Verbruggen admits riders were warned

[shovelhd]

HV admits that the UCI warned riders when they were close to doping limits.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/23/cycling-body-warned-doping-limits

Let's see where this goes.

[AgilisMerlin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone

[echelon_john]

http://bourne.wikia.com/wiki/Operation_Treadstone

[PQJ]

Just when you thought Armstrong's LTS factor* couldn't get any higher, we can now confirm that he couldn't even come clean when he came clean.

LTS = lying tool swine

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . he will refer to the deterrent effect and will totally ignore the obvious corollary between warning riders when they are close to the limit and the aid it gives those riders in refining their doping regimens so they won't get caught at all.

BBD

[jpw]

so a little bit of EPO (or other drug) was OK if it didn't reach the limit? WHAT???

[BumbleBeeDave]

so a little bit of EPO (or other drug) was OK if it didn't reach the limit? WHAT???

. . . but as with many other facets of this whole problem, Verbruggen either just doesn't "get it" or is being deliberately disingenuous to avoid admitting the real situation.

BBD

[dave thompson]

. . . but as with many other facets of this whole problem, Verbruggen either just doesn't "get it" or is being deliberately disingenuous to avoid admitting the real situation.

BBD

Heh, I think Verbruggen 'gets it', therefore is being deliberately disengenuous to cover his ass.

The way in which he speaks, the guy would make a great politician. Lots of words with nothing said.

[shovelhd]

Kinda like Lance. Bosom buddies.

[Joachim]

If I wanted to set up a Ferrari like program for blood doping (without transfusions), the extra info from the UCI will be definitely help me adjust the riders dosages. An in-house Vetscan HMII to test and plot the blood values will avoid most positive tests. Thanks for the extra info Hein!

[AgilisMerlin]

this hasn't hit velonews or cyclingnews ? :eek:

[malcolm]

If I wanted to set up a Ferrari like program for blood doping (without transfusions), the extra info from the UCI will be definitely help me adjust the riders dosages. An in-house Vetscan HMII to test and plot the blood values will avoid most positive tests. Thanks for the extra info Hein!

Actually for HCT all you need is micro pipettes and a cheap centrifuge and the little scale to measure it. It's actually quite accurate that way. It's really just the ratio of cells, mostly red to the blood volume.

[Joachim]

Actually for HCT all you need is micro pipettes and a cheap centrifuge and the little scale to measure it. It's actually quite accurate that way. It's really just the ratio of cells, mostly red to the blood volume.

You are thinking of pre-blood passport days when the 50% rule still applied. For the blood passport you need to monitor more than just HCT. In the lab we use the Vetscan HMII plus one or two other analyzers (all which can be bought on ebay for cheap).

[54ny77]

Kinda like overdraft protection, with no fee.

[Joachim]

Kinda like overdraft protection, with no fee.

In some cases you can make a late payment with no penalty :)

[William]

It's like watching a sitcom. It might be interesting and engaging the first few years, but then everyone comes to know the storyline and it starts getting really absurd before the whole show gets popped and the characters are out on the street....




;)
William

[tuxbailey]

I am reading this thread and ROTFLMAO.

These characters are like toothpaste. You have to keep squeezing, and squeezing for more details to surface.

[MattTuck]

Incentives are all wrong. That doesn't mean I think it is ok that such behavior happens. I just don't find it surprising. It is self-interest, and that is human nature... systems need to be in place to counteract this force.

[rice rocket]

this hasn't hit velonews or cyclingnews ? :eek:

Article was pulled. Guess someone spoke out of turn.

[54ny77]

Here, now it's cached for all internet eternity....

----------------------------

http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/8871844/hein-verbruggen-defends-uci-warnings-doping-riders

GENEVA -- Former International Cycling Union president Hein Verbruggen defended the governing body's doping policy during the Lance Armstrong era, and said it acted appropriately when it informed riders about suspicious test results.

Verbruggen, who headed the UCI during Armstrong's domination of the Tour de France, said the federation's policy was part of a "two-pronged attack" on doping at a time when it had an "impressive" record of catching drug cheats.

"It used to be the UCI's policy -- and indeed also of other federations -- to discuss atypical blood test results, or other test results, with the riders concerned," Verbruggen said Wednesday in a statement provided to The Associated Press.

"Riders who were doping (but who had yet to fail a test) were effectively warned that they were being watched and that they would be targeted in future with the aim of getting them to stop doping," he said. "However, if the atypical test results were genuinely not caused by doping, the rider also had the opportunity to have a medical check."

Verbruggen, who is the UCI's current honorary president, issued a statement after Dutch magazine "Vrij Nederland" reported his comments that Armstrong and other riders were contacted about doping suspicions.

Armstrong's suspicious sample with traces of EPO at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland led the UCI to set up a meeting with the laboratory director who oversaw the analysis to explain how the test worked.

Armstrong and his team manager, Johan Bruyneel, then met Lausanne lab head Martial Saugy in Luxembourg ahead of the 2002 Tour. Saugy has said the meeting came several weeks after Armstrong returned another suspicious sample at a Tour warm-up race, the Dauphine Libere, in France.

The Dutch magazine reported that rider Karsten Kroon also met with UCI officials in 2004.

"First, it was not Hein Verbruggen who contacted riders," his statement said. "Instead, it was the UCI's medical advisers."

The UCI's former policy was formed "after some considerable debate and deliberation," Verbruggen's statement said. "Its purpose was to protect clean riders against competitors who might be doping, rather than to let those clean riders continue to be put at a disadvantage until such time that the drug cheats could be caught.

"It was intended to be a two-pronged attack on doping: prevention both by dissuasion and repression."

The magazine released extracts of its interview Tuesday, after French newspaper Le Monde published a doping control document relating to Armstrong's positive test for a corticosteroid during his first Tour win in 1999.

Armstrong, who has been stripped of his seven Tour titles and banned from elite sport for life, admitted to talk-show host Oprah Winfrey last week that he used a back-dated prescription to avoid sanctions for doping. He said the drug was a cream to treat saddle sores.

However, Le Monde's evidence suggested the UCI should have disqualified Armstrong anyway for breaching its rules requiring declarations of therapeutic use of substances. Armstrong and Bruyneel signed the doping control document that stated that he was not taking any medication at the time.

Verbruggen, who led the UCI from 1991-2005, insisted the governing body had "always been" a pioneer in sports' fight against doping.

"At the same time, the UCI's impressive record of catching riders through positive tests shows that cycling's governing body was not in any way soft on cheats," his statement said.

Copyright 2013 by The Associated Press

------------------------------

http://www.vn.nl/Archief/Samenleving/Artikel-Samenleving/Hein-Verbruggen-UCI-For-years-cycling-federation-warned-Armstrong-and-other-riders-with-suspect-values.htm

International cycling federation UCI warned Lance Armstrong and many other riders with suspect values when they came close to testing positive for performance enhancing drugs.

Door de redactie

In an interview with Vrij Nederland Hein Verbruggen states that he initiated UCI-policy to warn riders with suspect values.

For the Dutch version, click here.

The cycling federation notified Lance Armstrong back in 2001 about his values being suspect. Despite that, Verbruggen always defended Armstrong publicly. Verbruggen to Vrij Nederland: ‘It was hard for me to the extent that you know more than you can say. You have questions but you can’t express it publicly.’ Hein Verbruggen was president of the UCI from 1991-2005.

Confidential papers show that topriders and teammanagers were invited to come to the UCI headquarters in Switzerland where UCI’s chief doctor Mario Zorzoli gave them powerpoint presentations showing UCI’s anti-doping strategy and giving them information about found suspect values. Other riders were called, either by Zorzoli or by Lon Schattenberg, Dutch member of the UCI anti-doping commission.

Dutch riders were warned as well. Karsten Kroon confirms to Vrij Nederland that Lon Schattenberg called him in 2004 to inform him about his abnormal bloodvalues. Kroon was riding for the Rabobank cycling team at the time.

Australian antidoping expert Michael Ashenden, who worked on developing the blood passport for the UCI from 2008-2012 is not aware of any other federation warning athletes when they have suspect values. Ashenden says that this UCI-policy gives riders the opportunity to adjust their doping intake so they won’t test positive.

Verbruggen says he’s not interested that this policy reduces the chance of catching the cheaters. UCI tried to persuade the riders this way to stop taking performance enhancing drugs. ‘You might convince them not to use doping anymore or you might not.’

Hein Verbruggen confirms in the interview that Thomas Weisel Partners managed some of his assets from 2001-2004. Weisel was the co-owner of Armstrong’s USPostal team and one of the business partners of Armstrong. Verbruggen says he didn’t know about that. ‘But even if I had known, I wouldn’t have thought twice about it.’

The full interview will appear in the next issue of Vrij Nederland, in Dutch, available next thursday (jan 24th).

[christian]

"First, it was not Hein Verbruggen who contacted riders," his statement said. "Instead, it was the UCI's medical advisers."
I love this. I LOL'ed.

[jpw]

I love this. I LOL'ed.

Hein likes his rights more than his responsibilities.

Is Lance his love child?

[54ny77]

The list of those who have (or at least think they have) plausible deniability is as long as the road to Alpe d' Huez....

[rain dogs]

This is good 'cause now that we can finally say the myth that LA won 7 Tours has completely been debunked…:rolleyes: we can get onto debunking the myth that it “was a level playing field” :rolleyes:

[PaulE]

Tyler Hamilton was also warned of suspicious blood values before his troubles began and he started the search for his chimeric twin. So based on everything else I've seen, it would make sense that Lance got better information with his "warnings"!

[clyde the point]

Me thinks Hein is the pocketbook for LA ~ post lawsuit. Lance keeps his mouth shut about Hein et al; and Hein generously deposits in *swiss bank account* XXX$$$'s for Lance once the lawsuits fleece his assets and he has to live in his car.

That's my take. There is nothing about LA that isn't calculated to the last percentage point ((49.99)).

[Rueda Tropical]

This is good 'cause now that we can finally say the myth that LA won 7 Tours has completely been debunked…:rolleyes: we can get onto debunking the myth that it “was a level playing field” :rolleyes:

We're past that, we are already on to everybody did it, he just did it best!

If you are talking about fraud and corruption wouldn't the "best" crook who stole the most and subverted the rules/laws the most, actually equate to the worst offender? So shouldn't the scale of the punishment then match the magnitude of the crooks success?

No longer able to make the case he was the best athlete we now should leave him his palmares because he was the best doper.

[Elefantino]

"Looks like the rattlesnakes are starting to commit suicide."

http://stagevu.com/img/thumbnail/vqnpzcoyievpbig.jpg

[gemship]

It's like watching a sitcom. It might be interesting and engaging the first few years, but then everyone comes to know the storyline and it starts getting really absurd before the whole show gets popped and the characters are out on the street....




;)
William

right on and even the most noble of the bunch at the end of the day are actors or actresses of this sitcom. I do not see any heros in the bunch.

PS- I am not a Lance lover just a realist/cynic and please people do not quote me into a thread diverting tirade:p

[malcolm]

You are thinking of pre-blood passport days when the 50% rule still applied. For the blood passport you need to monitor more than just HCT. In the lab we use the Vetscan HMII plus one or two other analyzers (all which can be bought on ebay for cheap).

Very true, I was just thinking hct. Now with the passport, who knows. What is the world coming to when it gets this hard to cheat.

[jpw]

We're past that, we are already on to everybody did it, he just did it best!

If you are talking about fraud and corruption wouldn't the "best" crook who stole the most and subverted the rules/laws the most, actually equate to the worst offender? So shouldn't the scale of the punishment then match the magnitude of the crooks success?

No longer able to make the case he was the best athlete we now should leave him his palmares because he was the best doper.

perhaps he just over did it, by buying off the top man.

is it conceivable that Hein fixed his rivals for gain? The Thom W. financial connection seems uber suspicious to moi.

[rain dogs]

We're past that, we are already on to everybody did it, he just did it best!

If you are talking about fraud and corruption wouldn't the "best" crook who stole the most and subverted the rules/laws the most, actually equate to the worst offender? So shouldn't the scale of the punishment then match the magnitude of the crooks success?

No longer able to make the case he was the best athlete we now should leave him his palmares because he was the best doper.

So we agree? I still hear and read a lot of "everbody did it... it was a level playing field"... which is obviously BS.

LA was a created phenomenon... there is less and less evidence all the time he had any elite talent vs the rest, but more that the outcome was fixed. His myth was the only thing that was "best" so the UCI made it/supported it in happening.

[malcolm]

We're past that, we are already on to everybody did it, he just did it best!

If you are talking about fraud and corruption wouldn't the "best" crook who stole the most and subverted the rules/laws the most, actually equate to the worst offender? So shouldn't the scale of the punishment then match the magnitude of the crooks success?

No longer able to make the case he was the best athlete we now should leave him his palmares because he was the best doper.

First off let me say that doping aside, even though I don't particularly like him, Lance was a great endurance athlete. Way beyond what most of us could possibly dope our way to.

I agree with you premise though. I think you have to look at it like the mob and RICO cases and view Lance as a boss, since he was management. (just an example not a direct comparison to organized crime)

[Rueda Tropical]

First off let me say that doping aside, even though I don't particularly like him, Lance was a great endurance athlete. Way beyond what most of us could possibly dope our way to.

The lowliest domestique is head and shoulders above most of us. Whether Lance would have ever even stood on a TdF podium without dope is something no one will ever know. You have to be more then talented to win multiple Tours.

[malcolm]

The lowliest domestique is head and shoulders above most of us. Whether Lance would have ever even stood on a TdF podium without dope is something no one will ever know. You have to be more then talented to win multiple Tours.

True, very true.

I have an opinion question for you. Do you think any domestique fully doped could win the tour? Again no one can know the answer and I agree with you about Lance, we can never know. I personally think all the doping probably just helps separate the top few percent. I really don't have anything to base it on, just my feeling. The only doping experience I have is with strength sport as in powerlifting and the differences between doped and not can be huge but in my experience amongst the ones doped the more genetically gifted always rose to the top.

[Rueda Tropical]

True, very true.

I have an opinion question for you. Do you think any domestique fully doped could win the tour? Again no one can know the answer and I agree with you about Lance, we can never know. I personally think all the doping probably just helps separate the top few percent. I really don't have anything to base it on, just my feeling. The only doping experience I have is with strength sport as in powerlifting and the differences between doped and not can be huge but in my experience amongst the ones doped the more genetically gifted always rose to the top.

The difference between the middle of the pack and 1st place is relatively small in a 3 week race. If the response to dope varies by 10%-15% depending on natural hematocrit, money laundering, the best labs, etc., etc., that could mean a guy who never would have won could be a champion and a champion could wind up a domestique. To be in the top 40 you'd still have to a monster compared to the average schmuck but it completely makes a joke out of the whole competition.

[malcolm]

The difference between the middle of the pack and 1st place is relatively small in a 3 week race. If the response to dope varies by 10%-15% depending on natural hematocrit, money laundering, the best labs, etc., etc., that could mean a guy who never would have won could be a champion and a champion could wind up a domestique. To be in the top 40 you'd still have to a monster compared to the average schmuck but it completely makes a joke out of the whole competition.

I think we essentially agree. Still it was good spectacle and I suspect I'll be watching this july as well.

[shovelhd]

A pretty well known domestic pro told me that there are several levels of pros. Domestic pros are like A ball. Pro continental are AA/AAA. Pro Tour are the big leagues. You don't get to the majors on dope alone. You have to have a certain level of talent.

Look at a few of the recent domestic pros who are now on Pro Tour teams, like Ted King and Joe Dombrowski. Both dominated as Juniors and Seniors, and were very competitive domestic pros. Now they are domestiques at the Pro Tour level. This is no slight on them at all. It takes time to acclimate to the level of competition. Can they dominate at the Pro Tour level? Time will tell.

All of this has nothing to do with Lance and the UCI. I could tolerate Lance competing again as long as he squealed like a pig and outed the blood sucking leeches at the UCI. No reform will ever happen until that agency is gutted.

[Grant McLean]

I have an opinion question for you. Do you think any domestique fully doped could win the tour?

Tour winners are constructed.

The first strategy rule is that it takes supported team leader to win a tour.
The leader must do as little work as possible, reduce the number of stages in
the race where they are exposed to attacks from competitors, and have
the entire focus of the team for three weeks. That's quite rare, because
teams know if they don't have a Tour contender, they do all that for nothing.
So most build their team around other goals: stage hunters and sprinters, or
specialist climbers.

From a physiological standpoint, the thing that separates a grand tour winner
from the others is the ability to TT and climb. Rare. Second is their ability
to recover, and ride consistently for three weeks without a bad day.

Wiggins' history is a great example: he had a bad day in the 2011 Vuelta,
and lost the race. He could be the strongest rider, but if you have a bad day,
you lost too much time to win. That's something not related to training.
The fact is, most riders will never be that consistent. Some fantastic riders
over the years suffered bad days that took them out of contention in major
races.

-g