Doping by Tour Winner

[billvon 3,120]

>There will always be human error, I agree, but how many tests do you need.

You can make any testing system almost 100% proof against human error; you cannot make it proof against malice. Given the millions riding on the TdF, and how many people will lose their very livelihoods depending on the results, I would not rule out tampering - and that tampering could have taken place in a lot of places. Unfortunately, it's also next to impossible to prove one way or another.

[Royd 0]

I find it a bit suspicious that on one day he completely runs out of gas, and the next he gains back eight minutes. Any honest cyclist would admit that it would be pretty tough to accomplish.

[Remster 30]

Quote

Any honest cyclist would admit that it would be pretty tough to accomplish.

Actually, most cyclists will admit that some days, they just hit a wall. A rebound liek Landis had was phenomenal, but, even if none of them take drugs, they are phenomenal athletes. IMHO tho, most of them are on dope, with very good doctors.

Remster

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I find it a bit suspicious that on one day he completely runs out of gas, and the next he gains back eight minutes. Any honest cyclist would admit that it would be pretty tough to accomplish.

Even more incredible would be that an injection of testosterone would help. It's the oddness factor that has his fans suspicious, nevermind this lab's history. After their refusal to answer questions in the Armstrong investigation I thought they should be decertified.

Athletes in long endurance events like cycling or triathlon dance a very fine line in between the aerobic and anabolic theshhold. In an event over 2-3 hours, there isn't enough blood sugar to complete the race. You need to take on food and burn fat - the catch there is that the harder you go, the more difficult those are. And once you're out of blood sugar, your ability to burn body fat at any exertion level is compromised.

Even in a two hour tri like Alcatraz one can blow up. 3 years back Greg Bennent had a commanding half mile lead with only the final 2 flat miles to go when he bonked so badly that he could barely walk. Finished 18th. And I'm sure was fine a couple hours later.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Even more incredible would be that an injection of testosterone would help. It's the oddness factor that has his fans suspicious, nevermind this lab's history.

bullseye

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Quote

Even more incredible would be that an injection of testosterone would help. It's the oddness factor that has his fans suspicious, nevermind this lab's history.

bullseye

What probably has happened is blood doping. Look up how it has been used in cycling. What probbaly happened is that the testosterone was present in the blood given to him the night before the stage. Testosterone is BTW used as doping in sports that require endurance and also helps the body recover quicker. It is quite common in cycling.

BTW the B sample is sealed and opened in presence of the athlete in question. Time to take the rose coloured glasses of - the guy (like most top cyclists) is a cheat.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[dorbie 0]

Good point, so the blood used would be his from an earlier donation right? Meaning that he was on the testosterone when it was drawn?

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Good point, so the blood used would be his from an earlier donation right? Meaning that he was on the testosterone when it was drawn?

Correct. I listened to a doping expert on the radio who gave this explanation as the most likely scenario.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[dorbie 0]

Well I looked at the critique of the French Lab's analysis of the Landis doping samples and it is absolutely damning. If this is accurate it is absolutely unjustifiable to even suggest he failed a test never mind take his title away. There are several really troubling things, most obviously the huge difference between sample 1 & 2, but also the general lack of an actual positive test (multiple 3% issue).