/ USADA releases evidence - breaking news
So looks like the floodgates are going to be well and truly opened.
There's a bit more flesh on the bones here - the 11 riders are formally named. Seems like there could be more as the evening progresses.
Don't do Twitter - what's Hincapie said?
Did he explain how at 78 kilos he won the hardest mountain stage of the 2005 Tour?
> Don't do Twitter - what's Hincapie said?
> Did he explain how at 78 kilos he won the hardest mountain stage of the 2005 Tour?
Bet you never expected this day to come but yes, he says he was at it!
Guess we all wanted to believe the Armstrong fairy tale!
Craig what are the french press saying?
Dunno yet - I'll check the web and I'll get an Equipe first thing.
Checked L'Equipe online earlier and it pretty much says what all the other news feeds are saying at the moment.
> Checked L'Equipe online earlier and it pretty much says what all the other news feeds are saying at the moment.
Same here - just reporting ATM with no comment. Sure that will come in tomorrow's paper.
Absolutely! Never liked him but I might be eating my words.
Full report with be published on Wednesday on the USADA website, quite staggering the lengths people will go to to perpetuate their own myths, glad they've nailed him!
200 page USADA summary - right here:
Hey up! it's Wednesday today lol.
I'm trying not to read the thing right now - it's like a car crash! I keep flicking through and going OMG.
Just read this - Hincapie admits doping up to 2006 which explains perfectly how a big chap (in cycling terms) can win a mountain stage like he did in 2005 - I knew it was impossible back then. If something looks unbelievable it usually is.
Nice moment there on my part, going to keep my head down for a while in contrition!
Bloody interesting though!!
it's the arrogance of the whole thing that staggers me, they were so convinced they couldn't be caught! You think back to those tours and it all kinda makes sense now, David Millar's book tore all the illusions away for me and this just makes a mockery of the UCI's blindness/unwillingness to deal with it.
Viva Brailsford and the clean Team Sky (we all hope)
None of it is entirely surprising, but you are right its really interesting to see the background behind it all
As I said before, I'm more interested in whether they will ever expose other sports. Spanish tennis players, golfers, footballers...
They all use the same doctors.... and doctors like Michele Ferrari seem to only have one set of prescriptions!
Credit to USADA.
I hope that other sports will accept that they are dirty too - they can't keep stalling on Puerto for much long.
Rafa Conconi Sharps
and all that
He not only has SCA after him for several million but he possibly committed perjury in that case and the Yanks don't like perjury. No Lord Archer gardening holiday and book tour here - he's looking at some serious time.
Would hate to be in the UCI's shoes (even though they deserve them) - once you keep stripping out the known drug cheats from the 90s and the early 2000s, who the hell do you award all the classics and grand tours to?
Will I be able to get a refund on the Armstrong books that I bought?
and the Floyd Landis one, come to think of it
No, same here :(
but at least Brad got a third place in the 2009 Tour
> As I said before, I'm more interested in whether they will ever expose other sports. Spanish tennis players, golfers, footballers...
This is important!
> This is important!
But are they even investigating the other sports in Puerto?
They Certainly Should.
The Clinic is all of a sudden a happy place!
Anybody else think that giving cyclists a 6 month ban starting in September is as daft as giving skiers a 6 month ban starting from April ?
Not sure if I believe all the 'I didn't want to dope but the bad man made me' stories I'm reading.
More importantly, has any more evidence of how Armstrong passed so many tests come to light? In particular stuff about the 2001 Swiss case ? Is there anything more than Landis's testimony ?
> Would hate to be in the UCI's shoes (even though they deserve them) - once you keep stripping out the known drug cheats from the 90s and the early 2000s, who the hell do you award all the classics and grand tours to?
I think you're left with me. Don't really need the medals but they can send me the prize money.
> More importantly, has any more evidence of how Armstrong passed so many tests come to light? In particular stuff about the 2001 Swiss case ? Is there anything more than Landis's testimony ?
There seems to be discussion on how Armstrong's PR machine have grouped all the tests together be they hematocrit tests, doping tests or and other tests and stated that figure as the number of clean results whereas the USADA figures show a much much lower number of actual doping tests actually undertaken and that for the majority of the time Armstrong and others managed to dodge the testers
That's a big queue!
> He not only has SCA after him for several million but he possibly committed perjury in that case and the Yanks don't like perjury. No Lord Archer gardening holiday and book tour here - he's looking at some serious time.
this will be interesting, as I understand it USADA does not have to prove things to the same extent as may be necessary in a criminal court in order to ban LA, so it remains to be seen whether witness testimony will be enough (along with the retrospective positive tests that have their own issues) for SCA to prove perjury.
This may be why the federal investigation into misappropriation of government funds by USPS team was dropped.
Im about 60 pages into the report currently, its interesting, but not too much new stuff I wasnt aware of already, yet. I still think theres more to come re the UCI involvement, the dropping of the federal case etc.
> Anybody else think that giving cyclists a 6 month ban starting in September is as daft as giving skiers a 6 month ban starting from April ?
> Not sure if I believe all the 'I didn't want to dope but the bad man made me' stories I'm reading.
The report suggests this, but the riders themselves refer more to the fact that it was endemic in the sport itself, not that one guy made them dope.
I think its good theyve come forward, though doubtless some people will still want to hang them from the rafters, theyre damned if they do and damned if they dont, when really they have nothing to gain personally from fessing up and its good for the sport.
> More importantly, has any more evidence of how Armstrong passed so many tests come to light? In particular stuff about the 2001 Swiss case ? Is there anything more than Landis's testimony ?
well yes, that basically the tests werent good enough to catch them, for a variety of reasons (no epo test, no test for blood transfusions, no whereabouts scheme, inability to catch microdosing, test evasion, saline dilution etc)
Hamilton also testified re TdS +ve test and the $100,000 donation and the meeting between LA and the UCI after the test are not in dispute.
I wonder whether the UCI will quietly drop their case against Kimmage?
> I wonder whether the UCI will quietly drop their case against Kimmage?
that wouldnt surprise me at all at this point, however they must have known the approximate contents of the reasoned decision for a while now, and could have dropped it already, but they havent. Theres no limit to their idiocy it would seem.
As a fellow contributor to the Kimmage fund, what would you want to see done with the money if the case is dropped btw? I reckon Kimmage should take out full page adverts in loads of papers confirming the allegations.
The Times and L'Equipe should however give him a page for nothing, since they have done nothing to back him to date (AFAIK).
Well, thats not really relevant to the topic.
The answer is that you cant "know", but you can look at power outputs, thresholds, blood values etc and form an opinion that their figures are within the realms of possibility without dopage.
No idea, but the sport (at the top) appears to have been dirty for it's entire existence. Why would it be clean now?
> I wonder whether the UCI will quietly drop their case against Kimmage?
Doubt it, they've just won a very similar case against Landis in the same court - though Landis claims he wasn't informed. Is there any reason why Kimmage shouldn't just ignore the proceedings ?
I know there is no question about whether the UCI accepted the donation, but McQuaid has established his defence - gross stupidity - pretty effectively. If Kimmage based his story simply on the allegations of Landis and Hamilton then I'm afraid he belongs in the Kelvin Mckenzie school of journalism.
This is going to have a serious effect on the chances of Wiggo winning SPOTY, because it just tarnishes the whole sport.
> Will I be able to get a refund on the Armstrong books that I bought?
> and the Floyd Landis one, come to think of it
i will take the lance books off you :-)
to me he is just another doper during a time of dopers.he still won whilst all the others took whatever as well.
Essentially, yes, but with reason.
As with any athlete in any sport you can never be sure. However with the recent performances of the pro tour (including team Sky) it can be shown that power outputs and recovery levels are way down (15% at least) on the Armstrong era, this combined with much more openness and better (although not fool proof) testing regimes, together with the general acceptance their now is to clean up the sport, I think (hope) we can be fairly sure of the performances.
Even so, there are clearly many more steps to be taken. The handling of Contadors case is a disgrace, with the Spanish CF clearing AC, and the laughable ban.
I think the treatment of Frank Schleck is a good example of how the sport is starting to come on. In the past the UCI may well have hidden such a minute positive in one of cycling's star riders.
I still think that a further step should be taken, and the national cycling federations need to be removed from the banning process. Thiw will prevent the situation we had with COntador, and would also mean swifter punishment of athletes (Frank S is still awaiting his hearing AKAIK)
The question is why is it only cycling that is going through this turmoil?
> This is going to have a serious effect on the chances of Wiggo winning SPOTY, because it just tarnishes the whole sport.
annoying but not really a big deal, SPOTY is it?
> i will take the lance books off you :-)
> to me he is just another doper during a time of dopers.he still won whilst all the others took whatever as well.
while true to an extent, I think you should read the full reasoned decision.
> I still think that a further step should be taken, and the national cycling federations need to be removed from the banning process. Thiw will prevent the situation we had with COntador, and would also mean swifter punishment of athletes (Frank S is still awaiting his hearing AKAIK)
> The question is why is it only cycling that is going through this turmoil?
This. Why are they involved inn terms of results management? OK USADA are doing a good job, but its open to corruption, they should manage the administration but the power to ban should rest with WADA.
Its only cycling because although doping has been rife in the sport, its the only one thats been "relatively" open to sorting it out.
Theres no testing in Golf at all I believe (or wasnt until very recently anyway), other sports are not that bothered either eg american football, soccer, tennis etc
Sure they pay lip service but thats it. Hence no footballers ever get caught, I do not believe this is because none of them use PEDs.
The USADA report states their scientific belief that LA could have ridden the 2009 and 2010 tours without drugs/doping as a million to one (quoting cyclingnews.com).
However what they are going on is the lack of impact of the tour on his blood values. So if they are stating that if you took a random sample of a million people, subjected them to a day in the TDF, and see who recovered the best, then would you really expect any of them to out - perform LA ?
If this sounds like I'm defending him then I'm not - I just think that we need to see how the other riders in the race compared to him in these same tests.
Its well known that blood values significantly reduce (or should) over the course of a grand tour. Presumably you are talking not about that but whether or not anyone else who was in those tours had a similar lack of impact on their blood values?
> The USADA report states their scientific belief that LA could have ridden the 2009 and 2010 tours without drugs/doping as a million to one (quoting cyclingnews.com).
> However what they are going on is the lack of impact of the tour on his blood values. So if they are stating that if you took a random sample of a million people, subjected them to a day in the TDF, and see who recovered the best, then would you really expect any of them to out - perform LA ?
> If this sounds like I'm defending him then I'm not - I just think that we need to see how the other riders in the race compared to him in these same tests.
That's not quite it. Their analysis of his bloods suggested that LA recovered (or rather declined) in an expected way for the first week of the tour, then that trend suddenly reversed in a way that they considered metabolically highly improbable, and more consistent with an intervention such as blood doping.
It's not so much that LA consistently recovered day-to-day in a manner that was ahead of expectations, and which might be matched by other tour riders, but that his recovery (to pre-tour plasma levels) was an overnight one.
Plus they also had his results from the 2009 Giro in which there was no sudden recovery - the decline in values continued throughout the race.
Page 140 of this explains it better:
Do you take the view that this report is irrelevant?
I bought, read and quite enjoyed It's Not About the Bike. Seems like quite an appropriate title, in retrospect.
I think this report is irrelevant to past results. Whether it will change things (the UCI) remains to be seen.
> As with any athlete in any sport you can never be sure. However with the recent performances of the pro tour (including team Sky) it can be shown that power outputs and recovery levels are way down (15% at least) on the Armstrong era
any hard data available?
> I think this report is irrelevant to past results. Whether it will change things (the UCI) remains to be seen.
its entirely relevant in my view precisely because I hope it will change things.
what would the chances be of things changing without it?
Did you miss 7 KOM wins for one of their star riders : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Virenque ??? (OK the 7th was when he was with Polti)
There's a few points I'm not clear about:
Why pursue Armstrong/US Postal now?
Is there a power struggle going on between USADA/WADA/UCI?
Is this an attempt to deflect calls for drug testing in other sports (the above mentioned golf, tennis, etc) I.e. let cycling continue to be the bad boy of sport?
Do USADA/WADA go further back in time and get the results of Hinault, Merckx and the rest overturned?
> any hard data available?
Don't think any teams release power or blood data. But there are a few people who analyse based on times and vertical metres climbed and so on. Try this:
1. It's not just armstrong, it's current team manager, doctors and people in the UCI who turned a blind eye or actively covered up positive results for Armstrong and postal.
2. WADA backs USADA, UCI wants to handle it becuase they want to brush it under the carpet.
3. No idea.
4. The older riders may all have taken various bits and bobs but nothing like EPO (it was a levelish playing field) and other oxygen boosting doping methods which would turn an average pro rider or say the 78kg George H into a mountain stage winner.
> Did you miss 7 KOM wins for one of their star riders : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Virenque ??? (OK the 7th was when he was with Polti)
3 different teams I think, and Polti was in the middle wasnt it?
I dont get the argument here, clearly lots of people doped, and team doping was endemic at that time, but that does not make this report irrelevant.
The UCI were able to move on with basically no changes after Festina. It was only a big deal in cycling really, but this thing with LA truly has the potential to cause lasting change.
And by lasting change I dont mean total elimination of doping, that has never been the case and never will be, I mean a significant step on from where we have been in the last 15-20 years.
When Wiggins came under attack by anonymous tweeters suggesting he doped at the start of this year’s Tour, Team Sky principal Dave Braislford immediately invited the tweeters to attend an autumn seminar in Manchester when they could ask any question of he and his team they wanted and examine any of the team data, so far he has had no takers
Plenty available on recent performances:
Stage 7 2012:
Stage 9 2012:
Older performance data is harder to come by, and I have seen, (but can't currently find) comparisons of performance outputs and race times between current figures and historic figures, particularly on climbs.
Will post later if I can find it.
"Or as Brian Robinson, Britain’s first Tour stage winner in 1958 said: “It was always going to be the case. Once the sport got cleaned up that was always going to be when Britain finally produced a winner.”
In darker times people were often pumping out high 6s on average on mountain stages.
'6.4 to 6.5 W/kg. Over 16 minutes, that's not at all unreasonable'
but then claims:
' sustained power output of above about 6.1 W/kg on the longer (40 min or more) climbs is not physiologically 'plausible'.
It is very easy to exceed 6w/kg for shorter periods due to the effects of oxygen debt.
What that is saying is 6w/kg is plausible for a period of 16mins, but not for a period of 40 mins. Surely that's not that hard to understand.
You should see Cav's figures for a 10s sprint
> '6.4 to 6.5 W/kg. Over 16 minutes, that's not at all unreasonable'
> but then claims:
> ' sustained power output of above about 6.1 W/kg on the longer (40 min or more) climbs is not physiologically 'plausible'.
that estimate may be slightly high given the time difference between him and Jani who was recorded at 5.8, but even so, as they point out its a short climb so not unreasonable in those circumstances.
Its stuff over 6wpk over a prolonged period that is an issue, such as a big mountain day climbing 2/ 3/ 4 major climbs/ passes, particularly on the last climb of such a day.
> Are Sky the Scientologists of Cycling? First G Thomas and his stupid endorsement of those BioFlow bracelets and now Dowsett:
I can understand why riders may think this sort of thing, based on the reality of life in the peloton at the time, but to come out with it publicly is something else altogether.
> oh dear.
> I can understand why riders may think this sort of thing, based on the reality of life in the peloton at the time, but to come out with it publicly is something else altogether.
Most sportsmen these days either don't know when to, or simply can't keep their gobs shut.
Yep, there was a very good Radio 4 programme this July that interviewed the (South African IIRC) scientist who had done the research. Google or the BBC search function might track it down for you. It's a regular programme on statistics on Sunday nights I think.
fair enough, thats not in dispute and is an obvious perspective.
if I was DB I wouldnt really want to be telling the whole peloton what my training data was though either.
My view on it is the same as it always has been, Im prepared to believe in most reasonable performances until someone shows me good reasons why I shouldnt. My view on SKY, based on the data available, is that their performances are reasonable within an historical and contemporary context.
In the case of LA, for years I rated him, although I didnt follow the sport as closely as I did before and since because it became a little dull, and I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. But more recently data, information generally and testimony has become more widely available via the internet, and that has enabled peoples opinion to be more informed and change as a result.
I think the mistake with believing in Lance was to assume that the improvements in performance were just that, compared to the 70s/80s (all sports improved considerably in the same period in terms of athletic ability), rather than drug related. They seemed in the beginning to be "possible" in contemporary context to me. I would admit though that I didnt know that they still couldnt be tested for EPO at the time, even post festina.
> Most sportsmen these days either don't know when to, or simply can't keep their gobs shut.
I think the UCI lost the chance to get a grip on organised, systematioc doping when they stood back and let the Gewiss team win pretty much all the Classics and GC stages.
It was clear they were all on something, somthing that was a step up from the rather shambolic team doping undertaken by PDM previously.
This was not a bit of cortisone and testosterone which had been usedin the 80's - it was the start fo team wide, medically supervised doping - a seismic shift in professional cycling (and possibly wider sport).
I also hope to see other sporting bodies looking at themselves inthe cold light of day.
I wonder how my "favourite" Spanish tennis player's knees are right now?
doubtless that will come back to bite me on the ass in 5 years time...
thats what the blood passports etc are aimed to catch. Its never going to be perfect but considering the "poorer" performance in this years tour de france etc there does seem to be a change.
Agreed - but the old 50% limit was a green light to dope, just make sure you're not Mr 51 when the testers call.
Interesting how the US forums are taking this. It's all strawmen and digs at Obama. Wierd.
In fact, some of the stuff on CNN and the Mail here ranks alongside Young Earth Creationism for denial in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Genius. The USADA conceded that he is phenomenal at taking drugs.
> Genius. The USADA conceded that he is phenomenal at taking drugs.
"[The tour] is just a cloud the colour of time"
What we need is a picture of JS on a US Postal Replica
I've got a job lot of yellow Livestrong wristbands if anyone is interested.
Only problem - the letter V is missing.
Thought this was interesting from a few days ago: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lemond-armstrong-has-been-trying-to-destroy-me-for-10-years
do they come with a handy pill container for those vitamins on the run?
> do they come with a handy pill container for those vitamins on the run?
according to the report Mrs K Armstrong is on hand to dispense what is necessary in tin foil wrappers, so this would be an example of over engineering.
"If it seems too good to be true, it probably is"
Today Lance Armstrong, tomorrow Usain Bolt.
Sad really, I hope Bradley never turns out to have taken anything. Although the dominance of the british cycling team at the olympics might fall under the saying above.
i thought i saw an article saying at least one race organiser was thinking of trying to reclaim the money but cant remember where.
It wouldnt be that difficult for the organisers to change the terms of entry to include forfeiting the prize if you get caught in x years after plus pay interest. Of course chances of actually getting the money back after a accountant has played games is slim but being made bankrupt etc could have some threat value.
Forgetting the facts about Sky / British Cycling (which are somehow both "believable" and "too good to be true"), I think there are two strong facts which stand in the favour of Wiggins' win this year
- 1) he didn't really do anything very special - it was a very boring tour. He wasn't like Lance or Miguel, riding away from the climbers whilst still in the seat etc; his time trials were good, but not unbelievably so. He even had a few "bad" (not awful) days. It all came down to team work and very good stragey. His team were just very David Brailsford - perfectly organised with a singlular purpose.
- 2), the tour was set up for him - the organisers know what they're doing - it's all about the marketing and the future income. Lay out a route that a Brit wins, and then (on the back of Cav's success as WC, and the previous effects of Beijing track etc, so that people are actually watching and following the tour in the UK) suddenly you have a growth cycling market worth billions - and the UK market is everything at the moment, just as it was in US a few years' ago. Look at the Giro route for next year - set up for Wiggo to come along and bring 500,000+ cycling fans to Italian cycling and Italian holidays etc.
And, if in 10 years' time it comes out that Sky were the inventors of the world's newest undectable PED, then fair enough - they fooled me - , but unlike Festina, Cofidis, USPS etc, they have enough failures to suggest that it isn't true.
I'm not sure it would take a genius to create a case that ANY cycling team doing well is doping given the current environment. The real test is creating one that is backed up by hard evidence.
The impression I got from Kimmage wasn't that he thought that Sky were doping, but that they weren't doing enough to encourage transparency. I don't think he's unrealistic enough to expect all teams to do without staff formerly connected to doping, but I think he's asking Dave Brailsford to be clearer with the public about things like Leinders.
That said, I feel uneasy about Sky's lack of comment about Michael Barry's involvement.
Indeed you're right. Must have missed it in my frenzy to read everything else on hte subject.
Brailsford is a gem:
"During his time at Team Sky, we have had absolutely no cause for concern whatsoever, there has never been any question in terms of his performances, his training, his behaviour on the team. There have never been any issues in that respect. But ultimately he lied....
"When you take someone you ask them a question and if someone lies to you and you find out later it's disappointing."
I enjoyed this one,
"It's pretty damning stuff. It is jaw-dropping the amount of people who have testified against him," said Wiggins.
That would be truely shocking if true... And I would suggest a reason for the other Schleck to leave as soon as possible.
Interesting that he was also managing Contador for his wins... continuing the legacy from US Postal?
> Interesting that he was also managing Contador for his wins... continuing the legacy from US Postal?
But not the year he was caught doping
Landis claims JB tipped off the testers to ensure his sample was sent to the one lab that could detect it - a far fetched tale that is becoming more and more plausible by the day.
But doping one of your own team .......
Elsewhere on the site
F ounded in 1993, Mountain Hardwear are a pretty young mountaineering clothing and equipment manufacturer but are also one of... Read more
Tonight's Friday Night Video features the Norwegian town of Rjukan, once believed to be the home of the world's tallest... Read more
Perhaps the perfect Xmas gift for the climber in your life... Wild Country's Crack School has two of the worlds best crack... Read more
With four photos in this week's top ten, and a UKC gallery of stunning images we thought it was time we had a chat with... Read more
Rock shoes stink – let’s face it. Boot Bananas are the perfect way to fight the funk and keep them fresh. They help... Read more