Zinger

.
Pantani, Ullrich, Julich, Zabel among 1998 TDF positives

Reotractive EPO tests from the 1998 TDF are in.

Cat4Lifer

There's a really good ESPN documentary, 9:79*.
It's focus is on the 100m dash in the '88 Olympics.
And in it, a scientist says they have done retroactive drug
testing on samples from T/F athletes in the '84 Olympics, and he found
so many positives that it scared him and he didn't test any more samples.
He reasoned: what good would it do now?

gpsblake

Did anyone not test positive for 1998? If this is true, got to do what they did to Lance, no winner during that year. Although on another hand, I don't see the point in going back that far, we all know a lot (and that's being nice, all might be more accurate) doped.

Zinger

I'm starting to see why Mo Siegel, the promoter of the Red Zinger Classic, just threw away the urine samples from their "doping controls" without actually sending them in to the lab. Not only cheaper but much neater lol.

Too bad that Australian Phil Anderson was distracted by an invitation to join a young lady at her place after winning the Vail criterium stage of the '78 Red Zinger Classic. He was the only one who ever got suspended for missing their phony doping controls that I'm aware of.

They didn't actually start sending them to the lab until the then-Coors Classic in '83.

gsteinb

fascinating and well written book


https://www.amazon.com/Dirtiest-Race-.../dp/1408135957

Walter

Speaking as a high school track coach I have to put US Track and Field right up there with the UCI and Major League Baseball when it comes to turning blind eyes. Kind of sad.

thechemist

So to me, dare I ask but why is it against the rules? Take bodybuilding for example you have the natural stage and the unnatural stage. I say make it legit and or separate those who want to partake and those who don't.

To me the big issue really is the fact that it is labeled as "cheating." If you want a fair playing field than separate those on PEDs and those not. It is just a shame that "drugs" get a bad wrap because of so many poor reasons.

tagaproject6

True. But then, when you do allow PEDs for competition, then you are going to have to set limits and types to "level the playing field". The team with the most money to spend will have acces to better and more plentiful PEDs, then you will have a whole different sets of problems and the ones who will still cheat by going over the standards already set.

Shimagnolo

"Last month, Frenchman Laurent Jalabert was alleged to have been one of those implicated through comparison of retractive testing results from 2004 and a list of anonymous samples from 1998. Jalabert immediately stepped down as a television and radio pundit for this year’s Tour, replaced by Richard Virenque — one of the central riders involved in the 1998 Festina affaire."

Now that is hilarious! Especially for anyone who has read Willy Voet's "Breaking the Chain".

Homebrew01

And how will you regulate it. I'm sure people competing in the "clean" division wil cheat a little bit .....

And as mentioned elsewhere, the effect of doping downstream into high school would only be made worse if it is legitimized.

A grieving father's crusade against doping and the benign sounding "Performance Enhancing Drug" term:
https://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/r...-adults-072313

Middle schoolers and high schoolers are already doping to make varsity ... and at a shot at college teams etc ....

Cat4Lifer

You know, I think I'll check that book out.
Thanks.

thechemist

Those are good points guys and I didn't think of the cascade effect down and up through the youth. Sure do wish their was an easy way out of all of these. Switch to Olympic standards? Time to get brutal? sad state of affairs for cycling.

fr_walnut

That would be funny but it's not true (like all good stories). He was replaced by Cédric Vasseur (Virenque is on Eurosport I believe, and he's never been on national TV, actually Virenque is kind of a running joke in France for his absurd denials).

Zinger

.
Italian sprinter Mario Cipollini and American Kevin Livingston positive

Excerpts from above article:

Agence France Presse reported that the following names were identified in the Senate investigation as having tested positive for EPO: Pantini and Ullrich; Frenchmen Laurent Jalabert, Jacky Durand and Laurent Desbiens; Germans Erik Zabel and Jens Heppner; Italians Cipollini, Andrea Tafi, Nicola Minali, and Fabio Sacchi; Spaniards Abraham Olano and his countrymen Marcos Serrano and Manuel Beltran; Dutchman Jeroen Blijlevens; Denmark’s Bo Hamburger; and Livingston.

Hamburger and Livingston turned in positive tests for EPO at the 1999 Tour as well, according to AFP.

According to AFP, additional riders, including American Bobby Julich, Belgian Axel Merckx, and Australian Stuart O’Grady were identified as having supplied suspicious samples.

(brevity snip)

Garmin-Sharp CEO Jonathan Vaughters, a staunch anti-doping advocate who publicly admitted his own PED use for the first time in 2012, dismissed the value of the list on Twitter on Monday night, writing: “Re ’98 tests:small percentage of guys were tested. Smaller % were still taking epo after police raids started. Names in report? Meaningless.”

Vaughters followed up by claiming that 100 percent of the peloton would have tested positive for EPO if tested three-to-four days before the start of the 1998 Tour.

Stuart O’Grady and Jacky Durand also among the positives

Durand is now a commentator for Eurosport.

Cat4Lifer

Durand would really light up a race, even if he didn't win that many.

xuwol7

Are there going to be more winners stripped of their title?

Walter

True. I enjoyed his long but almost always futile breakaways.

Laggard

I could not care less if they dope. Make it legal to dope. Then it is up to the rider. THEN you have a level playing field.

Cat4Lifer

I hope not.

cyclezen

I think it's generally accepted that doping on a very organized scale, was an integral part of the pro peloton since '90 ish. Given there is never a 'level' playing field, it was what it was and was about as level as anything else. I'm almost at the point where leaving it all behind might be a good thing.
Ongoing - NOT make it 'legal'. Lots of good reasons. It takes away any possible connection the common fan/rider has with the pros.
Aside from transfusions, using any kind of drug has side effects. Some may not appear for quite some time after persistent use - like decades later. I believe one sees that now with all the issues related to steroid use/abuse since the early '60s (or possibly earlier).
We owe it both to our young and our sport to keep them and the sport as clean as possible.
Cycling is an incredibly healthy physical activity for most, and is one of the few one can do to a very, very ripe old age.
How many baseball/football/basketball players actually do it as they age? Many drop out in their 40's, maybe most.
There are hundreds of thousands of older riders out there. Many like me, who were competitive (and some still are) for many decades.
Cycling needs/must maintain the higher ground.
Cycling/racing is much less about who makes it up the Alp D'heuz the fastest. It's more about the 'competition' of all those who attempt to be the fastest.
IMO

Zinger

Transfusions also can be dangerous if hacks get involved such as those in part of the '84 Olympics cycling team. Mark Whitehead's death at the age of 50 might well have been related to either that transfusion (which made him ill at the time) or possibly later ones as he expressed a willingness to keep doing it after the blood boosting was revealed. The gold medalists in the road races weren't thought to be in on it, btw. Alexi Grewal was estranged from head coach Eddie Borysewicz who didn't want him on the team and Connie Carpenter wanted no part (didn't need it).

There's also the case of Tyler Hamilton's blood bag being mixed up with someone else's which indicates the risks of the practice once it's left in the hands of incompetent hacks of the type you might well have involved, especially at the lower levels of the sport.

What I hope these revelations do is intimidate future would be cheaters (which might well be why they're doing this) and don't really care if they pull Ullrich's and Pantani's wins so long as it serves that purpose. The die is already cast in that regard anyway.

Shimagnolo

Interesting article in a recent "Economist" issue: https://www.economist.com/news/scienc...hletes-dilemma

cthenn

Heck no! They already got LA, he's all that matters, apparently.

Leinster

And Landis, and Contador, and Riis, and Ullrich... they may or may not do something about Pantani now that they have a positive test for him, but since it was 15 years ago and he's now dead, probably not.

The whole mess was never only about Lance, but since he was the one who put up the biggest fight (and won the most Tours) he's the one it came down hardest on.

kenji666

Who's left? Lemond? Delgado? Hinault?