2008 Tour re-tests due soon..

[rich p]

While they're at it, they could retest the 2009 samples and get the lot done.

While the prospect of more positives from the race will undoubtedly be a blow to cycling, the AFLD is staying true to its word to fully investigate any suspicious values from 2008. It has also said that it will apply retrospective tests to the 2009 samples when more advanced tests are finalised.

This from Cyclingnews too.

 

[rich p]

Mr Kohl? Or better tests?

A usually reliable source on BR forum is suggesting Wednesday for the results with a few 'bombshells'.....

I suspect you're right.

Where's that witchfinder?

 

[Noodley]

Where's that witchfinder?

I suspect we'll have been pretty spot on with our speculation

 

[Noodley]

maybe we have 2 more answers to the 2009 'no negatives':

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bordry-two-new-products-were-used-at-the-tour

 

[Crackle]

Always a step ahead. Retrospective testing has got to be the way to go. So every year we wait for 1 year before we actually celebrate a Grand Tour win.

 

[Noodley]

Mr Bodry is a tenacious bastard. Thankfully.

But not everyone agrees

 

[maurice]

Is it a coincidence that when the weather gets crap we start lustfully fantasizing over doping conspiracies

 

[Noodley]

Is it a coincidence that when the weather gets crap we start lustfully fantasizing over doping conspiracies

I doubt Mr Bodry cares too much about our of-season entertainment.

Good to see it.

 

[yello]

Bordry is quoted as saying he was shocked to see how thin some Tour riders looked.

Not our Bradders surely???

 

[Chuffy]

Not our Bradders surely???

Crossed my mind, although you could use Schleck A as a letter opener.

 

[theboytaylor]

They could re-test but seems as if the UCI have been giving Astana a 'helping hand':

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12654285

Certainly fishy, and the UCI's reaction to the AFLD report hardly inspires cofidence, does it?

http://snipurl.com/sde2w

 

[yello]

From that article ^^^

While the UCI and AFLD together agreed a programme of testing for the 2009 Tour de France, the AFLD has drawn up and published a unilateral report, without giving the UCI the opportunity to study it and correct any erroneous comments that it may contain.

Why should AFLD give UCI that opportunity? They are completely separate bodies. Send them a copy of the report (which they probably did) but why submit it to them for editing??

UCI is behaving as though AFLD are merely part of them; "correct erroneous comments"! Are they afraid to address issues in public.

Oh, dunno if anyone knew this but McQuaid was re-elected (no other candidates) a few weeks back. Deep joy....

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-re-elected-as-uci-president

 

[theboytaylor]

Oh, dunno if anyone knew this but McQuaid was re-elected (no other candidates) a few weeks back. Deep joy....

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-re-elected-as-uci-president

Surely he should be re-elected? His lead in the fight against drugs has been so successful there were no positive tests in the UCI's showcase event. Top work.

<removes tongue from cheek>

 

[Noodley]

No new cases:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/afld-no-new-cases-of-doping-from-2008-tour-de-france

 

[rich p]

Well, what was all that about then?