Road Cycling · Public discussion

Guatemala goes for a record

Bob Schwartz · 2005-01-01T02:33:46+00:00

One of the things that surprised me when Dewey Dickey came up positive at the Vuelta a Guatemala a few years back was the total number of doping infractions. I think it was 6 total, out of about 60 finishers. Although you can come up positive and not finish, I suppose. But seemed pretty high for such a small national tour. The number of positives is especially high given the amount of testing. The CAS decision mentioned a total of 52 tests. If you consider that some riders are represented by multiple tests that means their hit rate was pretty high, somewhere around 12-20%. And that a lot of guys were on the juice in spite of the testing. Well, this year they came up with 9 positives out of 100 starters, 60 finishers. This is crazy. It's like these guys are so intent on doping that the presence of testing doesn't mean anything. Ref: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/jan05/jan01news Dickey's CAS decision: http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/resources/press_releases/PressRelease_8_30_2002_c.pdf Bob Schwartz [email hidden]

Started by Bob Schwartz · 1 January 2005 · Last activity 13 January 2005 · 11 posts · 467 views

← Back to Road Cycling

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postGuatemala goes for a recordBob Schwartz · 1 Jan 2005 02 / This pagePosts 1–11Page 1 of 1 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #11Bob Schwartz · 13 Jan 2005

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section: Road Cycling
Published: 1 January 2005
Last activity: 13 January 2005
Original author: Bob Schwartz
Posts: 11
Discussion status: Public discussion
Total views: 467
Views / 30 days: 0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Original post
Bob Schwartz
Archived post

1 January 2005, 02:33 UTC #1

One of the things that surprised me when Dewey
Dickey came up positive at the Vuelta a
Guatemala a few years back was the total
number of doping infractions. I think it was
6 total, out of about 60 finishers. Although
you can come up positive and not finish, I
suppose. But seemed pretty high for such a
small national tour.
The number of positives is especially high
given the amount of testing. The CAS decision
mentioned a total of 52 tests. If you consider
that some riders are represented by multiple
tests that means their hit rate was pretty
high, somewhere around 12-20%. And that a lot
of guys were on the juice in spite of the
testing.
Well, this year they came up with 9 positives
out of 100 starters, 60 finishers. This is
crazy. It's like these guys are so intent on
doping that the presence of testing doesn't
mean anything.
Ref:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/jan05/jan01news
Dickey's CAS decision:
http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/resources/press_releases/PressRelease_8_30_2002_c.pdf
Bob Schwartz
[email hidden]

Report
Carl Sundquist
Archived post

1 January 2005, 02:39 UTC #2

"Bob Schwartz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
Quoted message said:

Well, this year they came up with 9 positives
out of 100 starters, 60 finishers. This is
crazy. It's like these guys are so intent on
doping that the presence of testing doesn't
mean anything.
It appears doping is inversely proportional to suspension enforcement. Look
at the publicity in Guatemala and also what [didn't] happened in Colombia
after the Olys.

Report
B. Lafferty
Archived post

1 January 2005, 13:50 UTC #3

"Bob Schwartz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
One of the things that surprised me when Dewey
Dickey came up positive at the Vuelta a
Guatemala a few years back was the total
number of doping infractions. I think it was
6 total, out of about 60 finishers. Although
you can come up positive and not finish, I
suppose. But seemed pretty high for such a
small national tour.
The number of positives is especially high
given the amount of testing. The CAS decision
mentioned a total of 52 tests. If you consider
that some riders are represented by multiple
tests that means their hit rate was pretty
high, somewhere around 12-20%. And that a lot
of guys were on the juice in spite of the
testing.
Well, this year they came up with 9 positives
out of 100 starters, 60 finishers. This is
crazy. It's like these guys are so intent on
doping that the presence of testing doesn't
mean anything.
Ref:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/jan05/jan01news
Dickey's CAS decision:
http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/resources/press_releases/PressRelease_8_30_2002_c.pdf
Bob Schwartz
[email hidden]
One can only conclude that there are significant renal problems in the
South/Central American peloton requiring the use of EPO. Res Ipsa Loquitur.
;-)

Report
Fred Marx
Archived post

1 January 2005, 18:51 UTC #4

Bob Schwartz said:
One of the things that surprised me when Dewey
Dickey came up positive at the Vuelta a
Guatemala a few years back was the total
number of doping infractions. I think it was
6 total, out of about 60 finishers. Although
you can come up positive and not finish, I
suppose. But seemed pretty high for such a
small national tour.
The number of positives is especially high
given the amount of testing. The CAS decision
mentioned a total of 52 tests. If you consider
that some riders are represented by multiple
tests that means their hit rate was pretty
high, somewhere around 12-20%. And that a lot
of guys were on the juice in spite of the
testing.
Well, this year they came up with 9 positives
out of 100 starters, 60 finishers. This is
crazy. It's like these guys are so intent on
doping that the presence of testing doesn't
mean anything.
Ref:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/jan05/jan01news
Dickey's CAS decision:
http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/resources/press_releases/PressRelease_8_30_2002_c.pdf
Bob Schwartz
[email hidden]

note in the cyclingnews piece, the entire podium tested positive.......

Report
B. Lafferty
Archived post

1 January 2005, 20:22 UTC #5

"Fred Marx" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
note in the cyclingnews piece, the entire podium tested positive.......
I wonder how may other podiums have been all positive, but did not test
positive.

Report
Steve
Archived post

1 January 2005, 22:09 UTC #6

On 1/1/05 12:22 PM, in article
[email hidden], "B. Lafferty"
Quoted message said:

"Fred Marx" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
note in the cyclingnews piece, the entire podium tested positive.......
I wonder how may other podiums have been all positive, but did not test
positive.
If they are all doped up wouldn't that make it a level playing field???

Report
Tom Kunich
Archived post

1 January 2005, 23:44 UTC #7

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
On 1/1/05 12:22 PM, in article
[email hidden], "B. Lafferty"
Quoted message said:

"Fred Marx" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
> note in the cyclingnews piece, the entire podium tested positive.......
I wonder how may other podiums have been all positive, but did not test
positive.
If they are all doped up wouldn't that make it a level playing field???
He fifth place guy was clean.

Report
Matt C
Archived post

2 January 2005, 01:07 UTC #8

Negative = Clean?
"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
On 1/1/05 12:22 PM, in article
[email hidden], "B. Lafferty"
Quoted message said:

"Fred Marx" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>> note in the cyclingnews piece, the entire podium tested
>> positive.......
I wonder how may other podiums have been all positive, but did not test
positive.
If they are all doped up wouldn't that make it a level playing field???
He fifth place guy was clean.

Report
Bob Schwartz
Archived post

2 January 2005, 04:10 UTC #9

Matt C said:
Negative = Clean?
More likely the 5th place guy wasn't tested. He finished
well in all the challenging stages, but never won. If
the testing schedule is the same as when Dickey raced,
there were 52 tests over what I believe were 13 stages
that year. Or 4 tests/stage.
Does that mean they take the daily podium + 1 random? Or
the stage winner + jersey wearers + randoms in case the
winner is also wearing a jersey? I dunno. But they surely
didn't test everyone.
Bob Schwartz
[email hidden]

Report
Tom Kunich
Archived post

2 January 2005, 17:00 UTC #10

"Matt C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news😄PHBd.67971$QR1.60094@fed1read04...
Quoted message said:
Negative = Clean?
Are you saying that negative means dirty?

Report
Bob Schwartz
Archived post

13 January 2005, 16:06 UTC #11

Carl Sundquist said:
"Bob Schwartz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
Quoted message said:

Well, this year they came up with 9 positives
out of 100 starters, 60 finishers. This is
crazy. It's like these guys are so intent on
doping that the presence of testing doesn't
mean anything.
Quoted message said:
It appears doping is inversely proportional to suspension enforcement. Look
at the publicity in Guatemala and also what [didn't] happened in Colombia
after the Olys.
Indeed, this appears to be the case. Cyclingnews reported the infractions
as being "mainly for EPO and testosterone". As for the sanctions...
From http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/jan05/jan13news
" Guatemalan coach suspended for life
Guatemalan coach Augusto Bony P?rez has been given a life suspension
by the disciplinary commission of the Guatemalan cycling federation
after two of his riders, Nery Vel?squez and Abel Jochol?, tested
positive for EPO in last year's Vuelta a Guatemala. Another coach,
Fernando Pineda, was given a one year ban after his role in coaching
Lisandro Ajc? and David Calanche, who also tested positive.
The riders themselves were given comparatively light suspensions.
Ajc? and Vel?squez were suspended for six months, Jochol? a year, and
Calanche for two months for their transgressions. All riders were
disqualified from their final GC placings in the Tour. "
Imagine coming up +++ for EPO on three separate stages like Ajc? did
and only getting six months. You'd never see that in Belgium!
Bob Schwartz
[email hidden]

Report

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.

Jump through the discussion

What we know about this thread

Continue through CyclingForums

Active in this thread