Farby
07-31-09, 10:54 AM
http://tour-de-france.velonews.com/article/96245/astarloza-tests-positive-for-epo-uci-says
Professional Cycling For the Fans - astarloza tests positive
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.View Full Version : astarloza tests positive
monosierra
07-31-09, 11:05 AM
Oh no....the floodgates are open!!
Ratfish
07-31-09, 11:18 AM
Isn't this the same old test as before? Why did he think he could get through?
fauxto nick
07-31-09, 11:24 AM
ASStarandfeatherthisLOSER.
Fixed.
Fixed.
pathdoc
07-31-09, 11:25 AM
Bummer. I hate to hear this.
hocker
07-31-09, 11:31 AM
Not good for Euskaltel Euskadi. They didn't get an invite to the Giro this year and now this. We were all wondering who Team Sky and Radio Shack would replace at next years Tour.
Garthr
07-31-09, 11:33 AM
Floodgates? . . . nah, just a drop in the bucket so far. The big loser could be the Euskaltel-Euskadi team. Two failed tests don't go well with sponsors.
Then again . . who trusts the crooked UCI? I for one don't.
Then again . . who trusts the crooked UCI? I for one don't.
raptor3x
07-31-09, 11:39 AM
They've really just completely given up on the whole "wait for the B sample before reporting thing", haven't they?
OrionKhan
07-31-09, 11:46 AM
Not surprised. Not disappointed. Don't even care anymore. Next topic of discussion.
hocker
07-31-09, 11:47 AM
They've really just completely given up on the whole "wait for the B sample before reporting thing", haven't they?
Good point raptor! +1
IMO it is irresponsible to report anything to the press before the B sample... ridiculous. And, if he tested positive before the Tour, why was he allowed to ride it? It's like the UCI baits these cheaters, puffs-up its chest and yells "I gotcha", all proud like after the Tour. But, I guess it is better than baseball given MLB waited six years and two championships (BoSox) to release results.
Good point raptor! +1
IMO it is irresponsible to report anything to the press before the B sample... ridiculous. And, if he tested positive before the Tour, why was he allowed to ride it? It's like the UCI baits these cheaters, puffs-up its chest and yells "I gotcha", all proud like after the Tour. But, I guess it is better than baseball given MLB waited six years and two championships (BoSox) to release results.
Garthr
07-31-09, 11:51 AM
They've really just completely given up on the whole "wait for the B sample before reporting thing", haven't they?
Yes. The UCI break their own rules every time. They have once again announced a failed "A" sample", against their own rules or procedure. They have lost all credibility to me. It's a Kangaroo Court of what's becoming a Kangaroo Sport.
With McQuaid in for 4 more years . . . it's looking woeful.
Yes. The UCI break their own rules every time. They have once again announced a failed "A" sample", against their own rules or procedure. They have lost all credibility to me. It's a Kangaroo Court of what's becoming a Kangaroo Sport.
With McQuaid in for 4 more years . . . it's looking woeful.
Garthr
07-31-09, 11:53 AM
Read this article from the Landis case . . . for those that don't know . It explains what is supposed to happen in these cases.
http://velonews.com/article/10679
http://velonews.com/article/10679
fauxto nick
07-31-09, 11:53 AM
In the words of Jay Z "What you eat don't make me ****". I'm getting to the point that it all doesn't matter, the drama is sort of fun/funny. I watch the TDF it pumps me up to wage my own little battles on the road. Then the dopers are popped and everything is corrected, oh well. At least we get new social pariahs every year.
monosierra
07-31-09, 12:03 PM
"All 181 riders tested positive; Massive cover-up revealed"
julian
07-31-09, 12:15 PM
They've really just completely given up on the whole "wait for the B sample before reporting thing", haven't they?
No the article stated he could request to be present for testing of the B sample. Hey in this country people are fingered before they go to trial and are found guilty. What is the difference?
I feel bad about this. I was happy to see him win a stage for the first time in his life. He really was emotional about his win.
No the article stated he could request to be present for testing of the B sample. Hey in this country people are fingered before they go to trial and are found guilty. What is the difference?
I feel bad about this. I was happy to see him win a stage for the first time in his life. He really was emotional about his win.
Garthr
07-31-09, 12:31 PM
The difference is the UCI has a clear set of rules for how these cases are to be handled. They break them every time.
Quote from the Velo News Article:
Once the A Sample tests positive, the UCI’s Anti-Doping Commission notifies the rider’s National Federation, the rider’s National Anti-Doping Organization, and WADA. In addition, the Anti-Doping Commission may send a copy of the notification to the rider and or the rider’s team. The rider, the rider’s National Federation, and the Anti-Doping Commission are all entitled to demand analysis of the B Sample. If the B Sample is negative, the entire test shall be considered negative. If, on the other hand, the B Sample tests positive, or if no request to test the B Sample is made, the findings shall be reported to the rider, his National Federation, his National Anti-Doping Organization, and to WADA. The rider’s team may also be notified.
Under UCI Rules, “public disclosure shall be made by the Anti-Doping Commission or the National Federation” after the B Sample tests positive. Furthermore, UCI Rules require that
License-Holders who are asserted to have committed a violation of these Anti-Doping Rules shall in principle not be publicly identified until it has been determined [at a hearing] that an anti-doping violation has occurred. However, the Anti-Doping Commission and the National Federation of the License-Holder who is asserted to have committed a violation of these Anti-Doping rules may make public statements and identifications they deem appropriate under the circumstances, but not earlier than sending the notification [requesting a disciplinary hearing].
Once again, they condemn the rider before the "B" sample. It's a Kangaroo system.
Quote from the Velo News Article:
Once the A Sample tests positive, the UCI’s Anti-Doping Commission notifies the rider’s National Federation, the rider’s National Anti-Doping Organization, and WADA. In addition, the Anti-Doping Commission may send a copy of the notification to the rider and or the rider’s team. The rider, the rider’s National Federation, and the Anti-Doping Commission are all entitled to demand analysis of the B Sample. If the B Sample is negative, the entire test shall be considered negative. If, on the other hand, the B Sample tests positive, or if no request to test the B Sample is made, the findings shall be reported to the rider, his National Federation, his National Anti-Doping Organization, and to WADA. The rider’s team may also be notified.
Under UCI Rules, “public disclosure shall be made by the Anti-Doping Commission or the National Federation” after the B Sample tests positive. Furthermore, UCI Rules require that
License-Holders who are asserted to have committed a violation of these Anti-Doping Rules shall in principle not be publicly identified until it has been determined [at a hearing] that an anti-doping violation has occurred. However, the Anti-Doping Commission and the National Federation of the License-Holder who is asserted to have committed a violation of these Anti-Doping rules may make public statements and identifications they deem appropriate under the circumstances, but not earlier than sending the notification [requesting a disciplinary hearing].
Once again, they condemn the rider before the "B" sample. It's a Kangaroo system.
julian
07-31-09, 01:53 PM
The difference is the UCI has a clear set of rules for how these cases are to be handled. They break them every time.
Quote from the Velo News Article:
Once the A Sample tests positive, the UCI’s Anti-Doping Commission notifies the rider’s National Federation, the rider’s National Anti-Doping Organization, and WADA. In addition, the Anti-Doping Commission may send a copy of the notification to the rider and or the rider’s team. The rider, the rider’s National Federation, and the Anti-Doping Commission are all entitled to demand analysis of the B Sample. If the B Sample is negative, the entire test shall be considered negative. If, on the other hand, the B Sample tests positive, or if no request to test the B Sample is made, the findings shall be reported to the rider, his National Federation, his National Anti-Doping Organization, and to WADA. The rider’s team may also be notified.
Under UCI Rules, “public disclosure shall be made by the Anti-Doping Commission or the National Federation” after the B Sample tests positive. Furthermore, UCI Rules require that
License-Holders who are asserted to have committed a violation of these Anti-Doping Rules shall in principle not be publicly identified until it has been determined [at a hearing] that an anti-doping violation has occurred. However, the Anti-Doping Commission and the National Federation of the License-Holder who is asserted to have committed a violation of these Anti-Doping rules may make public statements and identifications they deem appropriate under the circumstances, but not earlier than sending the notification [requesting a disciplinary hearing].
Once again, they condemn the rider before the "B" sample. It's a Kangaroo system.
Who let the cat out of the bag? It seems like only the UCI is under a gag order. It seems like a lot of other organizations are notified. Are they under a gag order too?
Quote from the Velo News Article:
Once the A Sample tests positive, the UCI’s Anti-Doping Commission notifies the rider’s National Federation, the rider’s National Anti-Doping Organization, and WADA. In addition, the Anti-Doping Commission may send a copy of the notification to the rider and or the rider’s team. The rider, the rider’s National Federation, and the Anti-Doping Commission are all entitled to demand analysis of the B Sample. If the B Sample is negative, the entire test shall be considered negative. If, on the other hand, the B Sample tests positive, or if no request to test the B Sample is made, the findings shall be reported to the rider, his National Federation, his National Anti-Doping Organization, and to WADA. The rider’s team may also be notified.
Under UCI Rules, “public disclosure shall be made by the Anti-Doping Commission or the National Federation” after the B Sample tests positive. Furthermore, UCI Rules require that
License-Holders who are asserted to have committed a violation of these Anti-Doping Rules shall in principle not be publicly identified until it has been determined [at a hearing] that an anti-doping violation has occurred. However, the Anti-Doping Commission and the National Federation of the License-Holder who is asserted to have committed a violation of these Anti-Doping rules may make public statements and identifications they deem appropriate under the circumstances, but not earlier than sending the notification [requesting a disciplinary hearing].
Once again, they condemn the rider before the "B" sample. It's a Kangaroo system.
Who let the cat out of the bag? It seems like only the UCI is under a gag order. It seems like a lot of other organizations are notified. Are they under a gag order too?
lotek
07-31-09, 02:18 PM
I wondered the same thing about UCI and the rule about not releasing the rider information.
I asked on another forum and no, they are following the guidelines.
excerpted from:
PART 14 ANTI-DOPING RULES OF THE UCI (new version effective as of January 1, 2009)
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=MjI0NQ&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NDc3MDk&LangId=1
206. If the initial review under article 204 does not reveal an applicable Therapeutic Use Exemption or
apparent departure from these Anti-Doping Rules, the Procedural Guidelines, the International Standard
for Testing or the International Standard for Laboratories that caused the Adverse Analytical Finding, the UCI shall promptly notify the Rider of (a) the Adverse Analytical Finding; (b) the Rider’s right to the
analysis of the B Sample under the conditions of these Anti-Doping Rules; (c) the scheduled date, time
and place for the B Sample analysis; (d) the opportunity for the Rider and/or the Rider’s representative to attend the B Sample opening and analysis; and (e) the Rider’s right to request copies of the A and B
Sample laboratory documentation package which includes information as required by the International
Standard for Laboratories.
When the UCI is satisfied that the Rider has been notified, a copy of the notification is sent to the Rider’s National Federation and National Anti-Doping Organization and to WADA.
A copy may also be sent to the Rider’s club or team.
351. UCI may publish reports showing the name of each Rider tested and the date of each Testing.
352. The identity of a License-Holder who may have committed an anti-doping rule violation may be publicly disclosed by the UCI after notice has been provided to the License-Holder under article 206 or, where no Adverse Analytical Finding is involved, under article 249.
I asked on another forum and no, they are following the guidelines.
excerpted from:
PART 14 ANTI-DOPING RULES OF THE UCI (new version effective as of January 1, 2009)
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=MjI0NQ&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NDc3MDk&LangId=1
206. If the initial review under article 204 does not reveal an applicable Therapeutic Use Exemption or
apparent departure from these Anti-Doping Rules, the Procedural Guidelines, the International Standard
for Testing or the International Standard for Laboratories that caused the Adverse Analytical Finding, the UCI shall promptly notify the Rider of (a) the Adverse Analytical Finding; (b) the Rider’s right to the
analysis of the B Sample under the conditions of these Anti-Doping Rules; (c) the scheduled date, time
and place for the B Sample analysis; (d) the opportunity for the Rider and/or the Rider’s representative to attend the B Sample opening and analysis; and (e) the Rider’s right to request copies of the A and B
Sample laboratory documentation package which includes information as required by the International
Standard for Laboratories.
When the UCI is satisfied that the Rider has been notified, a copy of the notification is sent to the Rider’s National Federation and National Anti-Doping Organization and to WADA.
A copy may also be sent to the Rider’s club or team.
351. UCI may publish reports showing the name of each Rider tested and the date of each Testing.
352. The identity of a License-Holder who may have committed an anti-doping rule violation may be publicly disclosed by the UCI after notice has been provided to the License-Holder under article 206 or, where no Adverse Analytical Finding is involved, under article 249.
HigherGround
07-31-09, 03:17 PM
I wish they had taken action before he started the Tour and won a stage. (Assuming the B-sample confirms doping occurred.)
rogwilco
07-31-09, 03:25 PM
Oh well, too bad. I was impressed by the guy in the Tour de France, but what can you do...
Ratfish
07-31-09, 03:36 PM
How could they take action before if they just got the result? Time travel? Pretty sure there is more science than pissing on a stick that shows a blue + sign if they dope.
lotek
07-31-09, 03:56 PM
the first test (A sample) was positive. we haven't heard about the B sample.
the sample was taken June 26th out of competition.
the sample was taken June 26th out of competition.
Garthr
07-31-09, 04:16 PM
Who let the cat out of the bag? It seems like only the UCI is under a gag order. It seems like a lot of other organizations are notified. Are they under a gag order too?
Well . . .it was the UCI that made the announcement after all. :lol:
Anyways . . . . I guess I'm off on a tangent today . . . as I don't care who takes what and when. I say let them dope all day every day . . . and may the best dope win:) . . . as if this hasn't been the case anyways :lol:
Well . . .it was the UCI that made the announcement after all. :lol:
Anyways . . . . I guess I'm off on a tangent today . . . as I don't care who takes what and when. I say let them dope all day every day . . . and may the best dope win:) . . . as if this hasn't been the case anyways :lol:
challaday
07-31-09, 04:51 PM
Just when you thought the tour was clean. :lol:
http://tour-de-france.velonews.com/article/96245/astarloza-tests-positive-for-epo-uci-says
http://tour-de-france.velonews.com/article/96245/astarloza-tests-positive-for-epo-uci-says
ElJamoquio
07-31-09, 04:53 PM
Wow! Breaking Story! Thanks for keeping me up to date.
P.S. - you think there are other dopers in the peloton?
P.S. - you think there are other dopers in the peloton?
botto
07-31-09, 04:54 PM
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=9393228&postcount=3113
ElJamoquio
07-31-09, 04:54 PM
Damn it, you beat me to it.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=9393228&postcount=3113
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=9393228&postcount=3113
bostongarden
07-31-09, 04:56 PM
mmmmmmmmmmm
SunSwingsLow
07-31-09, 05:45 PM
Bahhhh...and i liked him.
booooo
booooo
TommyL
07-31-09, 05:55 PM
me too. What couln't have been someone I don't like?
USAZorro
07-31-09, 06:01 PM
If the B test comes back positive, I'm firing him from my fantasy team.
grolby
07-31-09, 06:25 PM
Just when you thought the tour was clean. :lol:
http://tour-de-france.velonews.com/article/96245/astarloza-tests-positive-for-epo-uci-says
Only idiots thought the Tour was clean. That's what I hate about the coverage of this Tour as "scandal free." Right, like we've gone from enough dopers to get 8 positives to a clean race in one year. Give me a break. At the moment, no positives implies nothing more than that no one got caught (and Astarloza wasn't caught at the Tour).
http://tour-de-france.velonews.com/article/96245/astarloza-tests-positive-for-epo-uci-says
Only idiots thought the Tour was clean. That's what I hate about the coverage of this Tour as "scandal free." Right, like we've gone from enough dopers to get 8 positives to a clean race in one year. Give me a break. At the moment, no positives implies nothing more than that no one got caught (and Astarloza wasn't caught at the Tour).
substructure
07-31-09, 06:26 PM
Please, dude. Don't you know we don't need any more of these facepalm images cluttering up the threads? I'm so GD tired of them.
http://www.icanhasmotivation.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/633761899407989620-facepalm.jpg
http://www.icanhasmotivation.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/633761899407989620-facepalm.jpg
CrimsonKarter21
07-31-09, 06:31 PM
Astarloza and Astarloa both got caught this year. Does anyone know when Astarloza's sample was dirty?
Lithuania
07-31-09, 06:46 PM
this would be perfect for the 2:17 bunny
bellweatherman
07-31-09, 07:11 PM
Let's remember though that Astarloza didn't test positive DURING the Tour de France. He actually tested positive BEFORE the Tour de France in an out-of-competition drug test. And assuming that there are no positive sample from Astarloza that return positive during the Tour, what does this say about the effectiveness of current testing done at the Tour?
Walter
07-31-09, 07:34 PM
We're going to try to keep the doping stories in one place.
I congratulate the OP though. At least this is a real story as opposed to the crap over in Pro Cycling.
Shame too, I watched that stage and was happy for Astarloza....
Off to Pro...
I congratulate the OP though. At least this is a real story as opposed to the crap over in Pro Cycling.
Shame too, I watched that stage and was happy for Astarloza....
Off to Pro...
jaxgtr
07-31-09, 08:14 PM
merging threads
HigherGround
07-31-09, 08:27 PM
How could they take action before if they just got the result? Time travel? Pretty sure there is more science than pissing on a stick that shows a blue + sign if they dope.
I'm not saying that the UCI didn't act as soon as they were able to. It's just frustrating that it took a month for the UCI to get the results, and that we have yet another Tour where the results are being being rewritten (officially or unofficially) after the race has finished.
I'm not saying that the UCI didn't act as soon as they were able to. It's just frustrating that it took a month for the UCI to get the results, and that we have yet another Tour where the results are being being rewritten (officially or unofficially) after the race has finished.
bkrownd
08-01-09, 12:07 AM
I'm not saying that the UCI didn't act as soon as they were able to. It's just frustrating that it took a month for the UCI to get the results, and that we have yet another Tour where the results are being being rewritten (officially or unofficially) after the race has finished.
Well, the sponsors paid their money and got their advertising and the undisturbed Happy Moments were fully enjoyed by all, and now that the $$$ business is finished and nobody's watching it's time to let the skeletons out of the closets.
Well, the sponsors paid their money and got their advertising and the undisturbed Happy Moments were fully enjoyed by all, and now that the $$$ business is finished and nobody's watching it's time to let the skeletons out of the closets.
meb
08-01-09, 02:27 AM
Let's remember though that Astarloza didn't test positive DURING the Tour de France. He actually tested positive BEFORE the Tour de France in an out-of-competition drug test. And assuming that there are no positive sample from Astarloza that return positive during the Tour, what does this say about the effectiveness of current testing done at the Tour?
That they've wised up and know to test while the EPO is still detectable instead of after it has generated the extra blood cells. 1-2 weeks before the tour is the time to use EPO since it is only detectable a couple of days after use yet the extra red blood cells generted benefit them around a month. Tour riders knew they'd be tested when they got to Monaco, so they need make sure the EPO is out of their system
Was Astorloza targetted?
If so, what had them suspecting him.
Looks like Casar's sprint at the line is turning into a stage win.
That they've wised up and know to test while the EPO is still detectable instead of after it has generated the extra blood cells. 1-2 weeks before the tour is the time to use EPO since it is only detectable a couple of days after use yet the extra red blood cells generted benefit them around a month. Tour riders knew they'd be tested when they got to Monaco, so they need make sure the EPO is out of their system
Was Astorloza targetted?
If so, what had them suspecting him.
Looks like Casar's sprint at the line is turning into a stage win.
OrionKhan
08-01-09, 09:15 AM
That they've wised up and know to test while the EPO is still detectable instead of after it has generated the extra blood cells. 1-2 weeks before the tour is the time to use EPO since it is only detectable a couple of days after use yet the extra red blood cells generted benefit them around a month. Tour riders knew they'd be tested when they got to Monaco, so they need make sure the EPO is out of their system
+1. This is why Rasmussen was pulled from the race a few years ago. He skipped out of competition testing and lied about where he was. Said he was out of touch in Mexico. But he was really up in the Dolamites training.
+1. This is why Rasmussen was pulled from the race a few years ago. He skipped out of competition testing and lied about where he was. Said he was out of touch in Mexico. But he was really up in the Dolamites training.
SunSwingsLow
08-01-09, 10:15 AM
Well, the sponsors paid their money and got their advertising and the undisturbed Happy Moments were fully enjoyed by all, and now that the $$$ business is finished and nobody's watching it's time to let the skeletons out of the closets.
bingo.
The sport is ugly with doping and the only way any team can keep any sponsor is to keep this stuff off the headlines.
bingo.
The sport is ugly with doping and the only way any team can keep any sponsor is to keep this stuff off the headlines.
Dolomiti
08-01-09, 12:49 PM
Let's remember though that Astarloza didn't test positive DURING the Tour de France. He actually tested positive BEFORE the Tour de France in an out-of-competition drug test. And assuming that there are no positive sample from Astarloza that return positive during the Tour, what does this say about the effectiveness of current testing done at the Tour?
It was a known method to use EPO before the start of a stage race, since it gives performance gains for weeks after using it. He might have stopped a few days before the Tour, but was caught by bad luck with an out of competition test right when he was taking maximum doses.
The EPO test, if I remember from the Armstrong scandal, has a big range for false negatives, making it seem like micro dosing would beat the tests. Unless the test is more efficient now. But I thought it was something like, over 20% of a certain type of EPO meant that a person was most likely doping, yet they wouldn't be considered positive unless it was over 90% on the test.
It was a known method to use EPO before the start of a stage race, since it gives performance gains for weeks after using it. He might have stopped a few days before the Tour, but was caught by bad luck with an out of competition test right when he was taking maximum doses.
The EPO test, if I remember from the Armstrong scandal, has a big range for false negatives, making it seem like micro dosing would beat the tests. Unless the test is more efficient now. But I thought it was something like, over 20% of a certain type of EPO meant that a person was most likely doping, yet they wouldn't be considered positive unless it was over 90% on the test.
jecjec81
08-04-09, 08:16 AM
http://tour-de-france.velonews.com/article/96329/astarloza-declares-innocence-of-epo-charges
He said he is innocent.
“If I had taken some doping products, I could have circumvented the control by giving the wrong address,” Astarloza said. “With the establishment of the biological passport, to dope yourself is crazy, sporting suicide.”
He said he is innocent.
“If I had taken some doping products, I could have circumvented the control by giving the wrong address,” Astarloza said. “With the establishment of the biological passport, to dope yourself is crazy, sporting suicide.”
Garthr
08-04-09, 08:40 AM
He may or may not have doped. . . . the way their "system" is set up though . . .you're guilty . . .and good luck proving you did not take anything .
Think about it . . how can anyone prove they did not take anything at any given time?
The UCI dog and pony show strikes again :lol:
Think about it . . how can anyone prove they did not take anything at any given time?
The UCI dog and pony show strikes again :lol:
Mr_Christopher
08-04-09, 09:33 AM
Landis still claims he's innocent, yes? And did the Cobra ever admit he doped? While I am skeptical of testing procedures (a healthy skepticism, not tin foil hat action), it's predictable that dopers are going to claim innocence even when guilty. Kind of like our court system. Guilty people plead innocence every day.
I think both A and B samples should be tested before any official announcement and procedures are followed and that the rider should be given the benefit of the doubt until the results from the B sample are processed.
I think both A and B samples should be tested before any official announcement and procedures are followed and that the rider should be given the benefit of the doubt until the results from the B sample are processed.
meb
08-04-09, 10:04 PM
http://tour-de-france.velonews.com/article/96329/astarloza-declares-innocence-of-epo-charges
He said he is innocent.
“If I had taken some doping products, I could have circumvented the control by giving the wrong address,” Astarloza said. “With the establishment of the biological passport, to dope yourself is crazy, sporting suicide.”
Ah, the Rasmussen approach/ :thumb:
He said he is innocent.
“If I had taken some doping products, I could have circumvented the control by giving the wrong address,” Astarloza said. “With the establishment of the biological passport, to dope yourself is crazy, sporting suicide.”
Ah, the Rasmussen approach/ :thumb: