Tour de France - Double, or at least shifting standard

2 years ago Landis was positive for testosterone, both on the ratio test,and the radio isotope test. Both established tests, not to mention that Flandis had one dumbass,and shifting excuse (it was the Jack Daniels). Yet many here could not fathom that he had in fact cheated.

Now Ricco tests positive for a new form of recombinant EPO, for which there does not even appear to be a WADA certified test, and everyone immediately assumes he is in fact guilty.

Is the dichotomy the result of national bias, or changing attitudes based on 2 more years of information?

You may well have a point.

I would add though that Ricco has not made himself very popular within and without the peloton. Alot of people apparently are smiling about this, regardless of the validity of the testing. I think I saw a quote from Evans to that effect.

:beer:

2 years ago Landis was positive for testosterone, both on the ratio test,and the radio isotope test. Both established tests, not to mention that Flandis had one dumbass,and shifting excuse (it was the Jack Daniels). Yet many here could not fathom that he had in fact cheated.

Now Ricco tests positive for a new form of recombinant EPO, for which there does not even appear to be a WADA certified test, and everyone immediately assumes he is in fact guilty.

Is the dichotomy the result of national bias, or changing attitudes based on 2 more years of information?

National bias, exacerbated by the american anti-french sentiments. There are still folks out there that think landis didnt dope. More amazing there are folks that think hamilton didnt dope. Most amazing is that there are folks that think LA somehow beat doped up ulrich/basso/entire once team/hamilton/rumsas/vinokourov/mancebo, et. al. without any pharmaceutical influence, and that he (LA) was a white whale for the French authorities because he was an American winning their national tour.

2 years ago Landis was positive for testosterone, both on the ratio test,and the radio isotope test. Both established tests, not to mention that Flandis had one dumbass,and shifting excuse (it was the Jack Daniels). Yet many here could not fathom that he had in fact cheated.

Now Ricco tests positive for a new form of recombinant EPO, for which there does not even appear to be a WADA certified test, and everyone immediately assumes he is in fact guilty.

Is the dichotomy the result of national bias, or changing attitudes based on 2 more years of information?

WADA don't always announce when they have ratified new testing anymore, to try and keep ahead of the dopers

I think the culture is changing. I really think that is why Floyd lost his appeal this year. In 2004, he probably would have won.

But it seems we were all in denial for the last 15 years

BTW: the top headline at La Gazetta this morning reads

"Ricco e Piepoli licenziati 'Violato il codice etico'"

and Ricco says "Ma io sono innocente"

so the team is distancing themselves in the press from Ricco and Piepoli, and Ricco is claiming he's innocent.

WADA don't always announce when they have ratified new testing anymore, to try and keep ahead of the dopers

True. but my point is that whatever the state of testing is for CERA, it's a lot less established than it is for Testosterone. And we immediately believe Ricco guilty, and some still believe FLandis innocent.

In my case - changing attitudes. You should do a poll.
And to add to all this, the French authorities are saying Duenas had a veritable pharmacy with him - actually in his room - while racing in the TdF, the most highly scrutinized race in the world. Whatever the reason, the racers just do not want, or are unable to, comply with the rules that they agreed to race under.

In my case - changing attitudes. You should do a poll.

Most definetly.

I wonder how LA's corticosteroid positive and subsequent clearing with a doctor's note would go over now?
(not starting the LA doped/not doped thing here, just would he have been booted in today's climate)

the French authorities are saying Duenas had a veritable pharmacy with him - actually in his room - while racing in the TdF, the most highly scrutinized race in the world. .


This is my point about punishing the whole team, most particularly Team management. It's impossible to travel around France for 3 weeks sharing a bus, dining facilities, and hotel rooms with 25 of your closest friends, and no one notices this sh*t. If Team management wanted to know what Duenas was doing, they certainly would have been aware of the travelling pharmacy.

This is my point about punishing the whole team, most particularly Team management. It's impossible to travel around France for 3 weeks sharing a bus, dining facilities, and hotel rooms with 25 of your closest friends, and no one notices this sh*t. If Team management wanted to know what Duenas was doing, they certainly would have been aware of the travelling pharmacy.
Exactly.

This is my point about punishing the whole team, most particularly Team management. It's impossible to travel around France for 3 weeks sharing a bus, dining facilities, and hotel rooms with 25 of your closest friends, and no one notices this sh*t. If Team management wanted to know what Duenas was doing, they certainly would have been aware of the travelling pharmacy.You think they search his luggage during the stage? Seems at least possible to me that someone concealing something in his luggage could do so successfully over three weeks.

Most amazing is that there are folks that think LA somehow beat doped up ulrich/basso/entire once team/hamilton/rumsas/vinokourov/mancebo, et. al. without any pharmaceutical influence

He's just that good. :)

You think they search his luggage during the stage? Seems at least possible to me that someone concealing something in his luggage could do so successfully over three weeks.

No they probably didn't search his luggage. But when a guy stays in his room, keeps the door closed, probably has to refrigerate stuff during travel, etc., they must be trying not to notice.

If their team had doctors, how did they not notice?

Seems very clear in this case. Its not that they cannot detect Micera, they certainly can. Roche the drug manufacturer has been working with them directly.

I think my uncertainty with Landis originally resulted from not understanding what drug would explain his results, or why a high testosterone would help that super human effort that day.

If we go back, he tested positive for the very stage he did unreal effort with a result that doesn't necessarily explain that effort. Ricco tested for a drug Micera that has easily explainable results that stays in your system.

Seems very clear in this case. Its not that they cannot detect Micera, they certainly can. Roche the drug manufacturer has been working with them directly.

I think my uncertainty with Landis originally resulted from not understanding what drug would explain his results, or why a high testosterone would help that super human effort that day.

If we go back, he tested positive for the very stage he did unreal effort with a result that doesn't necessarily explain that effort. Ricco tested for a drug Micera that has easily explainable results that stays in your system.

It helps in recovery, nothing to do with carrying more oxygen to your muscles, it just reduces the fatigue in your muscles from previous efforts.

I agree that someone on the team had to know. The riders are undoubtedly giving each other tips -- what doctors to use, how to dope without getting caught, what's the new drug. Unfortunately, proving a definitive connection, with the degree of certainty that would be required to levy a penalty, is almost impossible without getting a confession. I seriously doubt these guys will rat each other out.


Is the dichotomy the result of national bias, or changing attitudes based on 2 more years of information?
Both, but I'm thinking mostly "national bias."

Vino had some defenders 'round here. Rasmussen, not really. Astana, which has several top American and ex-Discovery riders and staff? Many.

Even as recently as last month, a lot of the pro-Landis camp were still proclaiming the usual: the labs are sloppy and incompetent; the UCI / ASO / WADA / USADA any organization with an acronym are both incompetent and hate cyclists; "The French" hate Americans.

I don't know what's changed, other than the nationalities and popularity of the accused....

You think they search his luggage during the stage? Seems at least possible to me that someone concealing something in his luggage could do so successfully over three weeks.

They may be able to conceal it , if everyone has an incentive to look the other way. If team management, and fellow riders have an incentive to be looking, it would be extremely difficult to conceal.

um...not sure how that got in here!

a few random thoughts:
on testing for Micera, from the Cyclingnews.com article and interview with "Doping Expert"
Michel Audran: Wow. I'm stunned. I'm amazed they're saying it's Micera, simply because there's no validated test for that yet. The World Anti-Doping Agency is working on a test, but it certainly doesn't exist yet.
So yes for me there is some question about testing for this stuff in my mind.
2) Saunier Duval statement on firing Piepoli:
Piepoli, the winner of stage 10 to Hautacam, is not reported to have failed a drugs test, but the team decided to fire him after conducting an internal investigation. "[Gianetti] did a personal investigation and consequently lost faith in Riccò but also in Piepoli because of a violation of the team's ethics code," read a team statement.
So did they find doping products or accessories or did they fire him for knowing about Ricco's doping?
3) on Astana and national bias:
Vino had some defenders 'round here. Rasmussen, not really. Astana, which has several top American and ex-Discovery riders and staff? Many.
Different Astana team really. This team claims to be dope free (using same protocol and Dr. as CSC and Columbia) has lots of US riders and same management as Discovery, but is only connected to Astana
team of Vino in name.
4) changing attitudes
I can't speak for anyone else, but at this point in time I'm so tired of excuses, alibis, long drawn
out court cases etc. that I believe if you're caught, game over man. HTFU and admit it.
I'm more willing to believe that someone doped now than I was 2, 3 or 9 years ago.
I'm done defending anyone accused of doping, it's just not worth the energy to me.

Marty

Even as recently as last month, a lot of the pro-Landis camp were still proclaiming the usual: the labs are sloppy and incompetent; the UCI / ASO / WADA / USADA any organization with an acronym are both incompetent and hate cyclists; "The French" hate Americans.
LNDD was sloppy AND incompetent. I don't know how reading through the transcripts could give any other impression. Even WADA's lawyers gave up in cross examination of certain witnesses due to making the situation even worse.

That's an extremely important issue. You are never going to clean up the sport with a comical lack of lab standards, techniques, training, knowledge, competence. They're really lucky the CAS sided against Landis, that way they could clean up their act quietly.

But it takes effort to be informed about what really happened, it's far easier to be snarky.

Different Astana team really. This team claims to be dope free (using same protocol and Dr. as CSC and Columbia) has lots of US riders and same management as Discovery, but is only connected to Astana
team of Vino in name.


Marty

Not really, the upper management is still the Kazahk cycling federation and the sponsor is still the National Company of Kazahkstan, and many past riders are still there. Bruyneel is the general manager.

I think people forget that ASO was punishing the upper management as much as anything, not some of the new squad members.

LNDD was sloppy AND incompetent. I don't know how reading through the transcripts could give any other impression. Even WADA's lawyers gave up in cross examination of certain witnesses due to making the situation even worse.

That's an extremely important issue. You are never going to clean up the sport with a comical lack of lab standards, techniques, training, knowledge, competence. They're really lucky the CAS sided against Landis, that way they could clean up their act quietly.

But it takes effort to be informed about what really happened, it's far easier to be snarky.


I absolutely agree with you regarding the shoddy work done at Chateau-Malabry. Not saying that Flandis was innocent, but simply that the science certainly didn't prove he was guilty.

That said, we've got no proof that similarly shoddy work wasn't done in the Ricco case, and at this point, the onus is on the lab to prove the quality of their work. They earned that burden by past performance.

LNDD was sloppy AND incompetent. I don't know how reading through the transcripts could give any other impression. Even WADA's lawyers gave up in cross examination of certain witnesses due to making the situation even worse.

That's an extremely important issue. You are never going to clean up the sport with a comical lack of lab standards, techniques, training, knowledge, competence. They're really lucky the CAS sided against Landis, that way they could clean up their act quietly.

But it takes effort to be informed about what really happened, it's far easier to be snarky.

Exactly.

Even though Floyd's odd excuses didn't add up, LNDD's screwed things up at every possible turn. If I were to review their evidence, I couldn't in good conscience vote to uphold their findings - regardless of who the rider was.

Ricco and Rasmussen had both long been suspected of doping, and Ulrich and Vino both had irrefutable cases against them. Hamilton I have no sympathy for or patience with because he was caught by a non-interpretive test and made up the most far-fetched story imaginable. Lance and Floyd? I hear the whispers, and am a bit disconcerted by some of them, but I don't believe "reasonable doubt" (my personal standard for evaluating) has been has been dispelled.

Testosterone doesn't make you a better endurance cyclist. It might make you hit more homeruns. The synthetic testosterone found in Landis's pee was sketch because of the labs results. They found some markers in some samples, none in others. What's up with that?

It appears now if there's something funky - you're guilty until found innocent - which rests in the hands of tests - which made you look guilty in the first place. So really...

Personally, if professional contracts were longer and more secure with some pension- maybe this will stop? What's the motivation behind this whole doping anyways? Winning? Money?

The winner of a stage is remembered for a lifetime. 2nd place - 2nd who??? If you're not first - you're nobody. And because of that pressure - everyone in the peleton wants to be No.1 during the race.

Pros spend their lives training, so they have no fallback plan - unlike us working class, we are the other side of the coin. We will retire and buy that Colnago and enjoy our pension. Pros try and become commentators and mechanics making $12/hr to pay rent in their dingy part of town.

Jens Voigt has 8 kids to feed or something. You think being peleton pack fodder is going to feed those mouths? College? Are they all going to be pro like daddy? Don't think so.

Both, but I'm thinking mostly "national bias."

Even as recently as last month, a lot of the pro-Landis camp were still proclaiming the usual: the labs are sloppy and incompetent; the UCI / ASO / WADA / USADA any organization with an acronym are both incompetent and hate cyclists; "The French" hate Americans.

I don't know what's changed, other than the nationalities and popularity of the accused....

I'd add one more difference: w/ Landis, there was more familiarity of the rider as a person. Given his family background & culture, it was much harder to fathom he'd cheat that way. Ricco is less known, but has much more of a persona as a "punk" than Landis, for example - so it's much easier to see him flouting the rules as a rebel.

I still think there have been problems with the chain of custody of samples (at least, there was with Landis' samples) and the fact the testing lab, tour organizer, and main French newspaper that leaks test results are all owned by the same outfit creates a conflict of interest that makes me uncomfortable. These guys are all found guilty in the court of public opinion before the B samples even confirm results - which isn't healthy for anyone involved, IMO.

Seems very clear in this case. Its not that they cannot detect Micera, they certainly can. Roche the drug manufacturer has been working with them directly.

I think my uncertainty with Landis originally resulted from not understanding what drug would explain his results, or why a high testosterone would help that super human effort that day.

If we go back, he tested positive for the very stage he did unreal effort with a result that doesn't necessarily explain that effort. Ricco tested for a drug Micera that has easily explainable results that stays in your system.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

Landis was busted for Testosterone. I remember at the time it happened, there were a lot of 'experts' seriously doubting the effectiveness of testosterone and its short term benefit. There seemed to be, at least at the time, a lot of debate as to whether or not it could have done any good for him overnight. (Since then, the consensus now seems to be that it does help in fairly rapid recovery).

Sure, national bias probably accounts for the bulk of the double standard. But again, at the time, there was at least some room to doubt the failed test with Landis. Not so with Ricco and others.

And also there was the "it just doesn't make sense". How could you be so stupid to take the stage win if you knew you would be tested and found out? Things just didn't add up as easily as it does now.

The labs can be incompetent and sloppy, and Landis could still have been guilty. The two are not mutually exclusive.

The labs can be incompetent and sloppy, and Landis could still have been guilty. The two are not mutually exclusive.

That's true, but that defense also got someone as guilty as sin as OJ off scot-free.

Pros spend their lives training, so they have no fallback plan - unlike us working class, we are the other side of the coin. We will retire and buy that Colnago and enjoy our pension. Pros try and become commentators and mechanics making $12/hr to pay rent in their dingy part of town.
I really thought for a while the Landis hearing was going to lead to the riders unionizing to help some sense of fairness. I really think that would have been bad for the sport in a lot of ways.

I think the new team doping protocols of Astana, CSC, Columbia, and Garmin will help bring some fairness into the system. Their riders have neutral, comprehensive testing to compare to the *ADA labs. If you are innocent you have someone to back you up. It'll take some time to build confidence and trust in those systems, but if done properly it can only be good for the riders.

Doesn't help with the post-riding career retirement income stuff, though.

And also there was the "it just doesn't make sense". How could you be so stupid to take the stage win if you knew you would be tested and found out? Things just didn't add up as easily as it does now.

Because they don't think they'll get caught, and often don't. Millar was on EPO when he won the 2003 Time Trial championship, he knew he'd be tested after. Rumsas came third in 2002 and then his wife got caught with his stash at the Italian border and even then he kept doping and got nailed at the Giro in 2003. Heras got nailed after winning the Vuelta in 2005. The list goes on and on.

Besides all that, when Landis went on that breakaway, it was conventional wisdom that it would get pulled back, Landis would've thought so as well. That's why in part it was (and still is) pretty miraculous that he stayed away. So I imagine he hardly thought he was going to win the stage anyway.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

Landis was busted for Testosterone.
You're close, but you've fallen into the trap that most of the sports writers fell into. He wasn't busted for testosterone. His T levels were below limits, they were actually pretty well within spec. His AAF was for testosterone:epitestosterone ratio being high. There are a lot of possible explanations for it, and the number was over the limit, no denying it. But a point - only one result of multiple testings was significantly over (11:1), IIRC, one was borderline but over, and two a bit below. It's been a long time and I don't really know where to find the numbers easily, anymore, so don't take it as gospel, but it's my best recollection. I was learning about this stuff as I went along with the Landis saga, and the whole LeMond incident kind of soured the situation.

It's just as easy to believe the ratio was high because he had used a lot of his T reserves recoverning from the epic bonk just before, and there hadn't been enough time for his body to replace all the E it used. That ratio isn't the best indicator of anything because 4:1 is a bit arbitrary. It works on serious dopers, you can see numbers over 80:1.

It is an AAF, and therefore a fail, no disputing that if you trust the lab. E:T is only a red flag and an indicator to look for other things. Unfortunately, there's not much push to look for natural reasons.

The really shoddy work by the lab comes later, though, with the synthetic testosterone results. You have to really squint to buy their story that the numbers meant what they said because of how incompetent they were in running the test, isolating the peaks, not having magnets stuck to the machinery where they could affect the results, knowing which sample was the real one and not the blind sample so they had results in mind before testing. That's the travesty here.

What they said was signs of synthetic T could very well have been what they claimed. They could have been a result of bad calibration. They could have been the standards. You couldn't determine that from the results themselves, and on a properly run test it is pretty well cut and dried.

I really thought for a while the Landis hearing was going to lead to the riders unionizing to help some sense of fairness. I really think that would have been bad for the sport in a lot of ways.
I think the new team doping protocols of Astana, CSC, Columbia, and Garmin will help bring some fairness into the system. Their riders have neutral, comprehensive testing to compare to the *ADA labs.


Unions help with contract negotiations, riders galvanizing, arbitrations, extending old-dusty riders careers, and possibly even a pension.
Problems - Who's in it? Who decides who's in it? International? Euro only? Contract/Value inflations, rider abuse, etc etc...

Yes - I agree. But if WADA/L'Equipe/ASO decides who's in or out - does it matter? If they kick Vandevelde out on Stage 22 when he's got yellow - he'll have an unceremonius jersey sent to him in a couple months after they find he's clean.

You're close, but you've fallen into the trap that most of the sports writers fell into. He wasn't busted for testosterone. His T levels were below limits, they were actually pretty well within spec.

E:T is only a red flag and an indicator to look for other things. Unfortunately, there's not much push to look for natural reasons. The really shoddy work by the lab comes later, though, with the synthetic testosterone results. You have to really squint to buy their story that the numbers meant what they said because of how incompetent they were in running the test, isolating the peaks, not having magnets stuck to the machinery where they could affect the results, knowing which sample was the real one and not the blind sample so they had results in mind before testing. That's the travesty here.

What they said was signs of synthetic T could very well have been what they claimed. They could have been a result of bad calibration. They could have been the standards. You couldn't determine that from the results themselves, and on a properly run test it is pretty well cut and dried.

I think 8 sour grapes were too many. ;) :D

It's just as easy to believe the ratio was high because he had used a lot of his T reserves recoverning from the epic bonk just before, and there hadn't been enough time for his body to replace all the E it used. That ratio isn't the best indicator of anything because 4:1 is a bit arbitrary. It works on serious dopers, you can see numbers over 80:1..

ha

I think 8 sour grapes were too many. ;) :DNaw, the science testimony was just really interesting in a geeky way. A lot of the incompetence-in-results-claims are via the guy who did a lot of development on the equipment they were using to run the test. He was also Landis's observer at the retests. EDIT: Yes, I realize while an expert on gas chromatography in general, Dr. M-A is not specialized in doping tests, but there's a specific set of requirements to find any substance with any amount of confidence.

I don't, and can't know if Landis doped. My sour grapes are over the fact that the testing work does not meet anything close to a comfortable threshold for validating an AAF. There's no recourse for riders. All it takes is inuendo and rational thought goes out the window.

haCase in point.

Stop trolling, dutret, or at least offer up a valid point or two. You obviously don't have even the vaguest clue what constitutes evidence, based on your post history.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

Landis was busted for Testosterone. I remember at the time it happened, there were a lot of 'experts' seriously doubting the effectiveness of testosterone and its short term benefit. There seemed to be, at least at the time, a lot of debate as to whether or not it could have done any good for him overnight. (Since then, the consensus now seems to be that it does help in fairly rapid recovery).

Sure, national bias probably accounts for the bulk of the double standard. But again, at the time, there was at least some room to doubt the failed test with Landis. Not so with Ricco and others.

And also there was the "it just doesn't make sense". How could you be so stupid to take the stage win if you knew you would be tested and found out? Things just didn't add up as easily as it does now.

I there's not a concensus that testosterone helps much short term in an endurance event, and there's still contention on that. If it has a significant short term benefit, there'd be scientific evidence by now.
It remains doubtful and that's why Floyd's testing positive leaves doubt, particularly given his testosterone levels and isotope ratios were questionable on the fail side. And he knew he would be tested if he won the stage. Floyds performance is far more consistent with extra rbc.

Testosterone makes much more sense as a training regimen use.
Autologenous transfusion is a much effective and less detectable than EPO and more consistent with Floyds performance. Floyd more likely transfused his training phase blood that had testosterone from his training regimen than took a short term boost. He wouldn't be the first cyclist to get busted for PEDs he took during training that got retransfused to when he later attempted to boost his blood crit for a competion. If Floyd had tested positive for EPO or a homologous transfusion, there would have been little debate on Floyd's innocence.

But yes, Ricco's lack of disdain for Pantini's PED enhanced success, Riccos dominance on stages 6 and 9, his 51% crit levels meant he probably was on EPO, therefore left us half expecting he was dirty.

You're close, but you've fallen into the trap that most of the sports writers fell into. He wasn't busted for testosterone. His T levels were below limits, they were actually pretty well within spec. His AAF was for testosterone:epitestosterone ratio being high. There are a lot of possible explanations for it, and the number was over the limit, no denying it. But a point - only one result of multiple testings was significantly over (11:1), IIRC, one was borderline but over, and two a bit below. It's been a long time and I don't really know where to find the numbers easily, anymore, so don't take it as gospel, but it's my best recollection. I was learning about this stuff as I went along with the Landis saga, and the whole LeMond incident kind of soured the situation.

It's just as easy to believe the ratio was high because he had used a lot of his T reserves recoverning from the epic bonk just before, and there hadn't been enough time for his body to replace all the E it used. That ratio isn't the best indicator of anything because 4:1 is a bit arbitrary. It works on serious dopers, you can see numbers over 80:1.

It is an AAF, and therefore a fail, no disputing that if you trust the lab. E:T is only a red flag and an indicator to look for other things. Unfortunately, there's not much push to look for natural reasons.

The really shoddy work by the lab comes later, though, with the synthetic testosterone results. You have to really squint to buy their story that the numbers meant what they said because of how incompetent they were in running the test, isolating the peaks, not having magnets stuck to the machinery where they could affect the results, knowing which sample was the real one and not the blind sample so they had results in mind before testing. That's the travesty here.

What they said was signs of synthetic T could very well have been what they claimed. They could have been a result of bad calibration. They could have been the standards. You couldn't determine that from the results themselves, and on a properly run test it is pretty well cut and dried.


I'm afraid you have it backwards,

Here's the final conclusions (my highlights) of McClaren and Brunet, who found in favour of USADA:

320. THIS PANEL, after having carefully read, reviewed and considered all of the
evidence and arguments presented by the Claimant the United States Anti-
Doping Agency on the one hand, and the evidence and arguments of the
Respondent, Floyd Landis, on the other hand including, but not limited to, the
pre-trial briefs and arguments, the pre-trial motions and related arguments and
rulings, the testimony of the witnesses, with exhibits, the opening and closing
statements of counsel introduced during the arbitration hearing held from May
14-23, 2007 and the Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed by
both parties on the 28 June 2007, hereby makes the following rulings and
awards in the case of USADA v. Landis:
1. The charge of an elevated T/E ratio from the sample was not
established in accordance with the WADA International
Standard for Laboratories and is hereby dismissed.
2. The charge of exogenous testosterone being found in the
sample by the Carbon Isotope Ratio analysis is established in
accordance with the UCI Anti-Doping Regulations.
3. An Anti-Doping Rule Violation is found to have been
established under Article 15.1. This is the Athlete’s first
violation.
4. Pursuant to UCI Article 261 a period of two years’ ineligibility
is imposed by this award.
5. The violation of the UCI Rules having occurred as a result of
an In-Competition test will result under UCI Articles 256 and
257.2 in the automatic disqualification of the Athlete’s results
in the 2006 Tour de France and forfeiture of any medals,
points or prizes.
6. Under UCI Rules 257.2 and 275 the normal period of
Ineligibility would commence with the date of this decision, but
the Rule also provides that where any period during which
provisional measures were imposed or voluntarily accepted by
the athlete shall be credited against the total period of
Ineligibility to be served. Furthermore, where required by
fairness, the hearing body imposing the sanction may start the
period of Ineligibility at an earlier date commencing as early as
the date of the anti-doping violation. In this case the Athlete
filed a declaration of voluntary non competition as of 30
January 2007. Therefore, the period of Ineligibility will begin
on that date and continue until 29 January 2009.
7. The submission that the Athlete voluntarily accepted a
suspension at an earlier date the 5th of August 2006 being the
day on which he was fired by his cycling team is rejected.

Here are the links to the two documents:

http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/Landis%20Final%20(20-09-07)%20(3).pdf

http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/LandisFinalDissent.pdf

Autologenous transfusion is a much effective and less detectable than EPO and more consistent with Floyds performance. Floyd more likely transfused his training phase blood that had testosterone from his training regimen than took a short term boost. He wouldn't be the first cyclist to get busted for PEDs he took during training that got retransfused to when he later attempted to boost his blood crit for a competion. If Floyd had tested positive for EPO or a homologous transfusion, there would have been little debate on Floyd's innocence. This is a possibility as well. The wrench is the fact that his testosterone levels were not high, they were a bit low, and his epitestosterone was extremely low. Unfortunately, none of the indicators for any blood doping came back as an AAF, so we're stuck with more speculation. Reasonable as this possibility is, we're still left in limbo, because for every doping explanation, there are equally reasonable non-doping reasons (No, not the Jack Daniels defense...). It's kind of a lame thing to get crucified over, I want to know for sure the rider I'm seeing condemned as a cheater is a cheater. And no one trusts a claim of innocence. Virenque maintained his innocence for a couple years before coming clean.

It's still not completely unprecedented that someone really did manage something special in a do-or-die moment.

I for one am a convert. I assumed that some of these world class athletes were just that, but now that all of my heroes except for Jens have been caught, I am willing to say that it is no longer a conspiracy where random riders are accused. So when it comes out now, I am not surprised.

Of course there is also the fact that I have taken a keen disliking to Ricco because of his interviews. So in a way, I am happier to have him caught.

2 years ago Landis was positive for testosterone, both on the ratio test,and the radio isotope test. Both established tests, not to mention that Flandis had one dumbass,and shifting excuse (it was the Jack Daniels). Yet many here could not fathom that he had in fact cheated.

Now Ricco tests positive for a new form of recombinant EPO, for which there does not even appear to be a WADA certified test, and everyone immediately assumes he is in fact guilty.

Is the dichotomy the result of national bias, or changing attitudes based on 2 more years of information?

For those taking the positions you point out I'd have ot go with national bias and often gross ignorence. After all how many times have we heard this called a French Conspiricy. Yet none of these disqualifications ever moved a French Rider onto the Podium and the first of the huge busts was Festina. Now which country took a huge hit there?

I'm afraid you have it backwards,I know what the majority opinion found, I've read the whole thing, and yes, going by that it seems like I'm talking out my ass.

He was busted, and lost his jersey over, the T/E ratio. He didn't get it back, even though that was thrown out, because of the synthetic T indicators that were subsequently shown by LNDD from additional, a bit later (and according to expert testimony in the AA hearing egregiously wrong) testing.

Nearly every article after Landis's AAF was reported said high testosterone. That wasn't an issue until much later.

7/27/06 Phonak confirms AAF for T/E ratio, also tidbit about lowering of T/E AAF threshold.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/jul06/jul27news3

8/1/06 Leaked synth T/natural T ratio finding
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/aug06/aug01news2

This test only happened because of the T/E AAF. Also the start of results that are questionable due to poor handling.

It's all academic at this point, though, because he lost, whether he deserved to or not. I want the sport to have testing the riders and fans can trust, or at least those who still have managed, through all the garbage, to hold on to some bit of healthy skepticism.

In a U.S. court, this would have been tossed as they only checked the isotopes because the T/E ratio was "high". Even then, there was not 100% consensus that the testing/interpretation of the isotopes was performed correctly. While there is no dispute over how this was ruled, the deck was stacked against Floyd, and given the rules and circumstances, the "fact" of Floyd's conviction does not convince me (nor many others who took the time to read through the portion of the evidence that was made public), that justice was served. I would love to see Floyd come back next year and kick everyone's arses to the curb - but given his age, and the unlikelihood that the ASO would let him participate - I doubt we'll get that satisfaction.

I'm afraid you have it backwards,

Here's the final conclusions (my highlights) of McClaren and Brunet, who found in favour of USADA:

320. THIS PANEL, after having carefully read, reviewed and considered all of the
evidence and arguments presented by the Claimant the United States Anti-
Doping Agency on the one hand, and the evidence and arguments of the
Respondent, Floyd Landis, on the other hand including, but not limited to, the
pre-trial briefs and arguments, the pre-trial motions and related arguments and
rulings, the testimony of the witnesses, with exhibits, the opening and closing
statements of counsel introduced during the arbitration hearing held from May
14-23, 2007 and the Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed by
both parties on the 28 June 2007, hereby makes the following rulings and
awards in the case of USADA v. Landis:
1. The charge of an elevated T/E ratio from the sample was not
established in accordance with the WADA International
Standard for Laboratories and is hereby dismissed.
2. The charge of exogenous testosterone being found in the
sample by the Carbon Isotope Ratio analysis is established in
accordance with the UCI Anti-Doping Regulations.
3. An Anti-Doping Rule Violation is found to have been
established under Article 15.1. This is the Athlete’s first
violation.
4. Pursuant to UCI Article 261 a period of two years’ ineligibility
is imposed by this award.
5. The violation of the UCI Rules having occurred as a result of
an In-Competition test will result under UCI Articles 256 and
257.2 in the automatic disqualification of the Athlete’s results
in the 2006 Tour de France and forfeiture of any medals,
points or prizes.
6. Under UCI Rules 257.2 and 275 the normal period of
Ineligibility would commence with the date of this decision, but
the Rule also provides that where any period during which
provisional measures were imposed or voluntarily accepted by
the athlete shall be credited against the total period of
Ineligibility to be served. Furthermore, where required by
fairness, the hearing body imposing the sanction may start the
period of Ineligibility at an earlier date commencing as early as
the date of the anti-doping violation. In this case the Athlete
filed a declaration of voluntary non competition as of 30
January 2007. Therefore, the period of Ineligibility will begin
on that date and continue until 29 January 2009.
7. The submission that the Athlete voluntarily accepted a
suspension at an earlier date the 5th of August 2006 being the
day on which he was fired by his cycling team is rejected.

Here are the links to the two documents:

http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/Landis%20Final%20(20-09-07)%20(3).pdf

http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/LandisFinalDissent.pdf

For those taking the positions you point out I'd have ot go with national bias and often gross ignorence. After all how many times have we heard this called a French Conspiricy. Yet none of these disqualifications ever moved a French Rider onto the Podium and the first of the huge busts was Festina. Now which country took a huge hit there?I don't blame the French for their zealousness on cleaning up the sport. The memorable names from the Festina scandal were hugely popular French riders. I would also believe that some of the poorer (relative) performance of French riders in the last decade are due to their younger riders being cleaner due to that disgust.

I think that this zealousness can be carried too far, which is why there is a list of lawsuits won by Armstrong.

The bad side effect is there is too much assumption of guilt, and at this point everyone's disgusted and feels the same way, they just got burned first. I don't think this part is a positive, because it doesn't lead to any positive attempts to improve the sport, just negative ones to get rid of cheating. There's a difference.

Testosterone makes much more sense as a training regimen use.

If Floyd had tested positive for EPO or a homologous transfusion, there would have been little debate on Floyd's innocence. But yes, Ricco's lack of disdain for Pantini's PED enhanced success, Riccos dominance on stages 6 and 9, his 51% crit levels meant he probably was on EPO, therefore left us half expecting he was dirty.

Agreed, but a lot of riders slap testy patches on their testies as a recovery mechanism. Meaning Landis "could" have patched his b@lls giving him the boost w/o having to transfuse blood. BUT that doesn't allow him to ride the way he did.
51% isn't really that high. I have a 51% crit [doctor/lab certified] - does that mean I'm doping? I can barely push 400W for a minute.

And Landis is still innocent?
How happy would americans be if Landis had been caught this year and was facing jail time?

Case in point.

Stop trolling, dutret, or at least offer up a valid point or two. You obviously don't have even the vaguest clue what constitutes evidence, based on your post history.

What is the case in point? I wasn't even commenting on the validity of any tests but rather you're nonsensical alternative explanation followed by a red herring about t/e ratios common in bodybuilders. The quoted paragraph was complete bull**** regardless of how accurate any of the tests being discussed were.

And Landis is still innocent?
How happy would americans be if Landis had been caught this year and was facing jail time?

The problem is, we don't actually know whether or not he is innocent or guilty. Floyd may be the only person on earth who actually knows. (as opposed to presuming to know)

The problem is, we don't actually know whether or not he is innocent or guilty. Floyd may be the only person on earth who actually knows. (as opposed to presuming to know)

True, but there are quit a few around here claiming they knew Ricco was juiced by the way he just rode everyone off his wheels in the mountains, where as when Landis beats the entire field by 10 mins he is a hero.
Whether Landis is guilty or not does not matter, the point is Ricco is not being given the same treatment based on the fact that alot of people don't like his personality, but bais is bais, what can you do.

I think you guys are overlooking evidence found in the room of Ricco. Apparently it was very daming.

I think you guys are overlooking evidence found in the room of Ricco. Apparently it was very daming.

Yeah I haven't had time to look it over, what was it?
Besides I don't care that he was guilty I just thought we were giving everyone the same reason of doubt.
Are the ASO using the same labs that Landis was convicted by?
Maybe they screwed this one up too.