UCI Has Got Doping Under Control.

Gregers said:

Well, that's what they would have the gullible public believe. But this has what Jaksche had to say about it in a German interview.
'He also denied that all the "loopholes" have been closed, and that the testing now can catch anything. "There are still lots of possibilities to cheat, without anybody proving it. Transfusion with your own blood, growth hormones, artificial haemoglobin. Right now you have to say: Only the dumb ones get caught. Or the poor ones, who can't afford the expensive doping."
Michael Johnson, in his Telegraph column today, conceded that the situation in Athletics is much the same. He admitted that in light of the Marion Jones case and others, passing drugs tests has very little meaning. He also said that he understands why people suspect stellar performers like himself-an insight that seemingly evades many leading cyclists who routinely resent any such aspersions.

You left out the best part. Only 20 out of a scheduled 500 out of competition tests have been performed. 😠 With Kessler and Kash that makes a 10% hit rate. Has anyone else been snared by an OOC test this year?

They should have used some of that OOC budget to test every rider, or maybe all the riders in the top fifty, at the Tour for testosterone using the IRMS test in between two mountain stages.

Bro Deal said:

You left out the best part. Only 20 out of a scheduled 500 out of competition tests have been performed. 😠 With Kessler and Kash that makes a 10% hit rate. Has anyone else been snared by an OOC test this year?

They should have used some of that OOC budget to test every rider, or maybe all the riders in the top fifty, at the Tour for testosterone using the IRMS test in between two mountain stages.

The question for me is: Are they intent on maximizing their clout to attempt to rid the sport of doping as much as is possible? Or are we still in the past with the goal of appearing to the public like they are doing the above, but in reality, letting as much as they want to be swept under the carpet.

I fear that they may end up just targetting dopers they don't like and letting off others they like as winners for the sport. Not that that's ever happened in the past.🙄

Crankyfeet said:

The question for me is: Are they intent on maximizing their clout to attempt to rid the sport of doping as much as is possible? Or are we still in the past with the goal of appearing to the public like they are doing the above, but in reality, letting as much as they want to be swept under the carpet.

I fear that they may end up just targetting dopers they don't like and letting off others they like as winners for the sport. Not that that's ever happened in the past.🙄

I had hopes that with Gripper in charge things might have changed, but it does not look like it anymore. It seems that they may be targeting the most outrageously obvious dopers as scapegoats. Favoritism cannot be dismissed. We know there was some funny stuff with Armstrong and the UCI.

Bro Deal said:

I had hopes that with Gripper in charge things might have changed, but it does not look like it anymore. It seems that they may be targeting the most outrageously obvious dopers as scapegoats. Favoritism cannot be dismissed. We know there was some funny stuff with Armstrong and the UCI.

And anyone under the age of 27 (the new breed of cyclists) seems to be getting favoravble treatment on the basis that even if UCI knows they're doping, UCI feels that they have time to "mould" them into cycling choir boys. At least give them a chance to change their ways.

Bro Deal said:

I had hopes that with Gripper in charge things might have changed, but it does not look like it anymore. It seems that they may be targeting the most outrageously obvious dopers as scapegoats. Favoritism cannot be dismissed. We know there was some funny stuff with Armstrong and the UCI.

Maybe, but they weren't catching them when they weren't target testing. What ever they are doing now is better than what they were doing before.

classic1 said:

Maybe, but they weren't catching them when they weren't target testing. What ever they are doing now is better than what they were doing before.

On the basis that something is better than nothing, you are correct. The real question, however, is are they doing enough? I think we all know the answer to that one.

Gregers said:

Well, that's what they would have the gullible public believe. But this has what Jaksche had to say about it in a German interview.
'He also denied that all the "loopholes" have been closed, and that the testing now can catch anything. "There are still lots of possibilities to cheat, without anybody proving it. Transfusion with your own blood, growth hormones, artificial haemoglobin. Right now you have to say: Only the dumb ones get caught. Or the poor ones, who can't afford the expensive doping."
Michael Johnson, in his Telegraph column today, conceded that the situation in Athletics is much the same. He admitted that in light of the Marion Jones case and others, passing drugs tests has very little meaning. He also said that he understands why people suspect stellar performers like himself-an insight that seemingly evades many leading cyclists who routinely resent any such aspersions.

[font=Verdana]This months CycleSport magazine has an interview with Anne Griper who is the UCI's dopoligist. She describe their method for going after Vino and Kash..... it all made perfect sense and she said they can usually tell by race programmes and performances who is doping in preparation for the Tour... my only concern is they chose the riders they go after..... ie they chose not to go after Contador sighting that they believe his clean.... now if they did test like they tested Vino and Kash maybe they would nab him ? not sure... thoughts ? The issue is the blood tests which are out of competition….. this is what gets the riders…… [/font][font=Verdana][/font]

And I have my bowels under control unless I have the s**ts.

whiteboytrash said:

[font=Verdana]This months CycleSport magazine has an interview with Anne Griper who is the UCI's dopoligist. She describe their method for going after Vino and Kash..... it all made perfect sense and she said they can usually tell by race programmes and performances who is doping in preparation for the Tour... my only concern is they chose the riders they go after..... ie they chose not to go after Contador sighting that they believe his clean.... now if they did test like they tested Vino and Kash maybe they would nab him ? not sure... thoughts ? The issue is the blood tests which are out of competition….. this is what gets the riders…… [/font]

Valid point you raise. They shouldn't be testing those they suspect but all the top riders. What next? They call up Brunyeel and ask him to look in Contadoper's eyes and that will suffice in place of target testing? She does however state that they haven't done very much out of comp testing as most of the riders are in comp.

Victor Conte (who should know) is adamant that the top 50 and all race winners should be consistently tested all year round. That way you will catch the big names rather than pack fodder. But I suspect that the UCI would not be all that keen to knock out all the big names because of the short term PR fallout. And short term is about the only timescale that they operate in.

whiteboytrash said:

[font=Verdana]This months CycleSport magazine has an interview with Anne Griper who is the UCI's dopoligist. She describe their method for going after Vino and Kash..... it all made perfect sense and she said they can usually tell by race programmes and performances who is doping in preparation for the Tour... my only concern is they chose the riders they go after..... ie they chose not to go after Contador sighting that they believe his clean.... now if they did test like they tested Vino and Kash maybe they would nab him ? not sure... thoughts ? The issue is the blood tests which are out of competition….. this is what gets the riders…… [/font][font=Verdana][/font]

wtf re: Contador.

Surely not.

Did not Bob Stapleton (Tmob) ask Gripper about GC riders, and were there any who were not evading tests and had values under control. She said no.

So what changed re: Contador. Why is he this years Armstrong.

Gregers said:

Victor Conte (who should know) is adamant that the top 50 and all race winners should be consistently tested all year round. That way you will catch the big names rather than pack fodder. But I suspect that the UCI would not be all that keen to knock out all the big names because of the short term PR fallout. And short term is about the only timescale that they operate in.

right, who cares about 500 of the 550 odd PT riders.

Lets just test the winners, and test them everyday, for the entire year. If you stop the winners doing the worst type of doping, then it will be the catalyst, and no one else will need to use dope just to stay with the pack.

Who cares if a domestique dopes. No one. The only concern is stopping the winners doping. Once the winners change their habits, then no team manager will consent to a domestique doping and bringing irrepairable PR damage to his team.

test them 300 times a year. Test them every stage during the Tour. Assign a Tour doctor and security attache to follow them, no insulin, no IGF-1, no HGH, no artificial hemaglobin, no blood transfusions, no micro-dosing.

You can do it. If the political will exists.

Thing about it is, there will be twice the money in the sport, if it could clean up its act.

This is the reason why it could happen.

1. GT's can provide a structure for supervision. Yes, there can be Orwell and big brother.

2. GT's are won on recovery abilities, these abilities have been neutralised with the advent of ONCE/CSC/Disco type doping programs with all the insulin, IGF-1 testosterone, HGH, EPO/blood. Recovery variable can be reinstituted with a big brother surveillance.

3. Although doping out of competition is almost as important as recovery doping in the GT performance function, if the teams culture changes, and riders are tested every day OOC, then riders like Rasmussen and Armstrong will no longer be welcome. Besides mitigating the worst doping with OOC, with other options existing they could still use. But if the culture changes, the ASO will not invite the teams, even if they consent to the Armstrong and Rasmussen model.

It is just too difficult for McQuaid. They do not wish to tackle it. Neither Prudhomme, Clerc, et al at Amaury, ASO.

whiteboytrash said:

[font=Verdana]This months CycleSport magazine has an interview with Anne Griper who is the UCI's dopoligist. She describe their method for going after Vino and Kash..... it all made perfect sense and she said they can usually tell by race programmes and performances who is doping in preparation for the Tour... my only concern is they chose the riders they go after..... ie they chose not to go after Contador sighting that they believe his clean.... now if they did test like they tested Vino and Kash maybe they would nab him ? not sure... thoughts ? The issue is the blood tests which are out of competition….. this is what gets the riders…… [/font][font=Verdana][/font]

The irony about the Astana situation, is they created a worse beast for themselves. They gave Bruyneel another team to step into and wield his wicked ways.

Bruyneel and the 3 Spanish docs.

Nike Bloodbag Dope Apologist
Conspiracy Adidas Hedge Fund
Ulrich Armstrong Shama Lamma Lamma Ding Dong

Just fondly remembring the days of He who must not be named.

thoughtforfood said:

Nike Bloodbag Dope Apologist
Conspiracy Adidas Hedge Fund
Ulrich Armstrong Shama Lamma Lamma Ding Dong

Just fondly remembring the days of He who must not be named.

Oh no, it's contagious and it got YOU!! Everyone RUN!!!

But that 'Shamma Lamma Lamma Ding Dong' guy was just crazy fast. 😄

woooshhka.........

thoughtforfood said:

Nike Bloodbag Dope Apologist
Conspiracy Adidas Hedge Fund
Ulrich Armstrong Shama Lamma Lamma Ding Dong

Just fondly remembring the days of He who must not be named.

I never understood the economics part of it.

I was disturbed when I saw how many out of competition tests the UCI has run in the past few months. Clearly not enough. I also don't know why they are saving them for the offseason unless they think that is when everybody is doing the steroids and will be caught. If that is the case, I don't know why they announced the number of offseason tests.

The UCI is not serious. Otherwise, they would have collected DNA for the Puerto tests. I think Anne Gripper is sincere but she is stuck in an organization that really does not want her to succeed.

It's "Shamma Lamma Ding DOG".
Get it right!

whiteboytrash said:

[font=Verdana]This months CycleSport magazine has an interview with Anne Griper who is the UCI's dopoligist. She describe their method for going after Vino and Kash..... it all made perfect sense and she said they can usually tell by race programmes and performances who is doping in preparation for the Tour... my only concern is they chose the riders they go after..... ie they chose not to go after Contador sighting that they believe his clean.... now if they did test like they tested Vino and Kash maybe they would nab him ? not sure... thoughts ? The issue is the blood tests which are out of competition….. this is what gets the riders…… [/font][font=Verdana][/font]

The Gripper interview was very interesting nonetheless.
her background is interesting - as she hadn't set out to be dopemeister initially.

Her views on Vino and the MIB's (men in black) were very incisive.