When I look at these latest doping scandals at the Tours, I get increasingly uneasy about whether or not the testing is really as accurate as the UCI and WADA say they are. Something just doesn't make sense.

- We have cyclists admitting to or being implicated in doping who've never tested positive.
- We have cyclists testing positive who are adamant that they never doped.
- We have laboratories who leak results straight to the press.
- We have authorities from UCI, WADA, ASO along with TV announcers and fellow cyclists who immediately denounce someone who tested positive as a dirty cheater who they are glad is gone.

Here's something that doesn't make sense to me: why aren't more "cheaters" tattling on the networks that provide them with doping? If I was facing what is in effect an end to my career and I was the only person out of a network of suppliers and doping administrators who was facing any sort of punishment....you'd better believe I'd start singing loud and clear. Those folks aren't doing anything to save my a$$....why should I clam up to save them? I can see if there were a couple of caught riders who kept quiet, but nearly all of them? Doesn't make sense to me. Like any other group, they aren't that organized or united. Many of them would start singing.

Here's also where I have major doubt and the crux of my question: does the testing process really have a handle on the science of their testing? Do they really know, for instance, how a body reacts to injury. My specific doubts have to do with the test for transfusions that nailed Vino. It sounds like the test is based on the number of new red blood cells. However, if a body undergoes substantial injury, like Vino did, how does it react? Does it realize that it needs to fight off potential infection and recover injured systems and as a result increase its new blood production in a way that would trigger a positive result? I don't know......do they know? Have they asked this question? I am increasingly uneasy that the authorities running cycling are asking the questions. They seem to have 100% faith in their testing....and I'm not sure that faith is warranted.

Thoughts?

When I look at these latest doping scandals at the Tours, I get increasingly uneasy about whether or not the testing is really as accurate as the UCI and WADA say they are. Something just doesn't make sense.

- We have cyclists admitting to or being implicated in doping who've never tested positive.
- We have cyclists testing positive who are adamant that they never doped.
- We have laboratories who leak results straight to the press.
- We have authorities from UCI, WADA, ASO along with TV announcers and fellow cyclists who immediately denounce someone who tested positive as a dirty cheater who they are glad is gone.

Here's something that doesn't make sense to me: why aren't more "cheaters" tattling on the networks that provide them with doping? If I was facing what is in effect an end to my career and I was the only person out of a network of suppliers and doping administrators who was facing any sort of punishment....you'd better believe I'd start singing loud and clear. Those folks aren't doing anything to save my a$$....why should I clam up to save them? I can see if there were a couple of caught riders who kept quiet, but nearly all of them? Doesn't make sense to me. Like any other group, they aren't that organized or united. Many of them would start singing.

Here's also where I have major doubt and the crux of my question: does the testing process really have a handle on the science of their testing? Do they really know, for instance, how a body reacts to injury. My specific doubts have to do with the test for transfusions that nailed Vino. It sounds like the test is based on the number of new red blood cells. However, if a body undergoes substantial injury, like Vino did, how does it react? Does it realize that it needs to fight off potential infection and recover injured systems and as a result increase its new blood production in a way that would trigger a positive result? I don't know......do they know? Have they asked this question? I am increasingly uneasy that the authorities running cycling are asking the questions. They seem to have 100% faith in their testing....and I'm not sure that faith is warranted.

Thoughts?


no, there are no absolutes, so they are not completely on top of the science...but close enough...[if testing is done right]
for fighting off infections [septic knees] the body would want to dramatically increase production of white blood cells not red cells...
i suspect that soem of the suppliers of doping products are not "nice guys" and would be willing to "break legs" and hurt your family... especially the Russian Mafia...:D
plus, all the "dopers" are selfish & stupid...they think they will never get caught...

When I look at these latest doping scandals at the Tours, I get increasingly uneasy about whether or not the testing is really as accurate as the UCI and WADA say they are. Something just doesn't make sense.

- We have cyclists admitting to or being implicated in doping who've never tested positive.
- We have cyclists testing positive who are adamant that they never doped.
- We have laboratories who leak results straight to the press.
- We have authorities from UCI, WADA, ASO along with TV announcers and fellow cyclists who immediately denounce someone who tested positive as a dirty cheater who they are glad is gone.


1. Not testing positive doesn't mean anything. Many of the drugs they use are natural products produced by the body already, they just use more of them which boosts performance. How do you make a test to find something already produced by your body? They catch them based on baseline numbers that have been elevated a little over the general population. Some people may have naturally high numbers, in which they have to prove they consistently have those high numbers over a long period of time.

Blood doping is this: A month or two before the race starts they take out a few pints of your own blood. They put it in storage, then during the races hardest days, they put that blood back in your body. It's your blood, how do you test for that? The extra blood gives you more red blood cells and increases your endurance. My understanding is this is what Vino was busted for, except he used somebody else's blood, which you can detect. My guess is the team doctor or somebody on the team mislabeled the blood, hence the positive test.

Testosterone is naturally produced by the body so they test against averages. However there are synthetic versions of it and that's pretty easy to detect.

There are also other drugs out there that will hide the effects or the drugs using to enhance performance. These are called masking agents. Some are illegal also, some are illegal only if you go over a certain limit.

All of it makes it very hard to get caught and very easy to claim innocence since it's hard to prove.

2. If you were caught doping and you knew it was going to cost you a couple million dollars a year would you admit to it? If you knew you had a good chance of beating it in court with a technicality, wouldn't you fight it considering the money involved. Don't forget your family and future depend on the money you are making.

3. Labs leak information everywhere, not just around the Tour and cycling. Heck, here in the U.S. grand juries leak information all the time even though it's illegal. People get the inside scoop because of who they know

4. That's because of the state of cycling. In the past they would have been more cautious. These days you can be guilty just by association or being on a team, because in the past teams have systematically doped. They have team doctors to monitor results and make sure the riders won't get caught.

Here's something that doesn't make sense to me: why aren't more "cheaters" tattling on the networks that provide them with doping? If I was facing what is in effect an end to my career and I was the only person out of a network of suppliers and doping administrators who was facing any sort of punishment....you'd better believe I'd start singing loud and clear. Those folks aren't doing anything to save my a$$....why should I clam up to save them? I can see if there were a couple of caught riders who kept quiet, but nearly all of them? Doesn't make sense to me. Like any other group, they aren't that organized or united. Many of them would start singing.

Well, just because you are caught doesn't mean your career is over. If you are young, you can take your two years off and come back. There are also jobs in the industry that can be had for older cyclists that get caught. All of the team managers are former cyclists and make very good money, many were caught doping in the past. So why would you give up all chance at future income by "Telling All"? Ratting out your friends is the fastest way to get thrown completely out of all aspects of cycling.

Also, don't forget the good old boy syndrome. Many men will not tell their friends wifes that their friend is cheating on them with other women. Why? They don't want to deal with the consequences, lose their friends, etc. Sometimes they are doing it themselves and don't want to have it thrown back at them.

Also remember, without hard evidence you can get your butt sued off and have no income at all if you can't prove your accusations. Getting that evidence can be very hard. It's one thing to "Sing" it's another to have proof of what you are "Singing about".

Here's also where I have major doubt and the crux of my question: does the testing process really have a handle on the science of their testing? Do they really know, for instance, how a body reacts to injury. My specific doubts have to do with the test for transfusions that nailed Vino. It sounds like the test is based on the number of new red blood cells. However, if a body undergoes substantial injury, like Vino did, how does it react? Does it realize that it needs to fight off potential infection and recover injured systems and as a result increase its new blood production in a way that would trigger a positive result? I don't know......do they know? Have they asked this question? I am increasingly uneasy that the authorities running cycling are asking the questions. They seem to have 100% faith in their testing....and I'm not sure that faith is warranted.

Thoughts?

Unless you have a background in medicine or medical testing how can you doubt it with such voracity, other than the fact that you just don't want to believe it. If you really want to know....Go to medical school and find out. Once you get there, you will find out it's not as hard as you think and they know a lot more than you want to give them credit for.

The problem is the legal system. A good lawyer can make the most iron clad case look iffy by using the system against it's self. They create doubt in people, which creates doubt in the system.

If they rolled over on their suppliers, where would they get their dope once their suspension was up?

...or during their suspension for that matter?

[QUOTE=Wookiebiker]1. My understanding is this is what Vino was busted for, except he used somebody else's blood, which you can detect. My guess is the team doctor or somebody on the team mislabeled the blood, hence the positive test.

perhaps someone ordered to do the doping felt they could not refuse, but could give him the wrong bag (but correct blood type at least). maybe it was a grossly incompetent mistake, but maybe someone did it so he would be caught.

would be a better story--like the movies where the lawyer knows his client is guilty, but still gives him the great defense but somehow gets the guy to reveal his guilt.

just a thought

1.
3. Labs leak information everywhere, not just around the Tour and cycling. Heck, here in the U.S. grand juries leak information all the time even though it's illegal. People get the inside scoop because of who they know

Also, don't forget the good old boy syndrome. ...
They don't want to deal with the consequences, lose their friends, etc. Sometimes they are doing it themselves and don't want to have it thrown back at them.

Also remember, without hard evidence you can get your butt sued off and have no income at all if you can't prove your accusations. Getting that evidence can be very hard. It's one thing to "Sing" it's another to have proof of what you are "Singing about".

.

Gotta disagree with some of this. US grand juries don't leak info "all the time". It happens once in a while, but all in all I think the US court system can lock things down pretty well. Leaking lab data directly to the press/public used to frustrate me. I feel it short circuited due process, but I'm beginning to see that that is just the culture. It ain't going to change. As you say, if they get it wrong, then they will be sued. I'm still a skeptical of the confidentiality aspect though. It just doesn't sit right with me.

IMHO, whether or not they sing like a bird is related to the criminal penalty they face. Right now, the penalty doesn't have much bite IMHO. I know that sounds weird given their "Career over, 2yr ban, won't make any money, reputation tarnished, etc, etc". Yeah, those are tough consequences, but by and large the riders go off and live life w/o incident. How bad is Jan's life right now? Or Basso's? Now if they were threatened with 5yrs of jailtime for using an illegal substance.. Whoa! Then you would see them cutting deals and giving up their suppliers. As it stands now, the worst that happens is they become unemployed.

Horatio Cain from CSI Miami would bust all these *******s. No one gets anything by him. I'd love to see his pasty pale white skin and his flaming red hair snooping around with a neon flashlite in the Astana team bus!

Gotta disagree with some of this. US grand juries don't leak info "all the time". It happens once in a while, but all in all I think the US court system can lock things down pretty well.

Yea, that's probably true. However, you do hear about information being leaked out of grand jury's when it comes to big cases. Information came out all the time in the O.J. case, in the Barry Bonds case, etc.

On a local level they are pretty locked down, but then most don't really care much about local level crimes.

If they rolled over on their suppliers, where would they get their dope once their suspension was up?

And in some cases, who would dig their graves. These low level suppliers are fronting for some serious bad @ss criminal enterprises.

Unless you have a background in medicine or medical testing how can you doubt it with such voracity, other than the fact that you just don't want to believe it. If you really want to know....Go to medical school and find out. Once you get there, you will find out it's not as hard as you think and they know a lot more than you want to give them credit for.

The problem is the legal system. A good lawyer can make the most iron clad case look iffy by using the system against it's self. They create doubt in people, which creates doubt in the system.

Do you have a background in medicine or medical testing? If you do then you should understand the importance of large sample size in studies.

The test they used on Vino had a test group of 100 people before they rolled it out. That is so small as to be horrifying from a statistical point of view. There may have been follow up tests of the general population to see if there were false positives but I could not find any. It seems to be a very good test at catching people who use someone elses blood to boost their red bloodcell count. (vino was not accused of using his own blood) But as for wether people can have a false positive, the sample size is so small that it doesnt tell us to a statistical certainty that they dont.

Here are my problems with the testing, it does not seem to use the best standards of testing, the labs seem to have a problem with equal standards between organizing bodies, there seems to be a pissing contest going on between several cycling bodies making me wonder if someone could have an alterior motive, the labs DO have problems internaly with control practices, wada need's to stop commenting (muzzle dick pound) so they can turn into an organization that people respect.

From what i have read, we do better tests on lab rats than we do on cyclists, with better controls to see that it is annonamous to the lab workers.

If we want to clean up cycling start with the organizing bodies, have good collection protocals, set good tests, have good labs, then test everyone lots. Lawers shouldn't even be an issue, the protocals should be so well developed to leave no room for challenge.

As it is all I can say is I think the people tossed out PROBABLY doped, but there are too many nagging questions for me to feel comfortable saying I KNOW they doped.

I am not involved with the medical profession at all and have only done some research. I am sure you will feel this disqualifys me from having any worthwile oppinions.:thumbsup: