linnega

Right, time to move on from the lab debate, because clearly you believe there was some valid basis for the work done by Vrijmen. My contention is simple the basis of the report was flawed and he certainly did not act like an independant investigator (he never investigated the UCI involvement - Verbruggen actually handed over the signed test cards to l'Equipe if you remember). There have been a few from the scientific community that have theorised that it is possible that cortisone metabolises somehow to testosterone and that is what caused the positive test. The argument against the value of the "exogenous" test largely rests with the belief that the test is unreliable. It does still seem to have the majority support in the medical community, as does the contention that testosterone levels were affected by other factors. But as you say, this is all irrelevant until it is proven in some sort of hearing or arbitration which will only happen next year. There is a lot of noise about the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", but the reason those that test positive are treated as pariahs is simply because in 99.9% of cases they are found guilty. Personally, I believe the riders have created a community that is not trusted by the general public and so they are rightly viewed with skepticism. Until there is some level of transparency they will always be treated as guilty unless they can demonstrate their innocence. Perhaps if Floyd is innocent, his treatment would be different if he had been open and honest about his knowledge of teammates that were using a variety of drugs. It is worrying that the three current holders of the Grand Tours (Basso,Landis/Periero,inokourov) are all conspicious in their failure to take a stand on the drugs issue. That breeds suspicion in the mind of the public. On the value of testosterone, it is widely believed in the peloton that there is benefit for short term recovery. Whether this is scientifically valid has no real impact on the riders who often revert to old wives tales and tradition, rather than science. Personally, I don't think Floyd ingested or took a patch. I believe he was on a comprehensive doping program and in the madness that happened following his spectacular blow-out on La Tousuirre, he missed a step in the program and got caught out. It would seem that the same happened with Hamilton and Heras. Armstrong, I believe was too meticulous. If he had an inkling that his urine samples would be tested for EPO 6 years after the 1999 race, I bet he would have taken adequate precautions. It is interesting the view you have on l'Equipe - it is pretty common. I agree they have a torch to burn with Armstrong, but I don't believe that makes them lesser journalists - it just means they had more material to work with when it came to LA. Perhaps you should discuss l'Equipe with a few French speaking readers to understand what the newspaper is about and how good a publication it is.

I am not sure that you could by any stretch of the imagination classify l'Equipe as lopsided or sensational. Perhaps Paul Kimmage's comments may be considered such, but l'Equipe has a full time dedicated team that solely focuses on the issue of drugs in sport. It is not limited to cycling. In terms of balanced, in-depth reporting, I would say that l'Equipe is way ahead of any publication anywhere in the world - certainly daily publications. As for WADA or Chatenay-Malabry, I believe they have done exceptionally well in handling of doping cases (the LA case was not a doping case). The incidence of false-negatives are incredibly low and have generally been the result of tests being badly designed (and poorly performed in 3rd world countries like ours). They have been able to defend cases against Landis and Heras, who both spent a fortune on the best lawyers around.

I suppose the whole debate about the Vrijmen report underlines exactly why it was a waste of money. I understand the mandate - my point is that the mandate was wrong. The only issues that needed attention were - was there EPO in LA's blood (DNA test would resolve this) and, if so, how could it be explained (given that there is a possibility that the sample was tampered with and that we don't know if frozen blood is useable). On trial by media, I would go as far as to say that is fundamental to a democratic society particularly in a sport with a history of deception. Without the media bringing issues to light there would not even be drug testing.

The point is the protocol is there to protect the athletes and maintain a chain of evidence. That is a legal process and has nothing to do with science. Scientific integrity is about proving/disproving an objective. Since the objective was not to convict an athlete, there was no need to follow any legal protocols, nor to maintain the chain of evidence. It was irrelevant. WADA accredited agencies have strict guidelines and protocols for performing WADA accredited fucntions - since this process was not such a function, the WADA protocol is irrelevant. I don't quite understand what your argument is when you say they could be "in the wrong" and the "report is about the integrity of the lab". The report is flawed because it attempts to align a scientific process with irrelevant legalistic protocols that were not followed. You simply can't test the validity of a process against a framework that was not used and is irrelevant to the tests that were being performed. The conclusions that should be drawn is that the process followed is not adequate to take further action against LA (as it was never intended to be used for that purpose), that there is a possibility that the samples were mishandled (unlikely that all the LA samples were mishandled and incorrectly tested) and finally that no conclusion can be drawn on the integrity of the lab because it has not been tested (ie Vrijmen did not do his job).linnega2006-10-06 01:28:04

Good, then you would have understood that the basis of the report is flawed. Vrijmen effectively audited the processes of the lab in the LA case on the basis that they were expected to follow a certain set of rules, processes and protocols when performing drug controls. Sounds reasonable except that they were not performing a drug control. They were studying the samples they had in order to understand the prevalence of EPO in the peloton in 1999 and to check the results in the days before riders had to mask EPO usage. There was nothing wrong with the science of what they were doing, the processes simply did not meet the legal requirements necessary to prosecute offenders and declare the test positive. Vrijmen also complains incessantly about certain evidence that was not provided to him. Generally the reason the evidence was not provided because it did not because the process followed was not in line with WADA protocol for drug controls. The UCI wasted a lot of money on this report as it simply proved what the lab could have told them from day 1. Had they appointed someone with a scientific background, the science of what was being done by the lab could have been verified (or not) and, although Armstrong could not have been stripped of anything, we would have had a clearer picture of the validity of their findings.

Did you read the report? I mean the report, not the velonews article or the LA press release. Take the time and read what questions were asked and understand how pointless the investigation was.

Sorry, H - I've been to busy to post comments recently. Not sure what you are trying to get at. Seems that RH is not too clued up (perhaps not too bright?). You rightly pointed out that it is impossible to have 0 levels of testosterone. Perhaps Landis forgot to use his masking agent that messes with the test, or his doctor gave him a placebo. More likely than the WADA lab messing up.

Name : Gavin Linnett DOB : 8 July 1975 Club : Mr Price Westville Dope Status : Salbutamol for Asthma (wish it made me faster but it doesn't)

Looks right Marius - but you may prefer to set the warmup and cool down timer to manual. Warm up so you can start when you are ready and and warm (if that is 30min, 31min, 28min whatever) by holding down the red button to start the intervals. Same goes for the Cool down - finish the cool down when you get back to your house/car. I find that it is easier to do these manually so that you can start on a clear stretch of road and don't feel like you have cut you ride short if you are 30s short on your cool down.

A warranty is provided for manufacturer defects - in other words there must have been something wrong with the equipment for it to fail. Most manufacturers apply the warranty leniently and will repair/replace anything that has not suffered gross abuse.

It is funny (and unusual) how one wheelset can have such varied reviews and opinions. When the 550's first came out, they were reviewed positively by all the mags overseas. The first users of the wheels seemed happy, with very few having anything negative to say about the wheels. Not sure what Shimano did, but the last batch of wheels (2006 model?) especially the OEM wheels seem to have been pretty dodgy. My guess is the factory or manufacturing method was changed and not for the better.

All bike shops should have a range of Veloce 10-speed cassettes. You can get 12-25 or 13-26. You will need to get a lockring as the 11 tooth lockring will not hold the 12 tooth. Veloce cassettes are available online at: http://www.sportsdirect.co.za/?Task=moreinfo&SKU=FW9413 http://www.icycling.co.za/store/comersus_viewItem.asp?idProduct=307 or from the UK: http://www.ribblecycles.co.uk/details.asp?D=P&Cat=CASSETTES&Section=CASS&GenCode=CAMPCASS0450 You could also use a BBB cassette. These are reasonable quality but do not last as well as the Veloce originals. Again most bike shops stock BBB - if they don't change shops.

Cruxie - I understand the cynicism, but I think there needs to be some level of giving the benefit of doubt to the riders. On your list, I am not saying that they deserve the benefit of the doubt, but that is only after other evidence has come to light that supports the suspicion. If you were to suspect every performance, you would have to question Boonen's dominance last year in the Spring classics, and Valverde's Fleche - Liege double, or what about Voigts superhuman performance in the Tour of Germany, and semi-classics around the same time. What about Bettini's ride in Zurich Metzgete last year in the rain, or Cancellara's ability to ride everyone off his wheel in Roubaix this year. Cycling is made up of superhuman performances - some less believeable than others granted - but we really need to not over anlyse every performance or automatically believe the performance is tainted because it was great. It is for that reason that I don't believe Basso owes Simoni any apology. Whether Basso did or didn't take anything, the fact that Simoni had no evidence other than getting beaten by a stronger (enhanced or not he was stronger - just like LA) rider is not reason enough to say what he said. If he some evidence that would be different, but he did not, so he was out of line and appropriately reprimanded. Swiss - I think Basso's expression is deceptive. That easy grin is actually a grimace. Granted he was superior at the Giro, but then so was Lance at every Tour he won. He never looked like he was struggling - except when he was lieing.

Not sure about that list Cruxie - Hamilton, Heras, Millar, Basso and Landis did not produce extraordinary results for the races they were riding as they were the favourites in the events they were racing. Rumsas, Perez and Guti certainly came out of nowhere (and disappeared as quickly). Bikemax, the question probably is, is 7w/kg the magic number that is not attainable without enhancement? Basso's numbers remember were average numbers for the entire ascent, most of which he spent behind teammates before launching attacks that no one could follow.

Fatty, thats easy - if you don't want to come down in the last corner don't race through it. 1000m would make no sense as in that distance you can have an attack, bring the attack back, have someone open the sprint too early, get swallowed up and the second wave of sprinters competes for the line and a guys sucking their wheel comes through and snatches it at the death. That is almost what happened yesterday in the last 650m in Madrid, except Zabel was able to hold off a fast finishing Hushovd.

There is a 150m rule for safety of the finishers. Some races need to have tricky finishes to make them interesting. Why shouldn't the guy who can handle his bike best through a tight corner be the guy that wins the race.

One of the best british cyclists of the past decade No argument on that one.

Just wondering what on earth that has to do with the the science of cycling, Rocky. Surely you can't be as simple minded as to believe that only those who have achieved in sport are able to coach/train/direct? Probably the single biggest problem in cycling is that ex-pro's end up in "management" roles in teams. They are woefuly underqualified and usually end up being monumental failures. The only reason some of the most successful managers in the sport are ex-pro's is because there is a massive barrier to entry for non-pro's.

I know what you mean! Jeez, the New York Times is the most sensationalist rag in the business. The garbage they write...

Interesting to know who the other rider is. The team was Armstrong, Ekimov, Hincapie, Hamilton, Livingston, Pascal Deram?, Vandevelde, Vaughters, Peter Meinert-Nielsen. From the list I imagine it was Vaughters. He has a very strong anti-doping stance. Can't see Livingston, Hincapie or Eki ratting on their friend. The Frenchman and the Dane have disappeared into obscurity. Vandevelde is still riding and can't risk anything like this getting out. Hamilton we know is continuing doping practices so an unlikely candidate.

Those damn French...always picking on poor defenseless Americans...

I have mentioned that phenomenon before. It isn't really limited to helmet wearing. I find I got more space when I have my cycling kit and no helmet, than full kit with helmet, but even more space when I am wearing jeans and tackies. Seems motorists have more concern for those without helmets and more consideration for those that are simply riding their bikes (as opposed to training in kit). There are a lot of similar anomolies in behaviour on our roads. If I ride down Field's Hill at the speed limit of 80kph, I get hooted at for riding in the middle of the lane. However, motorists simply get on with passing trucks travelling at 40kph. Human's are not logical creatures.linnega2006-09-12 02:04:39

Sorry Gift. I 'm not involved in CSA - I work for a living. But I am passionate about the sport and have been involved in cycling since I started commuting when I was 10. My line of work means I have an interest in process and efficient processes - the cycling industry from admin (CSA and race organisation) to distribution to retail is appalling at process. I do have some relationships with people in the industry through my employer, but that has never prevented me from stating my honest opinion - the Amashova race organisers will bear witness to that as I have criticised them on more than one occasion (but supported them when it was deserved). Being external to the process allows me to make comments and act as a watchdog if you will. This forum provides a good platform for that - as does Chainwheel, where I post periodically. I won't be PM'ing you as that serves no purpose. The idea of the forum is to open debate and criticism of systems in the sport. Have a personal email conversation serves no purpose and, from your history on the forum, I have no intention of having an emotion-ridden argument in private with some I don't (or care to) know.