/ Stuart O'Grady ; Admits doping
You can't be serious?
I just don't get this how people lynch lance as they want him to be guilty, yet excuse others.. doping is doping.
No doubt he won't get sued to get back his winnings.. send back his medals.. the lack of consistency is a joke..
Indeed, he claimed he did it just to survive, but did much more than survive.
However it must be put in the context of riders being under pressure from their teams to get results whilst it being common knowledge that EPO was undetectable.
This article by Vaughters, which we now know was an allusion to doping, was written in 99.
He's come out now because he was about to be exposed.. but his whole life was based on a fraud..
I don't see that admitting to doping once in 1998 and then stopping is exactly 'his whole life' being 'based on a fraud'.
To say nothing of 'seven-year campaign of industrial-scale doping' against 'isolated incident in 20-year career'.
I'm not sure what Iain's game is here. It's pretty obvious.
To get EPO benefit you use it over time.. you also need medical support so I'd hazard a guess he's lying.. you are talking arund $25,000 for a season on the stuff according to a top runner I know.
I'd guess his team were involved.
In that year he had great success assisted by drugs...
To suddenly believe he was clean afterwards is just so so strange it is incomprehendable. Look at Lance's test results?
So he was a top cyclist in an era dominated by drugs.. in which almost all competitors were serial dopers...
And you think he maintained the same level that he did on EPO when he was off it..
EPO works.. its why people dope.. so when someone maintains a similar level after doping.. it is highly suspicious.
'In that year he had great success'.
'you think he maintained the same level that he did on EPO when he was off it'.
Well, which is it?
Fine, you're suspicious. but it's pretty obvious what the differences are between Armstrong and at any rate the public story with SO'G.
Incidentally, it seems to me that the probe which has brought this out rather gives the lie to the notion that everyone was at it. They've named 83 Tour riders that year whose retests are suspicious; presumably that means 115 weren't. Or don't they have samples for everyone? Without knowing what proportion 83 riders is, it's hard to assign much meaning to that figure.
So unless he suddenly realised he could be as fit off EPO as on.. and turned the world of PED's on its head.. I'd be very very suspicious he was clean.
And why is this probe only retesting the 1998 Tour? Presumably they can retest other Tours? Have they done that? With what result? If they haven't, presumably they will in the future, and if Iain is right SO'G is going to look a bit of a fool. And if they have already, presumably SO'G wasn't also suspicious in those tests - or is there some reason we aren't hearing about those?
Look at the list of winners of stages and the Tour... he was clean who wasn't....
And I can't believe you put so much faith in clean results.. come on you are smarter than that. Lance was tested and came out clean in 99.9% of tests.. it is perfectly obvious that testing was not rigorous or accurate enough to mean a clear result meant they did not dope...
All it did was confirmed when they did... all these results showed were suspicians...
Sure, but they didn't have an EPO test then and now they do. Isn't that right? At the very least whatever test they now do has shown up whatever SO'G (and LA) were doing in 1998. Is there an idea that the rest of the bunch were on stuff less effective but presently less detectable?
You don't do EPO in isolation. I know a banned runner and that was there excuse.. and its not something you do one off.. without a huge amount of medical support as the chance of death is pretty high.. during that time a fair few cyclists were found dead from using it...
And incidentally and off-topic, Iain, allow me to offer my commiserations on MU losing to a Japanese pub team, following their unlucky loss earlier in pre-season to a Thai beach XI....
Well what is it that now enables this probe to say there were 83 'suspicious'/'positive' results by retro-testing when they couldn't in 1998?
Really? I was going to post that this might be up for a "No shit Sherlock award."
Where there any others?
He reckons he proved you can do the tour clean..
I wondered why lots of them had their hair bleached blonde back in the late 90's.
Yes, I know that FFS.
My point is that according to this report
the authorities reckon they have 83 'positive'/'suspicious' retests from 1998.
My questions are; (i) does that mean they're retested all 198 riders and only found 83 EPOs? and (ii) have they done other Tours also and if so with what result?
Someone must know who takes a more informed interest than me - Enty?
> I wondered why lots of them had their hair bleached blonde back in the late 90's.
Why's that, then?
> the authorities reckon they have 83 'positive'/'suspicious' retests from 1998.
> My questions are; (i) does that mean they're retested all 198 riders and only found 83 EPOs? and (ii) have they done other Tours also and if so with what result?
Well 98 was the Festina Affair Tour. Laurent Jalabert from the Once team was retrospectively busted for 98 in 2004. (Once were managed by Manolo saiz)
I think there was a dip in the 99 tour because the 98 affair shook everyone up......for a short while. Remember Willy Voets got jail.
> Why's that, then?
Didn't hey take hair samples too back then? Might be me making things up but Virenque bleached his hair too one year.
This report from Cycling News said they relied on testimony from 83 sportsmen and officials (I believe they looked into other sports as well, not just cycling) and identified 18 positive riders from the 1998 TdF and 12 suspicious riders.
Still just 1998, though. Is there any reason they couldn't do other Tours as well in future? If so then SO'G's taking a bit of a risk limiting his confession to just one year, isn't he?
It's an interesting question why they don't strip Pantani, Riis, Ullrich (if he won one), etc of their Tour wins. Riis at least has admitted it, hasn't he? Why Armstrong and not Riis? Anyone know?
> And why is this probe only retesting the 1998 Tour? Presumably they can retest other Tours? Have they done that? With what result? If they haven't, presumably they will in the future, and if Iain is right SO'G is going to look a bit of a fool. And if they have already, presumably SO'G wasn't also suspicious in those tests - or is there some reason we aren't hearing about those?
98 was the year of the Festina doping scandal, that may have something to do with it.
it looks like they systematically tested the stage winner, then tried (but often failed) to test numbers 2 and 3 and 2 other randoms and didn't test any of the jersey wearers. So to find 18 positives and 12 suspicious is actually a pretty high percentage.
> OK, thanks.
> Still just 1998, though. Is there any reason they couldn't do other Tours as well in future? If so then SO'G's taking a bit of a risk limiting his confession to just one year, isn't he?
> It's an interesting question why they don't strip Pantani, Riis, Ullrich (if he won one), etc of their Tour wins. Riis at least has admitted it, hasn't he? Why Armstrong and not Riis? Anyone know?
2 reason why no-one can be sanctioned as a result of these test - 8 year statute of limitations and all the B samples were destroyed years ago.
I'm guessing samples from other years have also been destroyed - maybe the only reason the 1998 ones remained were due to criminal investigations that year.
Pat McQuaid did say that Pantani should be stripped of his title, but backtracked when most felt this was insensitive.
As to Riis - it is a bit odd that he is allowed to manage a world tour team (Saxo) whereas Armstrong is banned from everything.
>2 reason why no-one can be sanctioned as a result of these test - 8 year statute of limitations and all the B samples were destroyed years ago
But that must be true of Armstrong, too.
Anyway, what 8-year statute of limitations is this?
The WADA code has an 8 year statute of limitations. USADA argued that this didn't apply in the case of Armstrong because he "fraudulently concealed" his doping by lying under oath (when he sued SCA Promotions for his Tour winner bonus).
Lots of legal debate over whether that is a valid argument, but since Armstrong didn't appeal it wasn't tested.
Armstrong was not caught by testing, but by witness testimony which he chose not to contest.
As to the 8 year rule, I believe it's something I read in relation to this matter but god knows where, maybe it just applies to drug testing.
Don't mix up missing data with missed tests
Seems strange to lose so many? How do they get missed?
Not sure how long the actual EPO will remain for.
But red blood cell lifespan? well it takes 7 days for it to develop.. the 100 days lifespan..
EPO or Cortisone ?
I read that they have now acknowledged 4 failed tests for cortisone in 1999, all covered by the TUE which was back-dated and a sham anyway.
> Still just 1998, though. Is there any reason they couldn't do other Tours as well in future?
The results came out of a French senate committee enquiry into how to improve anti-doping controls. The 1998 samples happen to have been re-tested with an EPO test (which didn't exist in 1998) in 2004 as part of a research project. The results were submitted to the committee as evidence in their inquiry and that evidence has now been published.
So this isn't a systematic retesting of past samples, it is just some results that were sitting in someone's filing cabinet that the Senate committee got hold of. I don't know if they still have samples from other Tours around that time, but I believe the current practice is to keep samples so that they can be retested (e.g. when there is a valid test for AICAR).
I think "missed" covers a number of sins. In Boardman's case, for example, the report says the samples were too degraded to be tested.
See this report from 2005 on the restesting of the 1998 and 1999 samples. I wonder why the 1999 samples weren't also submitted to the Senate?
Elsewhere on the site
At a bar in Llanberis an old man chimed in And I thought he was out of his head Being a young man I just laughed it off When... Read more