes into the system.  In Australia, there is also a problem with murky connections to the past so it is hard for Cycling Australian to point the finger and demand change.  In LeMond's article demanding McQuaid resign he (LeMond) suggests that people not pay their USA racing licence for a year as that will put pressure on the US governing body to pressure the UCI.

It is hard for teams to effect change as they rely on their licence from the UCI.  Something that appears to have a degree of discretion.   The real players in this are ASO - and the other GT organisers - and local racers who pay money. 

I give it a week before Verbruggen is removed as honorary president for life of the UCI.  McQuaid may last another year till the next round of elections, but he is a lame duck now.  That article by Ashendon could well spell the end of him.  I hope it does.

[spesh]

The Empire strikes back against LeMond: http://s14.directupload.net/file/d/3054/hnez8ogv_jpg.htm

Unsurprisingly, the Tweet has been deleted.

Who is Andrew McQuaid? 
Not another Kirsten moment? 

Pat McQuaid's son, works as a rider's agent.

As an aide memoire, here are the Lionel Birnie Tweets from the day of the Landis "Ass-clown Gaddaffi impersonators" judgement, as storified by Neil Browne:

http://neilbrowne.com/2012/10/swiss-court-rules-against-landis/

 

[spesh]

Bloody hell - this is the gift that keeps on giving.

Another one.

With Operation Puerto finally making it to the courts in Spain, and the Italian authorities following the money trails, there's still a hell of a lot of fallout left to to come down.

I wouldn't be surprised to see some of the other teams and riders out there are having an uncomfortable end to the year.

[Rhys W]

Surely now Sean Yates must have the axe hovering over his head? His failed test in 1989 is common knowledge as well as his mentoring of LA at Motorola, never mind his friendship with Motoman.

I've also heard rumours of a power struggle at Team Sky between Brailsford and a certain straight-talking Aussie - this non-doping declaration was Brailsford stamping his authority on the rest of the management team.

[citoyen]

Does Bobby J's confession now mean a French rider won the 1998 Tour de France? 

d.

He was rider 4 then.

I may well be mistaken so please correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that Robin in 6th was the first finisher in 1998 not explicitly tainted by doping associations. Then again, he was at USPS that year...

Eurosport think Daniele Nardello has the best alternative claim to the title in 1999 and 2000, and he could be the best candidate in 1998 as well.

d.

[David Martin]

Surely now Sean Yates must have the axe hovering over his head? His failed test in 1989 is common knowledge as well as his mentoring of LA at Motorola, never mind his friendship with Motoman.

I've also heard rumours of a power struggle at Team Sky between Brailsford and a certain straight-talking Aussie - this non-doping declaration was Brailsford stamping his authority on the rest of the management team.

Yates technically never failed a test. He had an adverse analytical finding for testosterone on the A sample (with questions over procedure) but the B sample was negative. So not a positive. Given this was 1989 and that test is hard enough to do today, I don't think it should be held against him.

Edit; add the negation

[Exit Stage Left]

Does Bobby J's confession now mean a French rider won the 1998 Tour de France? 

d.

He was rider 4 then.

I may well be mistaken so please correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that Robin in 6th was the first finisher in 1998 not explicitly tainted by doping associations. Then again, he was at USPS that year...

Eurosport think Daniele Nardello has the best alternative claim to the title in 1999 and 2000, and he could be the best candidate in 1998 as well.

d.

I posted a link a while ago about Julich, pointing out that he was the main US contender in 1999, and that he was under suspicion as Rider 4.

Although it is still unconfirmed, rider 4 in Hincapie's deposition could be Bobby Julich, who shared the apartment on Via Masai, or his former Motorola teammate Andrea Peron, who finished 8th in the Vuelta that year. The Italian lived in his hometown of Varese at the time, not Como. 

If all the ugly truths about doping are to come out, we should also know who this mysterious "rider # 4" is.  Now is the time for the full story to be told and whether be it from Julich, George, or the real "rider #4, we should have the answers sooner or later.
 
 

http://www.roadbikeaction.com/New-Releases/content/69/6063/Racy-Language-The-Shadows-of-Doper-Doubt.html

[Rhys W]

Surely now Sean Yates must have the axe hovering over his head? His failed test in 1989 is common knowledge as well as his mentoring of LA at Motorola, never mind his friendship with Motoman.

I've also heard rumours of a power struggle at Team Sky between Brailsford and a certain straight-talking Aussie - this non-doping declaration was Brailsford stamping his authority on the rest of the management team.

Yates technically never failed a test. He had an adverse analytical finding for testosterone on the A sample (with questions over procedure) but the B sample was negative. So not a positive. Given this was 1989 and that test is hard enough to do today, I don't think it should be held against him.

Edit; add the negation

The way the Sky thing is worded it's up to an individual's conscience as to whether they sign it. A cynic might say that this is Sky's omerta policy - they only want people on the team who will shut up about it, the people who confess can go. Sean Yates has persisted with the "I didn't see anything, I just drive the car, guv" line despite questions being asked about his failed A sample, mentoring of Lance, and association with Motoman.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Keep giving the benefit of any minuscule doubt to obvious dopers. It is the right thing to do ... to maintain the status quo.

[Gus]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/nondoping-cyclists-finish-tour-de-france,2268/ some one seems to have lots of fun.

[rafletcher]

Surely now Sean Yates must have the axe hovering over his head? His failed test in 1989 is common knowledge as well as his mentoring of LA at Motorola, never mind his friendship with Motoman.

I've also heard rumours of a power struggle at Team Sky between Brailsford and a certain straight-talking Aussie - this non-doping declaration was Brailsford stamping his authority on the rest of the management team.

Yates technically never failed a test. He had an adverse analytical finding for testosterone on the A sample (with questions over procedure) but the B sample was negative. So not a positive. Given this was 1989 and that test is hard enough to do today, I don't think it should be held against him.

Edit; add the negation

Now that sounds familiar 

[rogerzilla]

ISTR someone calculated that, if you exclude known dopers, suspected dopers and former dopers, Wiggo has won the TdF three times already.

[citoyen]

I posted a link a while ago about Julich, pointing out that he was the main US contender in 1999, and that he was under suspicion as Rider 4.

Indeed. Tbh, I didn't realise there was still any doubt about it. I don't suppose anyone is really surprised by his admission, are they? Most of the stuff coming out now is just confirming what we already know.

d.

[clarion]

I thought Julich was outed as a doper years ago.

Seemed pretty obvious at the time.

[David Martin]

Surely now Sean Yates must have the axe hovering over his head? His failed test in 1989 is common knowledge as well as his mentoring of LA at Motorola, never mind his friendship with Motoman.

I've also heard rumours of a power struggle at Team Sky between Brailsford and a certain straight-talking Aussie - this non-doping declaration was Brailsford stamping his authority on the rest of the management team.

Yates technically never failed a test. He had an adverse analytical finding for testosterone on the A sample (with questions over procedure) but the B sample was negative. So not a positive. Given this was 1989 and that test is hard enough to do today, I don't think it should be held against him.

Edit; add the negation

Now that sounds familiar 

Technically I failed a test for explosives at an airport security checkpoint. I wasn't about to argue the toss regarding GCMS with the people at the desk

• - it was easier to just nod politely, give my name to the policeman and get them to phone the prof who was quite happy to confirm that 'we have that sort of chemical in the lab'.
• The machine had gone beep twice so technically it was a failed test. Despite the test being for four compounds, the thresholds being low and it triggering two diferent compounds between the original swab and the repeat, each time one marginally over threshold with the other three below. There is a time to know when to shut up.

[Toady]

ISTR someone calculated that, if you exclude known dopers, suspected dopers and former dopers, Wiggo has won the TdF three times already.

That would be a bit of a stretch I think.  With Cofidis he was generally way down the field.   He was 4th in 2009 behind Contador, Schleck A, and some American geezer whose name escapes me.   In 2010 he was 24'th.  In 2011 he DNF'd.

So if we DQ Schleck A as brother-of-a-doper we can give him 09.
To give him 2010 you'd have to check and DQ all of the following.  It would take quite a hefty dose of Wiggomania to be arsed to do that.

2010
1   SCHLECK Andy
2   MENCHOV Denis
3   SANCHEZ Samuel
4   VAN DEN BROECK Jurgen
5   GESINK Robert
6   HESJEDAL Ryder
7   RODRIGUEZ OLIVER Joaquin
8   KREUZIGER Roman
9   HORNER Christopher
10   SANCHEZ Luis-Leon
11   PLAZA MOLINA Ruben
12   LEIPHEIMER Levi
13   KLÖDEN Andréas
14   ROCHE Nicolas
15   VINOKOUROV Alexandre
16   LÖVKVIST Thomas
17   DE WEERT Kevin
18   GADRET John
19   SASTRE Carlos
21   MORENO FERNANDEZ Daniel
22   MOREAU Christophe
23   AMERICAN GEEZER Some

24   WIGGINS Bradley (moral victory)
I don't know what happened to 20. That's from the TdF site.

[pcolbeck]

Dave's right failing a test is not proof of doping. Tests do go wrong that's why they have the B sample and also sometimes people have a legit reason for failing a test. The classic example being the same over the counter medicine in two different countries having different ingredients and one of them is a banned substance. Another is gall bladder removal which messes with your blood chemistry.

[Manotea]

Dave's right failing a test is not proof of doping. Tests do go wrong that's why they have the B sample and also sometimes people have a legit reason for failing a test. The classic example being the same over the counter medicine in two different countries having different ingredients and one of them is a banned substance. Another is gall bladder removal which messes with your blood chemistry.

And having a testicle cut off doesn't? Lance Armstrong is innocent, OK! (IGMC...)

[pcolbeck]

Mr Armstrong's problems seem to involve a little more than a single questionable test result.

[citoyen]

sometimes people have a legit reason for failing a test. The classic example being the same over the counter medicine in two different countries having different ingredients and one of them is a banned substance.

That isn't a "legit" reason for testing positive - just ask Alain Baxter.

Similarly, nor is eating a steak containing traces of banned substances a legit excuse, even if it's the true reason for testing positive, which no one in their right mind believes anyway.

d.

[clarion]

I'm glad you appended the last nine words there, or I'd be questioning your sanity.

[David Martin]

sometimes people have a legit reason for failing a test. The classic example being the same over the counter medicine in two different countries having different ingredients and one of them is a banned substance.

That isn't a "legit" reason for testing positive - just ask Alain Baxter.

Similarly, nor is eating a steak containing traces of banned substances a legit excuse, even if it's the true reason for testing positive, which no one in their right mind believes anyway.

To be a positive test you have to have proper traceability and process, and two independently determined adverse analytical findings. Baxter tested positive. His doping was inadvertent, but removal of his medal quite proper. It was the same morally as inadvertently using out of spec skis or an underweight bike.

The Landis testosterone positive is an interesting case. Landis was doping, that much is clear but the test results were appalingly done, should never have been classed a positive and were quite possibly the result of a stitch-up. *sticks his analytical mass spec hat on* I'm not sure there is a competent scientist who would put their reputation on the Landis test results being a proper positive.

[simonp]

sometimes people have a legit reason for failing a test. The classic example being the same over the counter medicine in two different countries having different ingredients and one of them is a banned substance.

That isn't a "legit" reason for testing positive - just ask Alain Baxter.

Similarly, nor is eating a steak containing traces of banned substances a legit excuse, even if it's the true reason for testing positive, which no one in their right mind believes anyway.

d.

No-one in their right mind believes the contaminated supplements theory either. It was accidental contamination caused by blood doping.

[citoyen]

Talk to Fränk?

[clarion]