# French Senate report out tomorrow...



## rich p (23 Jul 2013)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/french-senate-report-on-doping-due-on-Wednesday

It says that in the Festina 1998 tour...
_According to French media, 44 of 60 urine samples that were retroactively tested contained traces of EPO_

Some people will be sleeping badly tonight but if one of them is Chris Boardman I'm going to eat my helmet again.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (23 Jul 2013)

One thing for sure, no British riders will be named. Might be a couple of Aussies though.


----------



## Crackle (23 Jul 2013)

So, who unofficially won it then. Perm one from 190?

Axel Merckx (I've no insight on that, I just always liked his name)?

Edit: And as alluded to, O'Grady has just retired.


----------



## gavintc (23 Jul 2013)

Strathlubnaig said:


> One thing for sure, no British riders will be named. Might be a couple of Aussies though.


Yes, we Brits always played with a straight bat. It's those johnny foreigner types you have to watch. 

Come on get real, putting your head in the sand simply elevates your arse. :-)


----------



## thom (23 Jul 2013)

gavintc said:


> Yes, we Brits always played with a straight bat. It's those johnny foreigner types you have to watch.
> 
> Come on get real, putting your head in the sand simply elevates your arse. :-)


 
Were there any Brits in the race that year other than Chris Boardman ?
Edit - Max Sciandri was there too
The prologue results : http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/1998/tour98/prol.html
The prologue top 40 :
1. Chris Boardman (GB) GAN 6.12 (54.193)
 2. Abraham Olano (Spa) Banesto 0.04
 3. *Laurent Jalabert* (Fra) ONCE 0.05
 4. *Bobby Julich* (USA) Cofidis 0.05
 5. Christophe Moreau (Fra) Festina 0.05
 6. *Jan Ullrich* (Ger) Telekom 0.05
 7. *Alex Zulle* (Swi) Festina 0.07
 8. Laurent Dufaux (Swi) Festina 0.09
 9. Andreï Tchmil (Bel) Lotto 0.10
 10. Vjatceslav Ekimov (Rus) US Postal 0.11
 11. *Frankie Andreu* (USA) US Postal 0.11
 12. Angel Casero (Spa) Vitalicio Seguros 0.11
 13. Stéphane Heulot (Fra) La Francaise des Jeux 0.11
 14. *Richard Virenque* (Fra) Festina 0.12
 15. Nicolas Jalabert (Fra) Cofidis 0.12
 16. Laurent Brochard (Fra) Festina 0.12
 17. Servais Knaven (Ned) TVM 0.12
 18. Mario Cipollini (Ita) Saeco 0.13
 19. Erik Dekker (Ned) Rabobank 0.13
 20. Giuseppe Di Grande (Ita) Mapei 0.13
 21. Rik Verbrugghe (Bel) Lotto 0.13
 22. Frédéric Moncassin (Fra) GAN 0.13
 23. Bjarne Riis (Den) Telekom 0.14
 24. Stuart O'Grady (Aus) GAN 0.15
 25. Bo Hamburger (Den) Casino 0.16
 26. *George Hincapie* (USA) US Postal 0.16
 27. Dariusz Baranowski (Pol) US Postal 0.17
 28. Emmanuel Magnien (Fra) La Francaise des Jeux 0.17
 29. Patrick Jonker (Aus) Rabobank 0.17
 30. Christophe Agnolutto (Fra) Casino 0.18
 31. Massimo Podenzana (Ita) Mercatone Uno 0.18
 32. Jens Voigt (Ger) GAN 0.18
 33. Peter Meinert (Den) US Pstal 0.19
 34. Aleksandre Shefer (Kaz) Asics 0.19
 35. Serguei Ivanov (Rus) TVM 0.19
 36. Gianmatteo Fagnini (Ita) Saeco 0.19
 37. Melchor Mauri (Spa) ONCE 0.19
 38. Daniele Nardello (Ita) Mapei 0.19
 39. *Johan Bruyneel* (Bel) ONCE 0.20
 40. Rolf Aldag (Ger) Telekom 0.20


----------



## 400bhp (23 Jul 2013)

Sciandri


----------



## Strathlubnaig (23 Jul 2013)

thom said:


> Were there any Brits in the race that year other than Chris Boardman ?
> Edit - Max Sciandri was there too


Well no brits finished the race. Axel was a client of Ferrari, so maybe him too, aye.


----------



## gavintc (23 Jul 2013)

OK, point taken. I had forgotten that 98 was not a great year for Brit cycling in the grand tours.


----------



## User169 (23 Jul 2013)

Hope no. 11 comes through OK!


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (23 Jul 2013)

gavintc said:


> Yes, we Brits always played with a straight bat. It's those johnny foreigner types you have to watch.
> 
> Come on get real, putting your head in the sand simply elevates your arse. :-)


No, Brits aren't saints, not by any means. But someone reading this thread will know the answer: who was the last Brit to test positive?


----------



## thom (23 Jul 2013)

gavintc said:


> OK, point taken. I had forgotten that 98 was not a great year for Brit cycling in the grand tours.


 
Let's see tomorrow - either, 0%, 50% or 100% will be nabbed - I think Boardman is clean as a whistle.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (23 Jul 2013)

400bhp said:


> Sciandri


ah but if Sciandri gets named he will quickly be declared Italian again.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (23 Jul 2013)

thom said:


> Let's see tomorrow - either, 0%, 50% or 100% will be nabbed - I think Boardman is clean as a whistle.


failing a dope test after the prolog would take some doing !


----------



## rich p (23 Jul 2013)

User said:


> David Millar can't remember anyone since...


Strictly speaking, he didn't actually test positive


----------



## rich p (23 Jul 2013)

Crackle said:


> So, who unofficially won it then. Perm one from 190?
> 
> Axel Merckx (I've no insight on that, I just always liked his name)?
> 
> Edit: And as alluded to, O'Grady has just retired.


Axel was outed years ago IIRC


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (23 Jul 2013)

User said:


> David Millar can't remember anyone since...


No, me neither. I just wondered if I'd missed anyone.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (23 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> Strictly speaking, he didn't actually test positive


Ok, I should have said tested positive or held their hands up.


----------



## zizou (23 Jul 2013)

Sciandri wouldnt surprise me, did he not work with Cecchini for years?

Hope not Voigt but i wonder if this is what his last tour decision is about 



Delftse Post said:


> Hope no. 11 comes through OK!


 
Dont see how it can damage him - he's already admitted to EPO use


----------



## tigger (23 Jul 2013)

User said:


> found this, Sean Yates In 1989 tested positive in a doping test in the first stage of Torhout-Werchter.....



But his B sample was clear if memory serves.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (23 Jul 2013)

Using the link IotCB provided in post #21, I found, in answer to my earlier question about the last Brit in a doping case, that it was indeed David Millar in 2004. Before that in the 2000s there were a couple more whose names I do not recall - Neil Campbell, 2000 - and David McCann in 2002.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (23 Jul 2013)

User said:


> is that the Irish cyclist David McCann ......


Yes, Belfast I think.


----------



## zizou (23 Jul 2013)

There was an amateur busted for EPO a couple of years ago Dan somebody or other


----------



## Flying_Monkey (24 Jul 2013)

User said:


> if we use this figure as a rule of thumb 73% of the samples contained EPO, 73% of the 189 who started the TDF that could make a possible 138 riders taking EPO....


 
Not quite - because several riders will have been tested more than once, particularly those who stages, and some not at all. It's still likely to be a larger percentage but probably biased towards the top end.


----------



## thom (24 Jul 2013)

Jacky Durand

"The next generation must not pay for our crap from the past," he continued. "Today, I do not think of myself, but of them. My career is behind me. I think of the kid that is a break out during the Tour and to himt we will say 'you, you're drugged, like the others'. I think of a Thibaut Pinot, who finished 10th in the Tour at age 22, or a Romain Bardet. And I do not want it discredited by the pretext that our generation has been bullshit. Our sport is much cleaner now, I want people to understand."


----------



## smutchin (24 Jul 2013)

The 186MB pdf is taking a while to download. I suspect I'm not the only one trying...


----------



## smutchin (24 Jul 2013)

This is the person to follow on twitter for updates: https://twitter.com/AlexandreMignot


----------



## User169 (24 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> The 186MB pdf is taking a while to download. I suspect I'm not the only one trying...


 
Shame in a way that most people only seem to be interested in the annex at the back of the report.


----------



## ohnovino (24 Jul 2013)

From l'Equipe:




> *Jalabert and Ulrich pinned*
> 
> As announced, the Senate on Wednesday released the full report of the Comission of Inquiry into the fight against doping. Marco Pantani and Jan Ullrich, leading duo of the Tour de France in 1998, are among the riders doped with EPO during the event, according to the information contained therein. The French Laurent Jalabert, Jacky Durand and Laurent Desbiens are pinned. Erik Zabel, Mario Cipollini, Andreas Tafi, Abraham Olano or Manuel Beltran are also mentioned.


 
Quelle surprise


----------



## smutchin (24 Jul 2013)

Delftse Post said:


> Shame in a way that most people only seem to be interested in the annex at the back of the report.


 
Indeed. Here's a good piece from Inner Ring on why the list of cyclists' names isn't the most important (or interesting) aspect of the report, even though it's the bit that will undoubtedly get most coverage:
http://inrng.com/2013/07/the-french-senate-test/#more-16319


----------



## Crackle (24 Jul 2013)

No surprises are there, except that a few registered as only suspicious rather than positive. I was just thinking of Olano, touted as big Mig's successor, again no real surprise to see his name there.


----------



## rich p (24 Jul 2013)

O'Grady only suspicious! I wonder if he'll make a statement.


----------



## iLB (24 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> O'Grady only suspicious! I wonder if he'll make a statement.


 

"I'm coming out of retirement"


----------



## User169 (24 Jul 2013)

iLB said:


> "I'm coming out of retirement"


----------



## Strathlubnaig (24 Jul 2013)

The good news The Jensie is not on the list, which I never doubted, but some on here did.


----------



## Crackle (24 Jul 2013)

Strathlubnaig said:


> The good news The Jensie is not on the list, which I never doubted, but some on here did.


I doubted and am pleased to see it's not there. There are times when I'm glad I'm wrong.


----------



## smutchin (24 Jul 2013)

Strathlubnaig said:


> The good news The Jensie is not on the list, which I never doubted, but some on here did.


 
I've not seen the report yet, so this is a genuine question rather than innuendo...

Do we know for sure that Voigt was among the 60 samples tested?

AFAICS, the list of published names accounts for 33 of the 60 samples - do we know who the other 27 samples belonged to? And do we believe that all those riders were definitely clean just because they didn't test positive during the 1998 Tour?


----------



## oldroadman (24 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> I've not seen the report yet, so this is a genuine question rather than innuendo...
> 
> Do we know for sure that Voigt was among the 60 samples tested?
> 
> AFAICS, the list of published names accounts for 33 of the 60 samples - do we know who the other 27 samples belonged to? And do we believe that all those riders were definitely clean just because they didn't test positive during the 1998 Tour?


 
You can go on for ever "suspecting" riders because they might have been doing something and did not get caught. This is as pointless an exercise as trying to suggest rider x is doing something and then saying he has to prove his innocence. That's not how it works. Tests happen at plenty of races and out of competition as well, not just at the TdF.
We should have some perspective on this, it was 15 years ago!
Things are very different now, it's only the Kimmages of this world who can't/don't want to see that because to them a quality performance has to be assisted. Then a man has to try and make a living....


----------



## User169 (24 Jul 2013)

oldroadman said:


> Things are very different now, it's only the Kimmages of this world who can't/don't want to see that because to them a quality performance has to be assisted. *Then a man has to try and make a living*....


 
Hhmm, it's this sort of snideness, especially from those that are seemingly well-connected in the pro-cycling world, that make me wonder whether Kimmage isn't going to be proved after all right. Kimmage could easily have settled for the quiet life (a la Fotheringham et al.) and made a fine living: if anything his unrelenting focus on doping has been a hindrance to his career.


----------



## smutchin (24 Jul 2013)

oldroadman said:


> You can go on for ever "suspecting" riders because they might have been doing something and did not get caught. This is as pointless an exercise as trying to suggest rider x is doing something and then saying he has to prove his innocence. That's not how it works.


 
I wasn't making an accusation, or even voicing a suspicion, just wondering why Voigt's name was even brought into the discussion.

Boardman's name has also been mentioned, but it's reasonable to assume his was probably among the samples tested because he won a stage.

As for my final point, I've read elswhere that one O'Grady sample was "suspicious" but there were a further two samples from him that were "negative". Now, I don't know if that's true or not but if it were true, it would demonstrate how meaningless a "negative" test is.

Anyway, as was mentioned upthread, the list of names is just a tiny and fairly insignificant element of this report, so I shan't dwell on it further.


----------



## beastie (24 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> O'Grady only suspicious! I wonder if he'll make a statement.


Well he has admitted it. "I only did it once". 

...........eh yup ok then Stuey.


----------



## rich p (24 Jul 2013)

beastie said:


> Well he has admitted it. "I only did it once".
> 
> ...........eh yup ok then Stuey.


Has he? I haven't seen that yet. Hmmm.


----------



## Noodley (24 Jul 2013)

I still stick by my belief that Voigt doped.


----------



## thom (24 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> Has he? I haven't seen that yet. Hmmm.


 
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ogrady-admits-epo-use-ahead-of-1998-tour-de-france


----------



## iLB (24 Jul 2013)




----------



## smutchin (24 Jul 2013)

iLB said:


>



Is that verifiable?


----------



## iLB (24 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> Is that verifiable?


 

Pops up in this thread http://velorooms.com/index.php?topic=2718.msg111588#msg111588 and on twitter. Would be a more tedious task to make it all up.


----------



## fatblokish (24 Jul 2013)

Odd that for many people, the less data that support their beliefs the more ardently they'll defend them, even w/their lives. Neil deGrasse Tyson (b. 1958).


----------



## laurence (24 Jul 2013)

i am unmoved by this... it was so long ago, really a different era. the following year was what mattered, attitudes had changed (slightly) and that is why the pharmstrong case was important - USPS reignited the arms race for drugs - the two speed peloton took shape.

i still don't get why the witch-hunt is for cycling? i don't see any other sport having to go through this.


----------



## Noodley (24 Jul 2013)

laurence said:


> i am unmoved by this... it was so long ago, really a different era. the following year was what mattered, attitudes had changed (slightly) and that is why the pharmstrong case was important - USPS reignited the arms race for drugs - the two speed peloton took shape.
> 
> i still don't get why the witch-hunt is for cycling? i don't see any other sport having to go through this.



Wot choo talkin about Willis?


----------



## Strathlubnaig (24 Jul 2013)

Boardmans sample was 'missing' so was Voigts. But in 16 years of TdFs I think Jens will have been tested a fair few times, he's clean as a whistle.


----------



## rich p (24 Jul 2013)

laurence said:


> i am unmoved by this... it was so long ago, really a different era. the following year was what mattered, attitudes had changed (slightly) and that is why the pharmstrong case was important - USPS reignited the arms race for drugs - the two speed peloton took shape.
> 
> i still don't get why the witch-hunt is for cycling? i don't see any other sport having to go through this.


It was so long ago that O'Grady retired the day before the results were announced, Laurence!
There are a fair few still involved in cycling including some DSs.


----------



## iLB (24 Jul 2013)

Strathlubnaig said:


> Jens will have been tested a fair few times, he's clean as a whistle.


 
If Lance taught us anything, terrible argument


----------



## laurence (24 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> It was so long ago that O'Grady retired the day before the results were announced, Laurence!
> There are a fair few still involved in cycling including some DSs.


 
and? i don't get the argument that if they took drugs back then then they shouldn't have any further involvement in the sport.

it was another time, in many ways. O'Grady has kept going since then, he is better placed than many to have a DS role.

i'm all for cleaning up the sport, but the constant hand wringing of the past has to stop. two 100m runners have just failed drugs tests, will there be a retest of 1998 samples in athletics?


----------



## Noodley (24 Jul 2013)

I still Jens has a future in cycling even tho I think he doped


----------



## raindog (25 Jul 2013)

laurence said:


> two 100m runners have just failed drugs tests, will there be a retest of 1998 samples in athletics?


Bloody good point.


----------



## rich p (25 Jul 2013)

laurence said:


> and? i don't get the argument that if they took drugs back then then they shouldn't have any further involvement in the sport.
> 
> it was another time, in many ways. O'Grady has kept going since then, he is better placed than many to have a DS role.
> 
> i'm all for cleaning up the sport, but the constant hand wringing of the past has to stop. two 100m runners have just failed drugs tests, will there be a retest of 1998 samples in athletics?


This wasn't a retest with a view to taking retribution - the senate's motives were different which you may or may not agree with but the investigation wasn't undertaken by the UCI, WADA etc.
On a personal level I still believe those who took drugs then and since should still be outed. I have suspicions that when O'Grady won P_R at the age of 34 he probably wasn't clean.
I'm not comfortable with DSs, who doped up to the eyeballs in their own careers, advising young riders that they should be clean and that they are capable of creating the ethos of clean cycling in their teams.

I also don't like the fact that commentators like Kelly, Roche, Blijlevens etc are mealy-mouthed in their comments when it comes to doping in the modern peloton for fear of accusations of hypocrisy.

I'd have had more respect for some of those named if they'd outed themselves with an explanation of how and why it happened, rather than O'Grady and Blijlevens denying it under questioning as recently as this year.


----------



## rich p (25 Jul 2013)

Just to add that it also sends a message to current riders that your past may catch up with you.


----------



## smutchin (25 Jul 2013)

iLB said:


> Pops up in this thread http://velorooms.com/index.php?topic=2718.msg111588#msg111588 and on twitter. Would be a more tedious task to make it all up.



I wasn't suggesting you made it up (that would be silly!), just wondering where the info came from. Thanks for the link.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (25 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> I wasn't suggesting you made it up (that would be silly!), just wondering where the info came from. Thanks for the link.


 
It's just a table of the information in the report; pretty easy to confirm.


----------



## smutchin (25 Jul 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> It's just a table of the information in the report; pretty easy to confirm.


 
Thanks, that answers my question, which was a sincere question, not snark. I haven't been able to download the report yet so haven't been able to confirm it for myself.

I only asked for confirmation of the source because I've seen an awful lot of supposition and guesswork and wanted to know that it wasn't just more of the same. It would have been quite normal for iLB to mention the source when posting the document.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (25 Jul 2013)

Interestingly it does not clear Voigt at all. Nor does it clear Boardman BTW. Their samples just were no longer available at the time retesting took place. So no-one can say they know either were clean based on this report.


----------



## smutchin (25 Jul 2013)

It neither clears him nor implicates him. It's easy to interpret the Voigt situation different ways depending on your inclination.

You could claim the fact that he spoke out against publishing the results was a sign that he was expecting bad news. In which case, he's breathing a big sigh of relief now.

Or you could point out that unlike O'Grady, he didn't choose to conveniently retire before the results were published, so clearly had conviction that he would be a negative. In which case, he'll be disappointed that his sample is missing.

Either way, it's guesswork and rumour.


----------



## thom (25 Jul 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Interestingly it does not clear Voigt at all. Nor does it clear Boardman BTW. Their samples just were no longer available at the time retesting took place. So no-one can say they know either were clean based on this report.


 
Yes, you wonder what happened there - who knows the protocols in place ?


----------



## rich p (25 Jul 2013)

thom said:


> Yes, you wonder what happened there - who knows the protocols in place ?


Did I read somewhere that they had degraded?


----------



## thom (25 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> Did I read somewhere that they had degraded?


 
If so, that at least is reasonable rather than them just somehow disappearing.


----------



## rich p (25 Jul 2013)

The alert amongst you may notice that on Stage 2 , Serrano Hamburger was also tested. What a waste.



iLB said:


>


----------



## Crackle (25 Jul 2013)

The fallout from this is continuing apace:-

O Grady retired and calls for him to step down from the Aussie Olympic Commission
Olano sacked from his technical director role
Jalabert still in denial
Jeroen Blijlevens Sports Director at Belkin waiting for a meeting and a decision on his future
People covering their backsides everywhere and the sport once again is the loser

I'm caught. On the one hand, it's absolutely right that people should be brought to account, on the other hand we know the history, we know that the only way to clear up the past is for some sort of truth and reconciliation process, these independent processes seem to be little more than witch hunts which do more damage than good. They're not even telling us anything we don't know and is there any point in punishing only those who are being retrospectively fingered, when we know that's just the tip of the iceberg.

I recall as I looked at the past winners on the podium the other day at the Tour that I felt a bit embarrassed that they were being wheeled out into the current celebrations.

It's a mess and it's a mess because of the UCI, who should be sorting this out so that these independent commissions are unnecessary.


----------



## Crackle (25 Jul 2013)

Further to the above. If you read the words from Olano, Jalabert and to some extent O'Grady, it's like being thrown back in time. This from Olano:-

"I was always under the control and custody of the team and its medical service. I absolutely do not consider myself guilty. I never had the feeling that I was doing anything illegal.”

When I read stuff like that, I go back to thinking they should all be hung out to dry. Too many demons to wrestle.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (25 Jul 2013)

Belkin's DS Blijlevens' just been sacked after admitting using EPO. ( http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Actualites/Blijlevens-limoge/388341 )


----------



## Crackle (25 Jul 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Belkin's DS Blijlevens' just been sacked after admitting using EPO. ( http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Actualites/Blijlevens-limoge/388341 )


 
Unlike Olano, I can't help but feel sorry for him.


----------



## rich p (25 Jul 2013)

Crackle said:


> Unlike Olano, I can't help but feel sorry for him.


Did he not know this was in the pipeline though? He could have fessed up and got a short 'sentence'. he chose to get paid for the summer.
I can definitely sympathise with the riders and the feeling that to compete they had to dope but I'm not sure that it absolves them from future sanction entirely. I just think of what the clean riders such as Boardman et al could have won.


----------



## oldroadman (25 Jul 2013)

thom said:


> If so, that at least is reasonable rather than them just somehow disappearing.


Rather like a load of sample supporting paperwork from track and field athletes that went "missing" whilst in the care of a senior IOC member at an Olympic games in the US some years ago. Odd that, as no samples could be matched to anyone, negative or not. All medallists were obviously clean. So that's all right then.

It's not just cycling....


----------



## thom (25 Jul 2013)

oldroadman said:


> Rather like a load of sample supporting paperwork from track and field athletes that went "missing" whilst in the care of a senior IOC member at an Olympic games in the US some years ago. Odd that, as no samples could be matched to anyone, negative or not. All medallists were obviously clean. So that's all right then.
> 
> It's not just cycling....


Yeah I heard about that story - shed loads of prominent US athletes at the LA Olympics, the ones after Moscow and boycotted by the countries behind the Iron Curtain. Totally screwed up, partly due to the influence of politics in sport.


----------



## Crackle (25 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> Did he not know this was in the pipeline though? He could have fessed up and got a short 'sentence'. he chose to get paid for the summer.
> I can definitely sympathise with the riders and the feeling that to compete they had to dope but I'm not sure that it absolves them from future sanction entirely. I just think of what the clean riders such as Boardman et al could have won.


I don't know and on the face of it, it looks like he made a stupid decision for the sake of the short term which has now jeopardised his future in the sport. Cycling may be the only thing he knows, so I'd say he was caught between between a rock and a hard place.


----------



## Noodley (25 Jul 2013)

I suppose in a way those who cheated and therefore stole the careers and hopes of those who took an honourable route are now paying by way of losing their jobs and respect. Ah well.


----------



## User169 (26 Jul 2013)

Crackle said:


> I don't know and on the face of it, it looks like he made a stupid decision for the sake of the short term which has now jeopardised his future in the sport. Cycling may be the only thing he knows, so I'd say he was caught between between a rock and a hard place.


 
There was an "open letter" from him published in the Dutch press yesterday. He says he didn't fess up last year because the team didn't have a sponsor and he didn't want to jeopardize the chances of getting a new sponsor. Make of that what you will. He did though trot out the old "I did it alone; none of the teams I rode with were involved" line which made me feel less sympathetic.


----------



## Crackle (26 Jul 2013)

Delftse Post said:


> There was an "open letter" from him published in the Dutch press yesterday. He says he didn't fess up last year because the team didn't have a sponsor and he didn't want to jeopardize the chances of getting a new sponsor. * Make of that what you will. He did though trot out the old "I did it alone; none of the teams I rode with were involved" line which made me feel less sympathetic*.


 
Hmmm, true. Which is why I'm currently having difficulty trying to work out whether the Vaughters approach to the past or the Brailsford approach is best.

I suppose once you keep a secret for so long it's difficult to admit it without tearing something of yourself apart. /amateur psychologist mode


----------



## dimspace (26 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> Is that verifiable?



Yup.I did it. Some will know me online/twitter add doing the Armstrong business links chart and the Armstrong tests charts last year.

Extra graphic done today


----------



## Noodley (26 Jul 2013)

Crackle said:


> Hmmm, true. Which is why I'm currently having difficulty trying to work out whether the Vaughters approach to the past or the Brailsford approach is best.


 
It's not a question of which is "best" rather "do they work?", so if the answer is "yes" to both systems working then that's all that matters.


----------



## thom (26 Jul 2013)

dimspace said:


> Yup.I did it. Some will know me online/twitter add doing the Armstrong business links chart and the Armstrong tests charts last year.
> 
> Extra graphic done today


Welcome @dimspace & thanks not only for this but indeed also for that Armstrong info which was often referred to from this forum.


----------



## Crackle (26 Jul 2013)

Noodley said:


> It's not a question of which is "best" rather "do they work?", so if the answer is "yes" to both systems working then that's all that matters.


 
You could point to both and say they aren't though. Sky have fallen foul of their own policies, Vaughters on the other hand seems to have come out the better but some of the stuff he wants seems unachievable. No one wants to embrace past dopers it seems, not if the French Senate report fallout is anything to go by.


----------



## Noodley (26 Jul 2013)

Crackle said:


> Sky have fallen foul of their own policies, Vaughters on the other hand seems to have come out the better but some of the stuff he wants seems unachievable.


 
But do they work? That is not the same as "falling foul" or wanting the "seemingly unachievable".


----------



## dimspace (26 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> Did I read somewhere that they had degraded?




I'm on mobile so bear with me. There are two types of note, manquant/missing and undetectable. On the whole undetectable means the sample has degraded.

Missing could mean a number of things.
It was six years since the samples, they may have started to be destroyed (note. Only a couple of 99 are missing)
It's also possible that the entire sample was used in original testing back in 98.

This was not an anti doping exercise so there was no need for missing to be looked at.


----------



## Noodley (26 Jul 2013)

@dimspace, any chance you could do a graphic to show that Jensie doped, just for me


----------



## Crackle (26 Jul 2013)

Noodley said:


> But do they work? That is not the same as "falling foul" or wanting the "seemingly unachievable".


In the context of cleaning up the sport, it's too early to say. In the context of laying the ghosts of the past to rest, no. There is no, yes/no answer.


----------



## Noodley (26 Jul 2013)

Crackle said:


> In the context of cleaning up the sport, it's too early to say.


 
True, but apart from the clinic and LD (who is as mad as feck) most people would agree that SKY are "clean".

And, again with the previous exceptions, most people would say Garmin are as well.


----------



## thom (27 Jul 2013)

Noodley said:


> True, but apart from the clinic and LD (who is as mad as feck) most people would agree that SKY are "clean".


These French guys certainly didn't think Sky were clean on Alpe d'Huez:


----------



## Noodley (27 Jul 2013)

thom said:


> These French guys certainly didn't think Sky were clean on Alpe d'Huez:


 
OK, apart from the clinic, LD (who is as mad as feck) and the French most people would agree that SKY are "clean"...


----------

