I've seen a bunch of cyclists comment both that:

1. See, the tests DO work. We're catching the dopers
2. Rasmussen SHOULD have been kicked out

Well, there's only one reason why you could think Rasmussen should be kicked out for lying about his wherabouts: he was doping during that time and avoided being caught. If you think he was just lying because he wanted to "call in sick" to work that day and just rest, then you wouldn't want the man thrown out of the tour.

Of course, if THAT (the idea that he was doping on those missing days) is true then #1 is WRONG. Mr. Rasmussen passed every drug test he was given.

Mr. Rasmussen passed every drug test he was given.

True, but so did COUNTLESS other riders that have later proven to have doped. Certainly we can say for sure that the "he never failed a drug test" argument is in no way proof that a rider is clean.

... Brad

True, but so did COUNTLESS other riders that have later proven to have doped. Certainly we can say for sure that the "he never failed a drug test" argument is in no way proof that a rider is clean.

... Brad

Zabel and Riis, for two high profile examples

True, but so did COUNTLESS other riders that have later proven to have doped. Certainly we can say for sure that the "he never failed a drug test" argument is in no way proof that a rider is clean.

... Brad

??? That was exactly my point.

I don't know that I buy this; it's not so simple.

On the face of it, Rasmussen was dropped from the team because he lied. That's not a UCI Rules violation in itself, but it is related to one...he missed 3 tests (4 actually) over an 18 month period. That *is* a rules violation, BUT it was not prosecuted as one immediately (and it probably won't be) because the rule is unclear about agencies giving the tests. He missed 2 tests from one agency and 2 tests from another one, so technically he did not violate the rule. But the fact that both the Danish National Team and Rabobank decided to boot him speaks volumes about their stance (maybe they are just dumbass Johnny-come-lateleys to the whole cycling/doping scene though).

Also remember that it's entirely possible to dope on the missing days and still gain benefit, but never have a positive test result. That doesn't mean the tests don't work; they do, amazingly well (i.e. if a substance is there, the tests are very good at finding it, with very very low false positives). The problem is with the idea that testing is always going to find cheaters...because the benefit/advantage can outlast the substance. That can never be proven via tests alone. The way people have been caught so far is that mistakes were made somewhere along the line in administering...it's a fine line.

Also remember that it's entirely possible to dope on the missing days and still gain benefit, but never have a positive test result.

Hence the move made by teams such as Slipstream - who constantly monitor their rider's "chemistry", it makes up for what standard in and out-of-competition dope testing cannot detect...EVERY team in the sport of Cycling should be following this practice and I would love to hear the excuses as to why they don't. Don't tell me "Can't afford it", Slipstream is not a rolling in the dough and they manage it.

??? That was exactly my point.

Just piling on, Don! :)

... Brad

Hence the move made by teams such as Slipstream - who constantly monitor their rider's "chemistry", it makes up for what standard in and out-of-competition dope testing cannot detect...EVERY team in the sport of Cycling should be following this practice and I would love to hear the excuses as to why they don't. Don't tell me "Can't afford it", Slipstream is not a rolling in the dough and they manage it.

Which I think is great, BTW. I am also curious why no other teams (sponsors, really) have adopted this idea or similar.

Well, there's only one reason why you could think Rasmussen should be kicked out for lying about his wherabouts: he was doping during that time and avoided being caught. If you think he was just lying because he wanted to "call in sick" to work that day and just rest, then you wouldn't want the man thrown out of the tour.



It's more analagous to calling in sick the day that your number comes up for random drug testing.

Out of competition drug testing is a key to the sucess of a drug testing program. Hence, evading out of competition tests, and compounding the problem by lying about it, is a very big deal.

It's more analagous to calling in sick the day that your number comes up for random drug testing.

Out of competition drug testing is a key to the sucess of a drug testing program. Hence, evading out of competition tests, and compounding the problem by lying about it, is a very big deal.

exactly, the key to catching them is not just the tests employed, but the frequency that they're employed. Which is why it is now important that teams get involved in rider monitoring as well, with an impartial observer for good measure.

exactly, the key to catching them is not just the tests employed, but the frequency that they're employed. Which is why it is now important that teams get involved in rider monitoring as well, with an impartial observer for good measure.

That (simply increasing the number of times a person is tested) is not exactly the premise of Slipstream's testing practice - it's to monitor the riders hormonal level and red blood cell mass...it would detect deviations that could go undetected (autologous blood doping and growth hormone) in the standard testing for drugs (EPO, testosterone, etc).

If the tests that were missed were in may and june 2007, its a big strike against him, especially, if no make up tests were promptly done. The couple of months prior to tour would be prime doping season, AFAIK.

What baffles me is how "missed tests" weren't logged somewhere, and made available to the governing body and race organizers well before the start.

There are only 189 riders in the Tour...someone could easily do a "background check" on each and everyone up to the day before the race starts, if the data is (and I would expect it to be) readily available.

What baffles me is how "missed tests" weren't logged somewhere, and made available to the governing body and race organizers well before the start.

Certainly the information was available to the Rabobank team. They should have told le Tour directors, yet they CHOSE not to. The sad part is that Ras wouldn't have been caught at all if he wasn't in the yellow jersey. How many other riders have "missed tests" on their records this year? I'd bet a bunch.

... Brad

Lack of a positive test is a pretty weak defense. None of the riders implicated in Operation Puerto had tested positive.

Many of Ferrari's clients have ridden for years without failing any tests, and though it wouldn't hold up in court, being a client of his is a pretty strong indicator of doping if you have paid any attention. Given his reputation as a doping genius, why would a clean rider even THINK of associating with him?

Doping is rampant in many sports. Given the ease with which you can get away with it (easiest examples are autologous blood doping, and HGH for which there aren't any good tests), and the massive benefits, combined with the amount of money at stake, means that you'd basically have to be willing to sacrifice your chance to get to the pinnacle of the sport to say 'no'.

Slipstream's idea is interesting. The level of testing they're talking about radically reduces the ease of doping for their team members. The costs will be quite high though, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect all the pro tour teams to do that level of testing given the sponsorship issues they're about to face next year.

I think the only way to get the race to be clean is to remove the ties between big money and team/individual rider performance. Go to a semi-amateur system, where all riders are paid a decent salary, small enough that they can't afford a personal doping program and secret flights to Italy/Mexico/Spain/wherever the doctors happen to be. Slash team budgets so that they can cover a handful of staff and transportation costs.

Realistic? Maybe not. Maybe a 'clean' sport is unrealistic too.

Slipstream's idea is interesting. The level of testing they're talking about radically reduces the ease of doping for their team members. The costs will be quite high though, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect all the pro tour teams to do that level of testing given the sponsorship issues they're about to face next year.

- They're not "talking" about it, they're "DOING" it ;)

- Slipstream doesn't have a huge budget...small in comparison to the Pro Tour teams (Note: Slipstream is not a Pro Tour team...but hoping to make the jump by next year, IIRC), and they're managing to make it work.