Recently in Doping Category

Is this a credible explanation or a plausible explanation?

Where I have questions is over whether this is credible - worthy of being believed - or only plausible - having the appearance of truth.

My default setting is to trust an athlete's defence until I'm proved otherwise. The problem with the strict liability of the WADA rules is that it treats everything as binary which influences the way that offences are seen: guilty/not guilty.

A good defence is one that sounds true. A good defence needn't say everything. Indeed, it's often the case that a good defence omits much of the truth in favour of the one most convincing argument.

For Contador there is no way back now that Clenbuterol has been found, there is legitimate doubt over his propriety. His smartest move was not to deny the validity of the test results but to question what they tell us.

So, is Contador's "try the veal" story a good defence?

Well it's plausible that the clenbuterol came from an accidental source. The expert opinion seems coherent in its conclusions. What is less plausible is the nature of the source.

Is it believable that a friend of the team happens to be visiting the hotel with enough meat for a family meal?

I've been trying to find out which hotel Astana were staying in on those days. I vaguely recall that they weren't staying in Pau and at least one good source seems to think they might have been lodged across the border in Spain.

What seems odd is Vinokourov eats early and that the spanish contingent eat later and separately to the rest of the team. Well it's not that odd given the stories we've heard about relationships within cycling teams.

A cycling team is logistically like a military company with corps devoted to specific functions and platoon-like units that work as a part of the whole. They may not have much contact usually but on a rest day, at a key point in the race, this seems a triffle odd.

They were staying at that hotel for at least two nights and it seems on the first night the meat wasn't up to scratch so the chef was tasked with finding a better source.

Now I've worked a few kitchens in my time and I certainly wouldn't wait on a mate turning up with some chops for the evening. I'd be phoning round all the butchers in the area trying to source something early in the day. How could he have know Bert and friends wouldn't eat until late and run the risk that their dinner hadn't arrived?

So it might be plausible that Contador ate contaminated meat but the explanation of how it came to be only his sample that showed evidence of it does not seem entirely believable when I hear it retold.

Structurally it is all sound, but it all seems to lack any snags, the sort of thing that makes it human. Is that a matter of translation or that Contador wanted to be clear with his facts?

The notion that a professional cycling team would leave the nutrition of their star rider so open to chance as the elements of the story imply - bad meat, replacement meat travelling a distance - pushes against credibility.

So which tests contained what?

My reading of the ARD information, as laid out in the Velonation article German journalist claims UCI denied Alberto Contador positive test, says rider may have received transfusions, is that it was Contador's test on stage 19 - the day he took the yellow jersey - which contained the plasticizers.

That would make the claim that he took a transfusion on the morning of the stage into Pau, not the rest day. The Clenbuterol comes in the rest day test and is still present the next day (Pau-Tourmalet).

This point is made in the article but it is worth stressing: Exogenous plasticizers at an abnormal level occur separately to the appearance of exogenous Clenbuterol.

Seppelt seems to be trying to refute the "try the veal" defence by introducing something entirely new.

I'm pretty sure good evidence that Contador was at the blood bags like a binge-drinking Dracula makes a much bigger story that trace of clenbuterol. After all, Damien Ressiot didn't play his hand in Le Mensonge Armstrong with an opening gambit of the dubious TUE.

I'll chip away at the edifice as the evidence appears but, to paraphrase Benjo Maso, author of The Sweat of the Gods: Myths and Legends of Bicycle Racing the worst thing we can do is to presume that the achievements of the modern era are not being achieved honestly.

So, yes I've got quite a few questions I'd like to know the answers to before I turn the page on this story. If you can give answers for any of them, I'd really like to hear them.

I've avoided poking the road rash on the rump of professional cycling that is the Floyd Landis case. Nobody has ever thanked the ninety-nine-millionth-and-one person who says "look you seem to have fallen off" while prodding the weeping flesh.

Instead I recommend you read the following articles:

"When Floyd Landis last week accused several top riders of doping, one thing was missing from the fallout: a flat-out, en masse denial of Landis's allegations." - Accusations Ring Loud, but Not the Denials - Juliet Macur, NY Times

Truth, Lies and Evidence - Joe Lindsey's Boulder Report - Bicycling.com

Floyd Landis confession emails may only be the first chapter - David Walsh - The Times

Another fine mess

I'll also avoid the Valverde case other than to highlight how long it has taken and why we have got to where we are. Podium Cafe has a very detailed timeline of the case

• The case began with the judicial investigation in Spain known as Operacion Puerto in 2004
• Operacion Puerto first came to public notice in 2006
• The UCI and WADA both ask the Spanish Federation (RFEC) to take action against Valverde either side of the Worlds in autumn 2007
• RFEC procrastinate into 2008, citing jurisdictional reasons they couldn't act, apparently unable to access the evidence
• In July 2008 Italian anti-doping authorities take a sample from Valverde when the Tour de France crosses into Italy
• In May 2009 Valverde is banned in Italy by CONI on the basis of DNA evidence linking him to bloodbag 18, indentifying him as "Valv Piti".
• Valverde does not contest that he has been correctly identified, rather that the Italians did not have the jurisdiction to sanction him
• In May 2010, after protracted appeals and foot-dragging, CAS ratifies the Italian ban and agrees with the UCI/WADA case that it should be extended worldwide
• Valverde is banned worldwide for two years, effective 01 January 2010
• CAS note that there is no direct evidence that Valverde has obtained results through doping
• Valverde continues to appeal, claiming he has been unfairly treated but still not contesting his identification by CONI as a party to Operacion Puerto

Time for cycling to find its Kerry Packer?

Instead, let's look at the third ring of this complete circus: the professional racing circuit.

Today, it was announced that the Tour of Ireland has been cancelled for 2010 joined the list of defunct races unable to find funding or favour.

Last week The Inner Ring flagged up leaked details of the revised UCI Protour which hinted at one possible future: pay-to-play where the ability to do double entry accounting for the value of your squad is more important than building a team from grassroots and moving up through the sport.

What I don't understand is why race organisers are so happy to leave the organisation of the sport to the UCI. Surely the combined weight and racebook of RCS (Giro and other Italian races) and ASO (Tour de France, Paris-Roubaix) covers almost all of the top flight events of note and has a future value which far outweigh anything the UCI holds?

The UCI has been instrumental in trying to broaden the global appeal of the sport but it strikes me that the races it has helped developed would be better served by experienced race organisers than the sport's administrator. It simply doesn't have the logistical expertise or financial imperative needed to make events in Africa or Asia as significant as their European counterparts.

In my view what cycling needs is someone with the balls of Kerry Packer. For those not familiar, Packer was the man who transformed the staid world of international cricket with his World Series Cricket (WSC).

He's quoted as having asked the Australian Cricket Board in 1976 "There is a little bit of the whore in all of us, gentlemen. What is your price?" while discussing television rights. He would have been perfectly at home in a sport as venal as cycling.

While history records that WSC didn't endure, it did force the sport to confront its failings and move forward in terms of professionalism and its appeal to the audience.

Currently professional cycling is stuck in an hopeless situation where fear of wholesale change leads to poisonous inactivity and decay as the remaining pool of assets withers. The longer it is left to those already with heavily vested interests, the less likely it becomes that cycling can change.

As has been said elsewhere what cycling needs is for someone to come in and re-invent the presentation and appeal. They'll have to think beyond the traditional at the same time as retaining the core that makes cycling so brilliant.

Here's a couple of things they could start with:

Women's racing is demented, unpredictable, attacking.

Bar the sexist pigs who can't appreciate great competition for what it is, does anyone think the sport wouldn't be better for a more richly rewarded profile for the women's scene?

Bring the crazy back

The races everyone talks about are never "sunny day, sunflowers and vineyards", it's the mud-splattered Tuscan battles, the chance escapes that beat the odds, the glorious epics.

Bring back motorpaced epics like Bordeaux-Paris with their night racing and fearsome endurance challenge. The "ultra" element of the sport has been left far too long as the preserve of the nostaligic amateur.

Find unique routes, don't always chase the smooth tarmac and mountain passes. The passing of climbs like Puy de Dome from the sport is a tragedy for that reason in the same way that the rediscovery of Tuscany's gravel roads is a joy.

So how can cycling make that move forward without someone to drive the change?

I don't usually berate road cycling adverts for getting it wrong because I think the standard is so ridiculous across the entire industry, stretching from shamefully bad to well-intended disaster.

I've never understood the obsessions with Tron pseudo-science and heritage in road cycling advertising. They are at the root of why road has failed to grow and compete with BMX and then MTB, both of which seem to have realised that fun and excitement are what the vast majority of people want and aspire to when it comes to bicycles, not vertical compliance, lateral stiffness and watts.

I digress. What made me write this was this image in the Probikekit email today.

Really Danilo? I thought your current "favourite weapon" was third generation EPO products.

Either this is one of the most ironic adverts ever, in which case I missed the funny, or it's just a rubbish and ill-judged space filler.

I'm not missing something here am I?

The most compelling reason riders dope is that they don't think they'll get caught. It's nothing to do with the winning, it's all about the perceived risk of sanction.

Joe Lindsey expounded on this in the Boulder Report: Read "Can Black Swans Stop Doping?"

Of course he was talking about Danilo Di Luca getting busted. It's notable that the noises he's been making in his defence are all about calling into question the testing.

Compared to Mikel Astarloza's defence, that's seems pretty coherent. Astarloza is saying that he came up positive for EPO because he had been training in an hyperbaric tent. You can read more on cyclingnews.com

Let's put aside that hyperbaric tents are pretty borderline and are banned in some countries as doping. I'm stuck at how an hyperbaric tent can produce exogenous EPO.

Meanwhile teams that sign dopers, have dopers on their books. Ceramica Flaminia are supposed to have signed Riccardo Ricco for his return. Anyone surprised then that one of their riders got his collar felt?

Read "Biondo suspended after positive EPO test, UCI says" - Velonews

And while we're over on Velonews, it's always nice to see that the glories of doping in national colours hasn't disappeared in the years since the Soviet Bloc dissolved and the Italians applied "can't beat them, join them" logic. Actually, the record suggests that the Italians didn't need any outside encouragement to get pricky with the needles.

Read "Ukrainians arrested at Tour de l'Avenir" - Velonews

Yes, you read that right. These guys aren't even old enough to vote in some cases but they are having to deal with the pressure to dope. It's easy to see why cycling fans anonymous quit.

Five riders named as having produced values irregular enough to warrant sanction was never going to be enough to meet expectations that had built up over months. I think my initial reaction on twitter summed it up pretty well:

"@stephenfarrand Not even enough to qualify as anti-climatic. at least Fofanov had the decency to be on a team that made it newsworthy"

Perhaps the problem lies in how the blood/biological passport has been explained and perceived. Lack of information and a the desperation of fans to see an end to the latest phase in the arms race have led to it being forced into a place it was never meant to be.

Was it ever going to bust everyone? Probably not and maybe some were wrong to hope it would.

Was it allowed to grow a reputation to be feared as the ultimate weapon against doping? Almost certainly, but who is responsible for that is more difficult to define. One person who certainly shouldn't be blamed is Anne Gripper who has resurfaced now that the first results are out and perhaps shed some light on it how it works:

"The passport software actually interprets the raw blood results and it provides information for the experts to review. It also requires the human touch and knowledge of an expert to look at the data and interpret it. Just because a profile exceeds certain limits we're looking at doesn't mean that the rider is doping. The experts then decide if the results can't be explained by anything pathological or physiological or if the rider has been doping through manipulation of his blood."

Read the Anne Gripper interview on Cyclingnews.com

I don't think these first cases will be the last but whether it becomes an effective weapon against doping remains to be seen.

We're into the first week of June and the clouds of war gather ever faster around the Tour De France. There's three stories that you should read to understand where cycling is heading between now and July.

1. Bernard Kohl's doping confession in L'Equipe and his claim "The first ten should have been positive"

via Cyclingfansanon's twitter. While we're on the subject: CFA, isn't it hypocritical to refuse to write your blog until the UCI deliver something from the blood passport scheme while berating others for their complicity in the omerta? Making a sound case isn't something you should rush into to please the gallery, just ask those who are familiar with miscarriages of justice.

Jonathan Vaughters counters Kohl on Cyclingnews

2. Antonio Colom positive for EPO being less than surprising to anyone.

Coupled with the dispute with some of their riders over what constitutes a fair and binding contract, it looks like there's trouble ahead for the Russian Katusha team. Robbie McEwen has denied there's a rift but it seems there is a sticking point. I've seen the suggestion that the management wants 5 years salary for "discrediting" the team, not necessarily testing positive. If that is the case then I fully understand where the riders are coming from.

3. Anne Gripper is alive and the blood passports are set to be tested. Conference today in Paris and the headline is "Riders face action over passport data - UCI".

We'll know names next week and then you can all start filling in your Panini sticker albums for July and marking which pages are going to have gaps in them. There are those who say it's taken too long, I am not one of them. Good investigation takes time, ask any journalist of note. People like John Ware and Peter Taylor don't come up with their work in a matter of months, it takes years of research, experience and blind alleys before they come to a conclusion.

Once you become a fan of professional bike racing, your year develops a pattern based around the race calendar. It shapes your moods and expectations, how focused you are at work, who you dream of being on the bike.

It starts with the early season warm-up races, maybe takes in Tour Down Under or Tour of California as you stare at yourself looking like Bibendum in the mirror and swear you should have done more miles over the winter. Then come the Spring Classics and the pretence that Britain's numerous wheel-snapping potholes are the cobbles of Flanders and Nord-Pas-de-Calais.

Draw breath and then you dive into the Giro D'Italia, with all it's fabulous scenery, routes that grab the attention and the tifosi running after riders like dogs chasing cars. You get the picture? Actually, my highlight this year has been the appearances of the Abominable Snowman roadside. I'm assuming it's something to do with guerilla marketing for an ice cream brand. If not, shine on you crazy diamond.

Now somewhere between the end of the Giro in late May and Tour de France in July there's usually an event which sets the tone for July's three-week trek around "L'Hexagone". It starts with the mention of investigations and top riders which read something like this tweet from Juliet Macur:

"An Austrian news agency, APA, is reporting that police have made contact with Menchov's team as part of an ongoing doping investigation."

Give it a couple of weeks and I'll be contemplating the odds on Betfair and wondering who is most likely to be a non-starter and so worth laying off in the market.

Some riders will be tranquillo, as the saying goes, more in hope than expectation that this scandal doesn't visit on their career while others will be the collateral damage and find themselves struggling to extricate themselves from damnation by association.

It's a sad indictment of the UCI that this keeps happening and that we haven't heard anything concrete about the Athlete Passport scheme other than "expect something soon". The way things are looking it's going to make The Stone Roses second album, The Second Coming, seem like a fast turnaround.

Lionel Birnie was on the money in his Wednesday Comment for Cycling Weekly when he said:

"Professional cycling is like a minefield, but for some reason the UCI seems reluctant to play the role of bomb disposal experts, preferring instead to tip-toe forwards hoping that nothing blows up in their faces. "

It's difficult to see what pleasure a cycling fan can draw from the situation other than that of knowing the timeless quality of scandal.

Somehow I seem to have a rather high googlerank if you are searching for the Michael Ashenden interview from NY velocity in which he examines the evidence around Lance Armstrong and his 1999 Tour De France samples and the states that:

"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."

There's now an additional article which discussed in more depth the possibility of the samples having been spiked: Read more of Michael Ashenden's explanation of why it is unlikely the samples were spiked.

As a journalist it makes my heart race when I read articles like those two. It feels like a story unfolding right in front of your eyes on the page. It also races because, as someone who struggled with science at school, it looks terrifying and difficult to explain in simple terms. It feels frustrating that it has taken a blog to go into this sort of depth and present the evidence in a way which seems compelling. But that doesn't take away from the fact that it is one of those "must-read" articles, regardless of where it is published.

I'm currently working my way through another "must-read", Paul Kimmage's Rough Ride, in my effort to better understand where he's coming from. I've read excerpts from it before but never sat down and worked my way through it to fully appreciate his position. In a way I felt scared that he's such a forceful writer that I would end up cowed into agreeing with him about everything. So far I haven't been fully swayed but I feel I much better appreciate his perspective on the sport.

I'm at the point in the book now where I'm confronted with a question for which I struggle to find an answer: when did we go from a position where the riders were compelled to dope as victims of an unjust system to one where they protagonists and every bit as guilty as the system and those that control it?

My feeling is that somewhere between Miguel Indurain and Lance Armstrong it changed. In part this is down to L'Affaire Festina and the revelations of Willy Voet and others, but I'm not sure how exactly the revelations flipped the situation to where we are today.

The sport got rid of the split stages, the excessive calendar, the long stages. The riders eventually got a minimum wage and now pick and choose their specialisations. We lost Bordeaux-Paris and other epic races, yet the problem didn't go away.

Or, is it as simple as this: Festina gave them the perfect opportunity to clean the slate and almost everyone involved; from the UCI to ASO to Armstrong to the press making a living from the sport; decided that grasping the nettle was too painful to contemplate and condemned the sport to another ten years for the sake of courage and bravery, those values so engrained in the fabric of the sport.

Here's another batch of five, available from amazon.co.uk and currently on my iPod (other mp3 players are available).

Today's ride was punctuated by a puncture and coffee so not the most profitable but I'm still gradually working my way towards the very distant goal of "being race fit".

Right now I'm currently distracting myself from writing work with a very interesting interview with Michael Ashenden on NY Velocity which seems to me to be a very large cat among the pigeons. It covers the usual topics you'd expect him to cover, in particular Lance Armstrong and EPO, but in more depth than I've seen many other articles go into, notably on the 1999 samples and the information around how EPO positives are analysed. I'm only half way through it as I type so you can read the article in full on nyvelocity.com.

I've got a real problem with this retroactive testing. Exactly where does it stop and who does it benefit? You're the guy who has been cheated out of a gold medal earning opportunities, are you going to put your career on hold to go through the hell of court proceedings just because the IOC/UCI/ASO and the testing authorities were too damned pre-occupied with milking their cash cow to get this stuff in order before the games?

Y'know what? It's two months after the games, when all the homecomings are done and every sponsorship deal has made guys able to stop worrying about the overdraft and get on with enjoying their moment of glory. The IOC/WADA/ASO/UCI/whoever tells me actually I got beaten by a guy who cheated is about as worthwhile as being told "sorry I didn't see you" after you've become a hood ornament.

It's absolutely pathetic and by cheering "another cheat caught" it diverts from the fact that those sporting bodies are doing the square of naff all to deliver on their end of the deal while the athletes are jumping through more hoops that a circus tiger just to avoid losing their livelihood.