|Author:||Sorting Last Post on Top ↓ Message:||
Ironically the 1996 tour top three have all admitted or been charged with doping...
"In the Tour de France, Virenque has also finished twice on the final podium (3rd in 1996 and 2nd in 1997) and won several stages, among them the legendary climb up to Mont Ventoux in 2002."
In 1998 he was discovered, along with his team, to be doping and was banned.
So Bjarne Riis, Jan Ullrich, and Richard Virenque were doping then Laurent Dufaux, Peter Luttenberger, and Luc Leblanc should be the new winners. They could re-write history!
2007 Bike Outside Challenge: 2600 miles. Miles done: 1092
Because I'm an insane dork, I looked up the World Anti-Doping Code over lunch. The LA Times actually did overstate Landis' success in exposing WADA faults because "beyond a resonable doubt" is not the applicable standard of proof in his case.
Article 3.1 of the Code defines the burdens and standards of proof required for the WADA to conclude that a doping violation occured.
First, I need to clarify that the burden of proof (i.e. the duty to prove wrongdoing) is generally on an entity prosecuting a case.
Second, the standard of proof is the level or amount of proof required to show a rule or law violation.
In my last post, I meant "standard of proof" where I inquired about BRD as a "burden of proof." My bad.
Anyway, Article 3.1 places the burden of proof on the anti-doping org in most cases and states that the standard of proof is:
". . . greater than a mere balance of proof but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
What does this gobbledygook probably mean? To show a rule violation, the anti-doping org must show that there is somewhere between a 50% and 100% chance that their was doping.
If they can't show at least a 51% chance, the athlete wins the case.
So, um, the LA Times was talkin' like the anti-doping org had to show that it was 100% sure that Landis doped. Not so, according to the Code.
Edited by: SARABEAR9 at: 6/14/2007 (22:37)
"She who laughs, lasts"
I don't think so.
What about the pro rider who really wants to race clean and not have medical side effects later in life. He's got talent and he's near the top of the game but the dopers keep beating him by just a little. what is he to do???
Do we have two Tour de France's every year? One for dopers and one for clean riders? How do you establish which one you qualify for? Who's going to admit that they should be in the doped version???
The TDF is refusing to let anyone start this year's tour who is still implicated in the Puerto inquiry.
Here's a few quotes from some recent news items:
This report filed June 14, 2007
Bosses from cycling's biggest teams met behind closed doors Wednesday night in an effort to fend off potential surprises ahead of next month's Tour de France.
Following rumors that more riders could be linked to the Operación Puerto doping scandal, representatives from 19 ProTour teams decided in a heated three-hour meeting that any team not enforcing the Code of Ethics will not be allowed to race.
June 12, 2007
An open dialogue about the problem of doping has been, up to this point, the third rail of cycling. Touch it and you die. The culture insists that anyone wishing to continue working in the sport remain silent on the issue, which perpetuates the problem.
But the tide appears to be turning. Team managers and riders are not being immediately fired for admitting a prior history of doping in the era before EPO testing. Breaking the silence is a huge step towards solving the problem. As the biggest names in the sport are falling, the anti-doping movement seems to be throwing a haymaker at the doping culture.
March 9, 2007
The Union Cycliste Internationale launched its latest initiative in its battle to eradicate doping from the sport.
Labeled "100% Against Doping," UCI president Pat McQuaid said the aim of the new program is to "chase all drug-using cheats from cycling," a which has suffered from nearly a decade of uninterrupted doping scandals.
"Our objective is clear - to give cycling the best anti-doping program in the world," said McQuaid. "Only clean riders should win; those who cheat should be caught; those considering trying to cheat should be discouraged. Together we can eliminate doping from our sport."
Listen to Jonathan Vaughters, a former TDF racer talking about his team, Slipstream-Chipotle ...
"These are riders with unique personalities and riders I believe capable of winning clean at the highest level," Vaughters said. "Nonetheless, they will be subject to the extreme scrutiny of our anti-doping program. All have agreed that anti-doping and blood test results will be available to the public in 2008."
It's Vaughters' insistence on clean racing that's catching the eye of potential sponsors and Tour organizers.
"We didn't know that all these scandals would erupt this year, I just insisted on starting this program last fall with the hope that we'd generate so much goodwill that we would get other teams to join us," Vaughters said.
This year, some $300,000 of the team's operating budget has been spent on the groundbreaking anti-doping program in association with the Agency for Cycling Ethics in California.
All 23 Slipstream-Chipotle riders are subject to unannounced blood and urine tests that complement sanctioned UCI and WADA anti-doping controls. The program tracks markers in an athlete's blood and urine that could reveal manipulation from difficult to detect substances or methods such as blood doping.
So far in 2007, some 583 urine and blood tests have been conducted without any significant abnormalities.
"It seems crazy to some to spend so much on testing such a young team so much, but we wanted to set a precedent in this team and let it be known that this will be our ethos and identity, no matter what the race results. This team started clean as a U-23 and junior squad and it's going to stay that way as a professional team," Vaughters continued. "If we can't be competitive that way, I will do something else with my life. That simple."
Vaughters said he believes the sport is now cleaner than most people realize.
All these references can be found on VeloNews.com and other biking news sites.
I think my opinion on the matter is clear. Anyone else?
ps: I can't find any articles quoting anyone in the racing business or governing authorities that support doping. (Just so both sides are covered)
Edited by: FALCONFLEWAWAY at: 6/14/2007 (14:55)
There is such an uproar about athletes who take performance-enhancing drugs. We hare about it in many sports: cycling, baseball, etc. Do you think they will ever stop taking them when they have so much pressure to win? Is it realistic to think that performance can improve without the use of drugs?
I don’t have a problem with athletes taking these drugs but the playing field should be level. What I mean by that is drugged athletes compete against each other and non-drugged athletes compete against each other.
What do you think?
Do not look where you fell, but where you slipped.
Gazzetta: Three Giro stage winners 'non-negative'
and now Bjarne Riis has admitted to doping to win the '96 Tour. Ulrich was second and also doped so they can't move him up. so the 96 and the 06 both have no declared winner.
Landis is looking like he did it.
Frankie Andreau has testified that when Lance was in the hopital, he confided that he had used 'performance-enhancing' drugs ...
Lance says he didn't ...
Basso said he didn't - admitted only to 'attempted doping' - LOL
Ulrich said he didn't... IOC says they may strip his medals
Clinton ... twice ... 'didn't inhale' & 'that woman'
this is getting funny !!
if it weren't so sad ...
Edited by: FALCONFLEWAWAY at: 6/13/2007 (20:05)
Interesting. Though, the rigid WADA rules that *could* make it possible to conceal lab errors should not lead to a conclusion that WADA rules *did* conceal lab errors. The Landis camp is clearly banking big on mere inference of lab wrongdoing.
I'm curious about the "beyond a reasonable doubt" (BRD) thing mentioned in the LA Times headline. Per their by-laws, what exactly is the burden of proof that the WADA has to show here? BRD is the HIGHEST burden of proof, reserved for crimes. Crimes like rape and murder (where the death penalty may be the punishment . . . not removing a sports title).
I'm guessing that the WADA burden of proof to rule on cyclist doping is lower than BRD. I cannot say for sure without looking at the by-laws.
FYI -- I read this recently on Yahoo!: http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=dw-la
Regardless of the doping thing, Landis just doesn't sound like a nice person after this LeMond nonsense. I actually stopped caring if he gets the jersey back. Sad, 'cause he's a Pennsylvanian like me, and I was psyched to hear that someone from PA won the Tour.
Edited by: SARABEAR9 at: 6/13/2007 (18:24)
"She who laughs, lasts"
It hasn't been resolved yet. As far as I know, the hearing is over.
Do not look where you fell, but where you slipped.
So does Landis still hold the jersey????
"The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others."
Sadly at the expense of a great rider!!
From todays' LA Times:
Cyclist's appeal hearing reveals rules that make it possible to conceal lab errors and standards that fall short of 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'
By Michael A. Hiltzik, Times Staff Writer
May 31, 2007
It could be weeks before an arbitration panel reveals whether American cyclist Floyd Landis has a chance to retain his Tour de France title in the face of doping allegations, but one thing was clear even before marathon public hearings ended last week: Landis succeeded in putting the international anti-doping enforcement system on trial.
The open proceedings raised very public questions about the competency and test procedures of the Paris lab that ruled Landis' urine samples positive for illicit levels of testosterone. But they also exposed a rigid anti-doping enforcement system that could conceal lab errors and mistakes.
One of the arbitrators bluntly questioned World Anti-Doping Agency rules, suggesting that WADA's labs shared a code of omerta rather than a code of ethics.
Earlier, a copy of the agency's bylaws had been beamed to a large screen in the Pepperdine University hearing room. One clause notably forbade officials at all 34 WADA labs around the world from giving testimony to assist accused athletes or dispute the work of any other WADA lab.
"You've got a code of ethics that essentially states [the labs] can't point out mistakes," said Christopher L. Campbell, the arbitrator who had been selected for the panel by Landis.
"I think it's a real problem."
The restrictive clause was previously disclosed in "Presumed Guilty," a series of reports by The Times in December that found the doping enforcement system favored accusers over athletes. It also found the WADA program to be based on flawed science, afflicted by faulty and inconsistent lab procedures and resistant to outside scrutiny.
The cyclist's defense focused on many of the same issues. His attorneys painted, brushstroke by brushstroke, the picture of a forensic system with procedural and documentation standards far short of "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Landis forced the hearings to be held in public, providing a uniquely open forum that also has raised the political stakes in the case.
The reputation of the Paris lab, one of WADA's busiest, was pummeled by critical testimony from eminent scientists and admissions of mistakes by its own staff.
The potential effect of even minor mistakes in lab practice came into focus when hearing evidence showed that the case against Landis ultimately hinges on a single number — minus 6.
As explained by experts in the case, testosterone breaks down in the body into four compounds, known as metabolites, which can be identified and measured in a urine sample. An anti-doping lab subjects these molecules to various analytical procedures to generate a so-called "delta-delta" value for each.
Under WADA rules, an athlete can be judged guilty if this value drops below minus 3 for any metabolite. Landis' delta-delta value for the metabolite 5-alpha-androstanediol (5A for short) was minus 6.
Landis' task at the hearing was to cast doubt on that figure. Lawyers for the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, prosecuting the doping case against him, sought to protect its credibility.
USADA's basic argument was that Landis' number was so unnatural — one of the lowest ever encountered — that no concatenation of laboratory errors could have produced it from an innocent urine sample.
No matter how many retests the lab performed before expert witnesses, that figure always held up, observed USADA attorney Richard Young, adding that it was sufficient evidence all by itself.
"My opinion is that doping was going on," testified Don H. Catlin, the recently retired head of the WADA anti-doping lab at UCLA. "It's just inescapable."
Raising doubts about the 5A result, the defense argued that in the context of Landis' entire urinalysis profile, the figure looked more like a laboratory error than a credible analytical finding.
Defense witness John Amory, an expert in testosterone medicine at the University of Washington, pointed out that the 5A value always tracks closely the value of another metabolite, known by the shorthand 5B. No published study — either of those not testing positive for doping or known dopers, including two published by expert witnesses who appeared for USADA at the hearing — have ever found them to be more than two units apart, he observed. In Landis' results, the gap was four.
"That doesn't look like anything we've seen in studies of men who've been given testosterone," Amory said.
to read more:
Do not look where you fell, but where you slipped.