I though this was interesting for several reasons. Here is the report from cyclingnews to refresh the memory:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/jun07/jun01news2

1) It was at an unexpected time and therefore more likely to catch doping. Having well-defined times when controls can be carried out allows for obvious doping windows of oppurtunity.
2) It didn't catch out any of the favorites who were tested.
3) If you're a team doctor playing by the rules (i.e. not administering doping products) why would you know about when tests can and can't be conducted?

3) If you're a team doctor playing by the rules (i.e. not administering doping products) why would you know about when tests can and can't be conducted?
I don't think there's necessarily anything sinister about that. If I were a DS, I'd expect the team doctor to know everything about doping controls and to brief the team on those things.

At the pre-race meeting I'd expect the doctor to make sure the team knew who the vampires are and what to expect, what they'll be testing for, latest rule changes, etc.. It would be shocking to me if a profesional rider was awakened at 5am and was not perfectly up to speed on what to expect, how to act, rights, responsibilities, etc.

[QUOTE=JSRIt would be shocking to me if a profesional rider was awakened at 5am and was not perfectly up to speed on what to expect, how to act, rights, responsibilities, etc.[/QUOTE]

Sure, why would this be a team doctor's job? In fact, in clean racing it's hard to imagine why teams need doctors at all. The race doctors should be able to deal with the typical sort of things that require drugs that are allowable under WADA which are actually very few. Which again begs the question what exactly do you think these teams are paying doctors for? Maybe post-stage IVs for hydration and glycogen replacement would seem one of the few legitimate reasons to have them around but it certainly doesn't take an MD to run an IV.

Im not convinced it was a surprise. I've got nothing other than my own cynicism as proof, but after just finishing Rendell's book about pantani, it's obvious that they didn't have any problems being prepared to be able to pass controls then. the over the top test at the giro being the lone exception, they were able to hyperhydrate or do whatever else to bring their riders back to an acceptable #. here they took blood and urine and I didn't see what they tested for but if they knew the test was forthcoming theres no reason anyone should have failed.
/tinfoilhat

Rendell make a pretty good case for Pantani's overage being the result of him dallying around too long before showing up for the test too.

I thought the evening timing would always be better to catch a lot of the stuff they were doing, so they must be finally making an effort to really catch people.

As a side note there was an interesting study mentioned in a June Bicisport story. The UCI doctor (Zorzoli?) was quoted saying that in his research on blood tests the majority of riders were now exhibiting normal declines in HCT in the tours. The most notable exception being the Spanish guys. Considering the Puerto response in Spain I'm hardly stunned.

As a side note there was an interesting study mentioned in a June Bicisport story. The UCI doctor (Zorzoli?) was quoted saying that in his research on blood tests the majority of riders were now exhibiting normal declines in HCT in the tours.

I've often wonder why "wrongly" accused riders such as Armstrong don't bring out their hematocrit values as evidence they were playing on the up and up. I've never heard a reporter ask him about this but it seems like a rather obvious way to provide some evidence speaking one way or the other. Coyle's paper doesn't include blood values otherwise it could have provided a nice hematocrit baseline since 4/5 tests were out of season or and 3/5 are in '93 or earlier when EPO use was probably not widespread thru the whole peloton.

FWIW, I believe both Valverde and Boonen have offered up their values as only being in the high 30s or low 40s as evidence they don't dope, at least with EPO. I guess we don't really know if that is good information or not.

Hot Sauce's Slipstream team is suppose to start making their hematocrit values public starting next year.

3) If you're a team doctor playing by the rules (i.e. not administering doping products) why would you know about when tests can and can't be conducted?
Because you are playing by the rules and expect others to do so as well. Contrary to what many would have, just because riders give up most of their rights, doesn't mean they have to give up all of them. Given the extreme strict liability the ADA's are imposing on athletes, the riders should demand the same strict adherence to the rules by the testing agencies.