"PARIS, July 26 (Reuters) - A rider on this year's Tour de France failed a dope test during the race, the International Cycling Union (UCI) announced on Wednesday.

"The UCI received today a report of the anti-doping laboratory of Paris stating an adverse analytical finding following an anti-doping test carried out at the Tour de France 2006," the sport's governing body said in a statement.

Details of the rider were not released, although the UCI said his team and national federation had been informed of the test result. "

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=reu-tourdoping_urgent&prov=reuters&type=lgns

I just hope it's not Floyd.

I'm shocked!

Since the French had two riders in the top 10, it must be a french rider.

Is this a surprise to anyone?
I don't know that they would have tested Floyd or not, he was on cortisone anyways(which is a banned substance that made an exception for him due to his hip). I do not agre that Landis should have been there, if he needed a banned substance to compete than he shouldn't have been there. No exceptions.

Is this a surprise to anyone?
I don't know that they would have tested Floyd or not, he was on cortisone anyways(which is a banned substance that made an exception for him due to his hip). I do not agre that Landis should have been there, if he needed a banned substance to compete than he shouldn't have been there. No exceptions.
Well, I'm not really surprised, but a bit disappointed.

I'm not really familiar with testing procedures, but I'm pretty sure that Floyd was tested. Even if he received an exception of some sort for cortisone, I doubt they'd give him a free pass on all testing. If anything, they'd test for every banned substance other than cortisone.

Well, I'm not really surprised, but a bit disappointed.

I'm not really familiar with testing procedures, but I'm pretty sure that Floyd was tested. Even if he received an exception of some sort for cortisone, I doubt they'd give him a free pass on all testing. If anything, they'd test for every ban substance other than cortisone.
My guess - and it's just that - is that they'd test Floyd for steroids, too, tomake sure he was taking only the prescribed levels of them.

Amd you can bet the ranch that Floyd was tested. The guy in yellow and the stage winner is always tested. So are some number of places down on the day. So is some number of randomly drawn riders. So at a minimum, he was tested ahalf dozen times or so between the days in yellow, the stage win, and the second- and third-place finishes in the TT's and in the Pyrenees.

I would believe that he ws tested. But with the exemptions he could play most if not all of it off to the treatment for his hip. I am not a Landis hater, but I do not agree with him being given that exemption. If he couldn't do it like everyone else on EPO than he should have waited for his surgery and came back to prove himself.

Is this a surprise to anyone?
I don't know that they would have tested Floyd or not, he was on cortisone anyways(which is a banned substance that made an exception for him due to his hip). I do not agre that Landis should have been there, if he needed a banned substance to compete than he shouldn't have been there. No exceptions.

It's in the rules. It's not a special exception created for Landis.

Couldn't have been a Disco rider... look at their placings.

It's in the rules. It's not a special exception created for Landis.
Not according to all of the news stories. Can you point me to the rule that allows banned substances in the tour?

My guess:

1. A guy who was picked to finish about number 140, who then finished in the "Top Ten". (Which is why I did so poorly in the "Top Ten" contest).

2. A guy who was struggling to finish number 140, and went to "Dr. Robert" to avoid missing the time cut.


But Floyd? Ain't no way.

Voeckler? He rode like a dope on stage 11. :D

To those of you who say, or think, that Floyd got some sort of special treatment, you need to get your facts straight, first. There is specific language that allows a rider to take certain banned substances if a medical condition warrants it. ANY RIDER. Not just Floyd. For example, if, during a stage, a rider was stung by a swarm of bees as they finished the stage, and the only way to get the swelling in his face to go down was via a shot of steroids, do you think they would say "nope...you must continue with a face that looks like a crabapple. have much fun riding" I doubt it. Settle down with the "he shouldn't have ridden at all" talk.

To those of you who say, or think, that Floyd got some sort of special treatment, you need to get your facts straight, first. There is specific language that allows a rider to take certain banned substances if a medical condition warrants it. ANY RIDER. Not just Floyd. For example, if, during a stage, a rider was stung by a swarm of bees as they finished the stage, and the only way to get the swelling in his face to go down was via a shot of steroids, do you think they would say "nope...you must continue with a face that looks like a crabapple. have much fun riding" I doubt it. Settle down with the "he shouldn't have ridden at all" talk.

Isn't that exactly what happened to a rider a couple of years ago? No meds and he had to quit.

Here is a link to a velonews article. I would think Floyd got the paperwork right.

http://www.velonews.com/train/articles/5719.0.html

Jonathon Vaughters, thats exactly what happened to him, with the wasp or bee sting.

Of course he was also talking on Instant Messenger about how the teams in 2005 were using motorcycle couriers to deliver blood to the teams on the rest day for re infusion.

There are some substances which are banned, but can be used with a TUE, or Theraputic Use Exemption. something like 80% of the peleton are diagnosed with asthma so they can use alabuterol and other bronchial dialators. An old trick is to rub your scrotum raw and get a prescription for a cortisone cream. Then you can inject another corticoid and it will show the same metabolites on the test, but becuase you have a TUE, its permitted.

Lance tripped a cortisone test early in his TdF career, it was a minute amount, he did not have a TUE< but he had a prescription (allegedly backdated), but no TUE in his medical book. This was before WADA so the UCI (cyclists union) took the Rx and let him continue.

The stage winner is tested, as is the overall leader, and others at random.

Before WADA, sometimes the stage winner was not tested, depending on what country the race finished in, and who won the stage etc.. funny.

If its urine, its probably a lower placed rider, or lesser star. If someone tripped the manipulation index, or off score on a blood test, Its probably a GC Contender.

My guess, and this is pure speculation.. . A T-Mob rider....

Isn't that exactly what happened to a rider a couple of years ago? No meds and he had to quit.

Yes, I remember, was it Jonathan Vaughters? He rode for a day or two with a grotesque swelling of the cheek/eye before he quit.

Not according to all of the news stories. Can you point me to the rule that allows banned substances in the tour?

http://www.uci.ch/english/about/rules.htm

To those of you who say, or think, that Floyd got some sort of special treatment, you need to get your facts straight, first. There is specific language that allows a rider to take certain banned substances if a medical condition warrants it. ANY RIDER. Not just Floyd. For example, if, during a stage, a rider was stung by a swarm of bees as they finished the stage, and the only way to get the swelling in his face to go down was via a shot of steroids, do you think they would say "nope...you must continue with a face that looks like a crabapple. have much fun riding" I doubt it. Settle down with the "he shouldn't have ridden at all" talk.

Now this wouldn't be coming from a Flandis lover would it?
I mean am I not allowed to express my displeasure with a rider that that rides with the exemption? I don't care who it is, I would say the same thing about GH and I am a huge fan of his. If I for one know that a rider is using an illegal substance to better himslef over the rest of the group I will say the same thing I have about Landis. I cannot support a rider like that nor will I. But thanks for the warning.

Article 9 A rider who is obliged to undergo medical treatment requiring the use of substances or methods which
are forbidden at an out-of-competition test must inform the antidoping commission of the fact and submit
such justifications as it may require and indicate the period during which the use of the substance
or method in question may be detected during an antidoping control. During this period he shall hand
in his licence to the antidoping commission and refrain from participation in any competition. Should
an out-of-competition test during this period give rise to a positive result on analysis, the rider shall not
be penalised if the conditions above have been fulfilled. In the case of a rider who does not take part
in international events, the formalities in question must be carried out with his National Federation.


Aticle 64 Medication
1. A rider who has used a substance or method included on the list of classes of banned substances
and methods but who is authorised to do so under the conditions there specified must indicate the
fact on the testing form.
2. A rider failing to do so shall, unless he belongs to a TT/I or TT/II, incur a penalty of between
CHF 300 and CHF 8000 for the elite category and CHF 50 to 3000 for other categories.
Should the rider be charged with doping, this fine will be imposed by the competent body of the
national federation or the CAS, even if the charge of doping is subsequently dropped. If the rider is
found guilty of doping then the fine shall be applied in addition to the penalties for doping.
The UCI may lodge an appeal with the UCI Disciplinary Commission against the decision taken by
the competent body of the national federation; such an appeal shall be restricted to the fine applied
under this paragraph.
Should the rider not subsequently be charged with doping the fine shall be imposed either in accordance
with Articles 12.2.013 to 12.2.21 of the Cycling Regulations or in accordance with Article
92 of these regulations.
3. In the case of a rider belonging to a TT/I or TT/II only substances or treatments noted in the rider's
medical record may be taken into consideration to determine whether the medical conditions
have been fulfilled. If the conditions are not fulfilled in line with the contents of the medical record,
then the rider shall be declared positive. In exceptional circumstances at the discretion of the antidoping
commission a rider shall be permitted to demonstrate to the antidoping commission that a
failure to have something noted in the medical record is wholly excusable and to present documents
which the antidoping commission will assess to see whether they can be accepted as proof of the
medical justification subject to the conditions set out in the second paragraph of article 8.




This means nothing to my layman brain. But I don't see where it says he can compete. Article 9 plainly states that he must turn in his card and not compete.

Not according to all of the news stories. Can you point me to the rule that allows banned substances in the tour?

http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Rules/14ant-E.pdf

page 7 goes over the substance exemption rules. this is just from the UCI, i'm not sure how WADA or any other agency fits in with respect to the tour rules.

This means nothing to my layman brain. But I don't see where it says he can compete. Article 9 plainly states that he must turn in his card and not compete.

What are you so angry about?

Wow....

What are you so angry about?

Wow....

Not angry at all. Just don't like to see one guy use the system to have an unfair advantage over the rest.

May get a little defensive when someone jumps on me for my views. Thats all

Okay... so does anyone know if there were other Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUE) in the Tour this year, or is it only Floyd? Hard to believe he'd be the only one. If, as Smoothie pointed out above in post #15, regarding the asthma rate (80%???) in the peloton, it doesn't seem like Floyd's getting special treatment. Smoothie's usually on target with his pro cycling facts.

Not angry at all. Just don't like to see one guy use the system to have an unfair advantage over the rest.

May get a little defensive when someone jumps on me for my views. Thats all

Unfair advantage? He has a bad hip... the drugs he took did not heal his hip, they were essentially painkillers.

From what I've read, cortisone shots to his hip aren't a performance enhancing drug, more of a therapy to prevent more rapid degeneration of the joint. I guess it's a banned substance because it can mask other steroid uses (Like smoothie104 said)? If it's disclosed and he's actually taking the shots, I've got no problem with it...

Seems a little wierd to complain that Flandis is getting some sort of unfair advantage due to his degenerative hip condition...

Unfair advantage? He has a bad hip... the drugs he took did not heal his hip, they were essentially painkillers.
Have you ever taken cortizone injections? INjected directly into his hip and he would not feel that hip for days on end. That equals unfair in my book. If he can do it giving him no pain, its unfair in my book.

From what I've read, cortisone shots to his hip aren't a performance enhancing drug, more of a therapy to prevent more rapid degeneration of the joint. I guess it's a banned substance because it can mask other steroid uses (Like smoothie104 said)? If it's disclosed and he's actually taking the shots, I've got no problem with it...

Seems a little wierd to complain that Flandis is getting some sort of unfair advantage due to his degenerative hip condition...

Performance enhancing is all it is. Cortizone masks all pain. It allows him to beat the hell out that joint with no feeling of pain, knowing he was getting a new hip.
I have had the injections before and it is amazing how it helps with the pain of a bad joint. It basically is a replacement for your natural fluid, but it also has a numbing to pain effect.

Have you ever taken cortizone injections? INjected directly into his hip and he would not feel that hip for days on end. That equals unfair in my book. If he can do it giving him no pain, its unfair in my book.

Well I read your book and it sucks.

I doubt staceyfb would not take the exception if he/she was there ready to ride the TdF, and the only thing standing in the way of victory was a bum hip. But maybe I'm wrong here. Oh, and yeah, I'm a flandis lover. I disclosed earlier that I have a man-crush on him. But I don't care if it was floyd, lance, ivan, or joe-shmoe. If they're playing by the rules - THEN THEY'RE PLAYING BY THE RULES! stop hating on someone for doing what any other cyclist (except maybe staceyfb) would do.

Would I take the exemption? Probably not. I believe in playing by the rules of fairness. Before my last surgery, I did many a ride and a few vacation tours in pain. Why, cause that was what I wanted to do. Did I have the option of the injections and the narcotic painkillers, yes. But I chose not to use them as it would not allow me to prove to myself that I could overcome the adversity without the help of outside agents. That is my choice and I for one believe that had Landis done this for the fact of proving it to himself and not the oney and everything els ethat comes with it I would support him more so. Am I happy to see him win, yes and no. I don't like who he is as a person but am happy in was an American in yellow.

So.... if Landis or any other rider had, say, a low-grade migraine after the race, they should eschew all forms of analgesic?

That's masochistic..... or else Tom Cruise is your doctor.... (meds are evil!) :rolleyes: ;)

Would I take the exemption? Probably not. I believe in playing by the rules of fairness. Before my last surgery, I did many a ride and a few vacation tours in pain. Why, cause that was what I wanted to do. Did I have the option of the injections and the narcotic painkillers, yes. But I chose not to use them as it would not allow me to prove to myself that I could overcome the adversity without the help of outside agents. That is my choice and I for one believe that had Landis done this for the fact of proving it to himself and not the oney and everything els ethat comes with it I would support him more so. Am I happy to see him win, yes and no. I don't like who he is as a person but am happy in was an American in yellow.

Hey, if you can handle the pain, more power to you. But from what I've read, the pain Landis felt in his hip would stop most people in their tracks. Landis was RACING the Tour de France. They gave him an exemption for the painkilling cortisone shots. Lance's tours became a blur toward the end. I'll remember this tour and Stage 17 fifty years from now, and I'm buying the poster and DVD from WCP!

So.... if Landis or any other rider had, say, a low-grade migraine after the race, they should eschew all forms of analgesic?

That's masochistic..... or else Tom Cruise is your doctor.... (meds are evil!) :rolleyes: ;)

The meds you take for a migrane are not performace enhancing in anyway shape or form. Most of them are better than most illegal drugs for the buzz you get.(Maxalt is the best for that).

TC is a nut.

Hey, if you can handle the pain, more power to you. But from what I've read, the pain Landis felt in his hip would stop most people in their tracks. Landis was RACING the Tour de France. They gave him an exemption for the painkilling cortisone shots. Lance's tours became a blur toward the end. I'll remember this tour and Stage 17 fifty years from now, and I'm buying the poster and DVD from WCP!
Landis had problems walking not riding. He was putting the wieght on it that made it hurt. Riding would not have hurt it all that much. Don't get me wrong after seeing the xrays and such I cannot believe he was able to ride even with the injections. He is alot more of a man than I am or ever will be when it comes to that. That said, I still don't have to support his choices.
Can we all agree to just disagree.

It seems silly to call what Floyd did an "unfair advantage", since:
1) he followed the rules and got a TUE
2) my god, the guy's hip is DEAD, needs to be replaced, and produces incredible pain without medication - THAT is an "unfair advantage"??

Would I take the exemption? Probably not. I believe in playing by the rules of fairness. Before my last surgery, I did many a ride and a few vacation tours in pain. Why, cause that was what I wanted to do. Did I have the option of the injections and the narcotic painkillers, yes. But I chose not to use them as it would not allow me to prove to myself that I could overcome the adversity without the help of outside agents. That is my choice and I for one believe that had Landis done this for the fact of proving it to himself and not the oney and everything els ethat comes with it I would support him more so. Am I happy to see him win, yes and no. I don't like who he is as a person but am happy in was an American in yellow.

Oh wow, you rode in vacations tours. Just WOW! I wonder how THAT compares to the Tour de France. So, how many Alpe D'Huez equivalents did you have to climb in all that pain of yours? Yes, it is your choice to want to suffer, don't push your little ideals onto true professionals.

An unfair advantage? OK, how about you also break the hip of everyone in the peleton, now THAT would make it fair to you then. You 'tard.

Landis had problems walking not riding. He was putting the wieght on it that made it hurt. Riding would not have hurt it all that much. Don't get me wrong after seeing the xrays and such I cannot believe he was able to ride even with the injections. He is alot more of a man than I am or ever will be when it comes to that. That said, I still don't have to support his choices.
Can we all agree to just disagree.

After reading all of your post I guess you are serious. If needing your hip replaced consequently allowing pain medication gave riders an advantage then they would all have bad hips. They would do whatever it took to get the exemption.

Cortizone + bad hip does not = good hip. Floyd got no advantage. He is actually at a disadvantage. Your logic is similar to a power lifter with a broken arm having an advantage because he was allowed to take pain meds.

A bad hip for a professional cyclist is not a good thing. It is career threatning.

Richard

StacyB I have no problems with your opinion, and while you certainly have a right to it and to express it, I do think that your CHOICE to ride a few vacation tours is quite a bit different from Landis' being able to use a painkiller in order to legally earn his living.

Cheers,

Brian

One question... Do you think Phonak would have wanted Landis to eschew the exemption? What about the team? That's who his contract is with, not the TdF, not you, not us.

BTW, just because he was medicated doesn't alleviate the incredible stress to the system that a three-week stage race is. It simply levels the playing field a bit. Do you think other folks were feeling that level of pain in their hip joints... NO, they were dealing with muscle issues.

Not according to all of the news stories. Can you point me to the rule that allows banned substances in the tour?

All levels of professional and amateur sport have medical exemptions for banned substances. If you have asthma or some other condition that requires medication you are still allowed to compete as long as you get the exemption first and the amount of medication is in line with the problem you are dealing with.

So sure its a special case for Floyd, but it is not an unusual thing in sport. I would be surprised if there were not several other cases in the peleton - they are probably just support riders that don't merit a lot of press attention.

Oh wow, you rode in vacations tours. Just WOW! I wonder how THAT compares to the Tour de France. So, how many Alpe D'Huez equivalents did you have to climb in all that pain of yours? Yes, it is your choice to want to suffer, don't push your little ideals onto true professionals.

An unfair advantage? OK, how about you also break the hip of everyone in the peleton, now THAT would make it fair to you then. You 'tard.
Well seeing as I don't train for 500+ miles a week as the tour pros do my "vacation tours" of 300+ miles in a 7 day period is on equivalent of the tour pros. Can I do the sheer miles they do, not a chance. If I was to train 8+ hrs as they do and devote all my being to it as they do, maybe. Can I be on the level of a Landis, Basso, etc. not a chance. True professionals? So my desire to better myself and my ideals are just that. Mine. How in any way shape am I trying to push those ideals on the "true professionals"? Are you a professional rider? What team do you ride for? What major races would you have ben in that we as mere mortals would be able to see your great achievements.
It was brought up in a post that hi hip was worse than anything the rest of them were dealing with. Now I recall Levi sucking major ass for the first week or so of the tour. Cold or whateverit was. Was he allowed to go and use the breathing treatments(banned ones) to incrrease his abilities? I would guess no, as he didn't have the proper forms filed prior to the start of the tour. But because he knew he was shot to compete witht the greats without hi injections he filed the papers. Does that give him an adbvantage over the rest. You bet your sweet ass it does. He could be hurting like a SOB one day and come back and blow them all out of the water, why? That is because he could apply his banned substance to gain the ability to not feel the pain the rest were feeling, whether it be colds(breathing), muscles or the cuts and scrapes and bruises they all had. Thor gets slashed at the finish line and requires stitches, now I would guess that narcotic painkillers are banned. Was he allowed to use them for the normal 7 day duration due to his injury? Probably not. But again that would have been an advantage only allowed those that knew they wouldn't be able to compete rior to the tour. So I stand corrected that he did it legally and upstanding. BS.
The next time you feel the need to call names or whatever you fel the need for on my person you can use the PM button and I would be happy to exchange profanities with you.
As I have stated these are my views and you can take them for what they are worth, which as much as what anyones elses are on an anominus web-based BB.

BTW, just because he was medicated doesn't alleviate the incredible stress to the system that a three-week stage race is. It simply levels the playing field a bit. Do you think other folks were feeling that level of pain in their hip joints... NO, they were dealing with muscle issues.

And yet they did it without the banned substance.
The mental stress of it all is to be expected. But its not due to the actual tour, its due to the fear of screwing up and losing their contracts.

StacyB I have no problems with your opinion, and while you certainly have a right to it and to express it, I do think that your CHOICE to ride a few vacation tours is quite a bit different from Landis' being able to use a painkiller in order to legally earn his living.

Cheers,

Brian

I dont' disagree, but I feel it has given him an unfair advantage over the common tour athlete. If he is allowed to compete with a substance that basically lets him numb the pain completley out its unfair to the others that have to suffer through it with no help.
Its not as if he was taking vicodin in the morning to help him out, he was injecting a substance directly into his hip to numb the pain out. Which in the proximity of it, it would numb his lower back and definatley on knee for sure.

common tour athlete.

Oxymoron.

Wow, delusional. My wife did a 400+ mile tour 6 months after her last chemo, therefore she must know how Lance felt riding the Tour, right?

I get the feeling from Stacey's sig that he or she is a "Bobish" type grump that wishes to turn back the clock on cycling 20 years and freeze it.

Wow, delusional. My wife did a 400+ mile tour 6 months after her last chemo, therefore she must know how Lance felt riding the Tour, right?

I get the feeling from Stacey's sig that he or she is a "Bobish" type grump that wishes to turn back the clock on cycling 20 years and freeze it.
How would that alow her to feel what LA did? I am not sure I understand that comparison.
So because I have vintage bikes I want to turn back the clock of time? No I just prefer my classics. I do group rides and can hold my own with the guys on their brand spanking new machines. Would I like a new machine? You bet your ass. I however feel I can spend my $$$$$ on much better things. My old road bike does everything your brand new does. Because I don't have 20 speeds means nothing. But then again all the folks that now ride SS are trying to turn the clock back as well. NOt everyone needs the OCP of new bikes every year.

Oxymoron.
Explain please?

How many professional riders where there in this years tour? 176? What makes them more or less common than the rest of the guys in that peloton? I wasn't refering to them as common everyday guys who do this once a year. They are common within their sport.

Well seeing as I don't train for 500+ miles a week as the tour pros do my "vacation tours" of 300+ miles in a 7 day period is on equivalent of the tour pros.

Yeah, sure, if you really think so.;)

I've done lots of 300 mile weeks. In fact my typical riding week is around 200 miles while holding down a full time job, maintaining two rental properties as well as my primary residence, and spending quality time with my family and I don't think that it is anywhere close to what a TdF week is like.

The real question is why am I feeding this troll?

This thread reminds me of that photo showing a Special Olympics kid (wearing a helmet) sprinting on foot across a finish line. The caption reads. Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win you are still a ******.

Nothing against ******s mind you, one lives next door to me, she is human like the rest of us.

Having said that I will now argue on the internet.

The riders have Jens Voight to look after their interests. It is in the interest of the riders to be allowed to do what they can (via a medical exemption) to compete if they have a valid reason. The riders themselves would insist upon this and they have Mr. Voight to see to that. If they didn't like this rule they themselves would have it changed. You may agree or disagree with it but it is what the riders want and if you are in the minority you may as well accept it.

Personally, I broke my hip and leg (double femur fracture) in 1995. So Floyd is a personal hero to me becuase as a very competitive athlete (Reigning Virginia State Champion on the Track in Pursuit & Points Race) I realize a) how hard cycling is at the high levels, and b) how debilitating a hip problem can be to one's cycling. It isn't just off the bike that it is a problem. The muscles around it can get to be very tight so that the thing just locks up while you are riding. It is a totally different kind of pain than the pain you get from 'just' riding hard. That kind of pain feels just like soreness/tiredness. That hip pain is so bad that you can't think straight and all you want to do is slow down so the pain stops. That would keep a fit athlete who has worked hard from having a chance to compete due to an injury suffered in pursuit of said athletic greatness. That wouldn't be in the interest of the sport, the race, or fairness from a standpoint of competition. What a loss to sport it would have been if Landis was kept out of this year's race!

I think that cortisone is a rather weak steroid by comparison to other things and I'm not sure that it is a masking agent. I can't imagine that it would be allowed as an exception if that were the case.

I think that this rule arose because of Jonathan Vaughters and the bee incident. I'm not certain, though. Maybe Smoothie remembers?

Lance was reportedly using a cream to treat a saddle sore. The amount was barely measurable. It would not have had any kind of performance enhancing effect whatsoever. I don't recall if he had an exception in place or not, but it was for sure not worthy of being called a doping offense. Definitely no competitve advantage was gained.

That phrase competitive advantage is what we are really talking about. Given the fact that Landis is about to have his hip replaced, I think it is overwhelmingly fair to say that the combination of having his bad hip and cortisone could not be called a competitive advantage in comparison to anyone with a healthy hip. That would be the test for fairness, wouldn't it?