Is Andreas Kloden touching on a deeper problem?

[BdaGhisallo]

"Maybe I will quit completely, I fear that the sport will become criminalized and people will end up in prison," added Klöden. "What will happen if somebody pours something banned into my salad? I would then be tested positive and I'd go to prison. I really do not want that, I have a family. All this doesn't make any sense anymore."

These are the comments of Andreas Kloden. Is he touching upon a deeper problem going forward? Will cycling become too risky to choose as a potential career for promising young athletes? I don't think anyone can dismiss the possibility that Kloden alludes to. With the testing processes not beyond reproach, imo, can we be assured that one of the professed, and widely acknowledged, clean riders like Wiggins, Rogers or Evans will not fail a drug test one day, even if they are not doping? In this current climate, they will not be given a second to cling to their innocence. They will be convicted in the media, and by the authorities, before they can say a word. Due process is not given, and the athletes are not allowed to avail themselves of any of the rights they are entitled to under the laws of sport.

Will some promising athlete looking at cycling as an option conclude that it is simply not worth the risk to get involved with the sport? Kloden may have been under a cloud of suspicion himself these last few months, but he does have a good point.

The unnamed IOC member who said that cycling may be dropped from the olympics due to its doping problems casting a pall over the games. What about track and field? Hello?!? Cycling will not get a fair shake at things for a long... long time to come, if ever.

Is cycling doomed? I hope not, but I am worried.

[SPOKE]

i have a good friend of mine (former masters world champion) made a very profound statement the other day. it went something like this......."you know, all these teams have team doctors...........what are the chances of them being the guilty ones?"

[Fixed]

as long as there is money to be made cats will cut corners imho
cheers :beer:

[fjaws]

I don't think you can sprinkle EPO on someone's Muesli. The riders are ultimately responsible for knowing what's going into their body if they're popping pills or, worse yet, getting injections.

[Fixed]

bro imho these are kids chasing a dream that could turn into a nightmare .
the young riders look up to the older riders and coachs and try to do evertyhing asked of them . :beer:

[Your_Friend!]

I don't think you can sprinkle EPO on someone's Muesli. The riders are ultimately responsible for knowing what's going into their body if they're popping pills or, worse yet, getting injections.



Not True!
Lots of I.V.!!!

[ada@prorider.or]

so what he is saying

if some is caught with 2 differant blood type cells

some did it with spraying it on his food


becuase that is the case here

[stevep]

so what he is saying

if some is caught with 2 differant blood type cells

some did it with spraying it on his food


becuase that is the case here

i thk what hes saying is he does not want to end his career in jail.
however it may happen.
a little fear might not be a bad thing in this instance

[BdaGhisallo]

He may or may not be alluding to Vino's situation but regardless of that, he still makes a valid point. Sure a rider is held responsible for everything that goes into their bodies, but can they possibly be responsible for everything? They don't grow their own food, and prepare every meal they eat. What about the Scott Monniger case a few years back where he consumed some supplements that were contaminated at the factory manufacturing them? That could easily happen to any of the "clean" riders in the peloton. They would be crucified. Even though Moniger was exonerated as far as intent - the authorities agreed that he was the victim of unfortunate circumstances - he still had to serve a suspension!!

Sure you want to stop doping, but is it worth burning innocent athletes in order to get the guilty ones? In western criminal systems, that standard is deemed unacceptable. Are we content to apply that different standard to sport?

Is cycling going to become very unatractive?

[coylifut]

the problem already exists. there's a kid here who won the nats scratch race two years running, wins pro/1-2 events at the age of 15, his dad races too. the dad won't let him become a pro racer. the kid will be going to college. his story isn't unique.

[Climb01742]

anyone think you can make the NFL clean? particularly is you're a lineman, linebacker or a running back who can't smoke a 4.3?

[weiwentg]

Sure you want to stop doping, but is it worth burning innocent athletes in order to get the guilty ones? In western criminal systems, that standard is deemed unacceptable. Are we content to apply that different standard to sport?

Is cycling going to become very unatractive?

many others on the Vino thread have essentially said that yes, it's totally worth burning innocent athletes in order to get the guilty ones out. they say that this isn't a criminal justice issue, that the same standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) doesn't need to apply.

I disagree. but, I think that WADA and the UCI are more concerned about getting the guilty ones right now, and less concerned with false positives. for example, regardless of whether Floyd doped or not, I think his team cast considerable doubt on the methodology used by the Chatenay-Malabry lab. they were unbelievably sloppy. and yet, many of the recent positives have come out of that lab. Moreni admitted, but who knows if they've burned someone wrongly?

of course, many don't care right now. they just want the sport cleaned up, as if it's as simple as banning a few people. first, you've got to ban the right ones. secondly, I think there's an issue with the length of the Tours and the season in general. twenty stages, most well over a hundred miles, some up mountains ... I think we're pushing the limits of what the human body - on drugs - can do. but, of course, if we shorten the Tours and the season, sponsors will be unhappy to see their sponsorship time reduced. the Tour organizers will be unhappy to jeopardize the history of the Tours (albeit that history has included doping for a long time).

[1centaur]

Kloden's very wise to be concerned, regardless of his particular past or present. The one-year-salary thing is a bankrupter to the typical rider, and lack of due process combined with the "burn the witch" mood in the sport means you need a combination of innocence, luck, well-designed tests with the correct trigger points and interpretations even as they constantly evolve, honest and unbribable lab workers/test administrators, and lack of intentional spiking to avoid a career and possibly life disaster. That's a lot of things to go right to achieve success, and the more success you achieve the greater the likelihood that some of those factors will become more dangerous to you.

Many people say it's naive to believe that most riders are clean, but it's just as naive to say that a positive test is proof positive of guilt. A sincere, even-handed approach to due process is the best compromise possible (though not a great comfort for some of the above list), but with the open mouth policy of the top officials in the sport currently in vogue, all riders should be worried as Kloden suggests.

[fjaws]

Not True!
Lots of I.V.!!!

Like I said, if someone is sticking needles in your arm on a regular basis, then you better be sure you know what's in them.

I didn't realize IV's were a regular part of riding a bike.

[Hardlyrob]

There is one HUGE issue nobody is talking about - the French lab clearly is not clean. It's amazing how results end up in l'Equipe before the UCI knows about it from a lab that is not supposed to be able to connect the dots as to who the rider is.

This same lab that was incredibly sloppy with procedures and documentation on the Landis samples, is then under huge pressure to confirm the positive that they leaked to the press on the B sample.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that many of the Tour riders are doped, but the conduct of this lab is beyond unprofessional, bordering on the criminal.

Rob

[Elefantino]

The Tour wants to dump the UCI and work only with WADA.

WADA accredits the lab at Chatenay-Malabry — which, ironically, the riders will pass through on the way to Paris tomorrow — that is the object of all the scorn.

What does this mean?

Chime in.

[11.4]

Dehydration in the summer tours is so great that many riders receive IV or subcutaneous fluids at night so they can rehydrate. It is important to their performance -- that rehydration brings about a performance increase and recovery as big or bigger than anything that illegal procedures can do. The problem for the riders is that they are so exhausted and dependent on masseurs, doctors, and directors that they don't have much energy to handle more than getting enough food and fluids down before they sack out. Most people don't realize just how exhausting a major tour stage is for the participants. Once while living and racing in Europe I got the opportunity to work as an assistant to the DS for a team at the Tour. It was quite instructive to see how brutal the tours really were.

There's huge pressure to use illegal products or methods. The handful of contenders on a Tour are contenders simply because they are so driven and motivated to win, and they take all kinds of extreme risks to succeed. So it's hard to know at what point rationality departs. Then there are a bunch of riders who are domestiques and simply need the job, and will use drugs if they have to in order to keep their jobs. Up until recently, they had little chance of being caught because only those who placed on each stage and overall were usually tested.

I do have to wonder the same things that Kloden does -- were Hamilton, Landis, Vinokourov, and other top riders all so stupid that they did something that could incriminate them? And would Vino do so in particular in the current environment? Only if flow cytometry doesn't really catch most of the offenders. The problem is, I worked with this method for several years, and it actually does work fairly well. As long as you really have an assay model that's sound, it'll pick up even small or old cases of blood doping. The issue is not whether the method itself is fundamentally sound, but whether what it's testing is actually a valid assay of blood doping (and the same kind of argument applies to chromatography and mass spectroscopy on testosterone, for that matter). What's so troubling is that the testing environment is so tainted, by the lab itself, by ASO, by WADA, by UCI, and by all the people around who might be willing to pay $20K to someone to contaminate a pair of samples for publicity, for misguided patriotism, for competitive reasons, or whatever. If you have to question the testing environment, then any facts surrounding illegal products or methods are suspect. I've been inside enough testing labs in the US, Europe, and Asia, and I know how differently they run. There have been enough issues in US labs, and foreign labs are typically much more problematic. Anne Gripper is a great addition to the process -- she's strict and very ethical -- but she's not been around long enough to make sure the testing process shows absolute integrity. And there's always the question of how to interpret the results gained -- does the test really say what it is claimed to say.

I wouldn't want to be competing in this environment. There's a point where riders need a modicum of protection. To take an athlete who is accused of doping, to imprison him, take away his earnings, deprive him of a job, and slander him in the press -- that's a bit much. A mafiosi who corrupted the formal betting around the Tour wouldn't get such a treatment, so why does the athlete? Overreaction.

I think the UCI summit needs to take a hard look at just what they are testing and whether they can demonstrate total integrity of the testing process plus whether their tests are truly designed properly. Another testing agency, perhaps two agencies testing independently and simultaneously, these are possibilities for improving credibility. Plus enforcement of confidentiality and protection of information -- no more **** Pound or L'Equipe publicizing data inappropriately. I can't often say good things about UCI, but at least they are correcting this problem in house at a much faster rate than anyone else. Kudos to McQuaid.

[Your_Friend!]

Dehydration in the summer tours is so great that many riders receive IV or subcutaneous fluids at night so they can rehydrate. It is important to their performance -- that rehydration brings about a performance increase and recovery as big or bigger than anything that illegal procedures can do. The problem for the riders is that they are so exhausted and dependent on masseurs, doctors, and directors that they don't have much energy to handle more than getting enough food and fluids down before they sack out. Most people don't realize just how exhausting a major tour stage is for the participants. Once while living and racing in Europe I got the opportunity to work as an assistant to the DS for a team at the Tour. It was quite instructive to see how brutal the tours really were.

There's huge pressure to use illegal products or methods. The handful of contenders on a Tour are contenders simply because they are so driven and motivated to win, and they take all kinds of extreme risks to succeed. So it's hard to know at what point rationality departs. Then there are a bunch of riders who are domestiques and simply need the job, and will use drugs if they have to in order to keep their jobs. Up until recently, they had little chance of being caught because only those who placed on each stage and overall were usually tested.

I do have to wonder the same things that Kloden does -- were Hamilton, Landis, Vinokourov, and other top riders all so stupid that they did something that could incriminate them? And would Vino do so in particular in the current environment? Only if flow cytometry doesn't really catch most of the offenders. The problem is, I worked with this method for several years, and it actually does work fairly well. As long as you really have an assay model that's sound, it'll pick up even small or old cases of blood doping. The issue is not whether the method itself is fundamentally sound, but whether what it's testing is actually a valid assay of blood doping (and the same kind of argument applies to chromatography and mass spectroscopy on testosterone, for that matter). What's so troubling is that the testing environment is so tainted, by the lab itself, by ASO, by WADA, by UCI, and by all the people around who might be willing to pay $20K to someone to contaminate a pair of samples for publicity, for misguided patriotism, for competitive reasons, or whatever. If you have to question the testing environment, then any facts surrounding illegal products or methods are suspect. I've been inside enough testing labs in the US, Europe, and Asia, and I know how differently they run. There have been enough issues in US labs, and foreign labs are typically much more problematic. Anne Gripper is a great addition to the process -- she's strict and very ethical -- but she's not been around long enough to make sure the testing process shows absolute integrity. And there's always the question of how to interpret the results gained -- does the test really say what it is claimed to say.

I wouldn't want to be competing in this environment. There's a point where riders need a modicum of protection. To take an athlete who is accused of doping, to imprison him, take away his earnings, deprive him of a job, and slander him in the press -- that's a bit much. A mafiosi who corrupted the formal betting around the Tour wouldn't get such a treatment, so why does the athlete? Overreaction.

I think the UCI summit needs to take a hard look at just what they are testing and whether they can demonstrate total integrity of the testing process plus whether their tests are truly designed properly. Another testing agency, perhaps two agencies testing independently and simultaneously, these are possibilities for improving credibility. Plus enforcement of confidentiality and protection of information -- no more **** Pound or L'Equipe publicizing data inappropriately. I can't often say good things about UCI, but at least they are correcting this problem in house at a much faster rate than anyone else. Kudos to McQuaid.


Yes!


love,
Your_Friend!

[scottfa]

Sorry, I think we are beyond thinking about sich thing as the" testing process shows absolute integrity". The sport in on life support and the comments of Kloden make me think that the riders still don't get it. When whole countries are refusing to broadcast the Tour, leaders of the race are kicked out, and the sport is the butt of jokes throughout the world, worring about which lab is doing the testing etc seems ludicrous. Do you believe that another year of this won't kill the sport? The sport is marginal except in Europe and likely to remain so with the attitude of these riders. As of today, anyone who wins a stage is suspect in the public eye. Who is going to sponsor riders with these attitudes? What company needs to take the chance of such publicity that T-Mobile, Anasta etc garnered? We are WAY beyond such niceties. Cycling is starting to remind me of boxing or horse racing. Can you believe the winners in those sports? If the riders want to have a say in the testing great. Hey form a union, whatever. But please stop whining when he sport is in such dire straights.

[weiwentg]

Sorry, I think we are beyond thinking about sich thing as the" testing process shows absolute integrity". The sport in on life support and the comments of Kloden make me think that the riders still don't get it. When whole countries are refusing to broadcast the Tour, leaders of the race are kicked out, and the sport is the butt of jokes throughout the world, worring about which lab is doing the testing etc seems ludicrous. Do you believe that another year of this won't kill the sport? The sport is marginal except in Europe and likely to remain so with the attitude of these riders. As of today, anyone who wins a stage is suspect in the public eye. Who is going to sponsor riders with these attitudes? What company needs to take the chance of such publicity that T-Mobile, Anasta etc garnered? We are WAY beyond such niceties. Cycling is starting to remind me of boxing or horse racing. Can you believe the winners in those sports? If the riders want to have a say in the testing great. Hey form a union, whatever. But please stop whining when he sport is in such dire straights.

many others on the Vino thread have essentially said that yes, it's totally worth burning innocent athletes in order to get the guilty ones out. they say that this isn't a criminal justice issue, that the same standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) doesn't need to apply.

see what I mean?

[scottfa]

weiwentg:
I believe that you missed my point. If the sport is not cleaned up there won't be any reason to worry about testing procedures. There won't be a sport. Whether we like it or not T Mobile will announce soon if it is pulling out of cycling.
The riders can be a part of fixing the problem or they can whine about testing methods. I submit that if they continue the latter the sport will die. Worrying about testing methods ignores the elephant in the room: NO money if sponsors pull the plug. The riders need to become part of the solution and in doing so can protect the integrity of the testing. I wish that they would stop seeing themselves as victims and set some standards for thier own behavior.
A comment by Phil L just now stated that the Tour is looking to possibly having 50% French teams and the other half pro teams. That is the end of the Tour as we know it.

[sjbraun]

Rob observed:

Don't get me wrong, I believe that many of the Tour riders are doped, but the conduct of this lab is beyond unprofessional, bordering on the criminal.

You hit one of nails squarely on the head with this comment

[RPS]

Sure you want to stop doping, but is it worth burning innocent athletes in order to get the guilty ones? In western criminal systems, that standard is deemed unacceptable. Are we content to apply that different standard to sport?Absolutely -- IMHO.

The only way to stop it is to make the punishment unacceptable to all involved -- directly or indirectly. By removing entire teams it shifts in large part responsibility to the sponsors, team management, and other team members to police themselves. Otherwise it will remain a joke because a guy who can't get to the Tour without drugs in the first place has little to lose.

And there is precedence IMO. When US college and high-school sports teams are found to have cheated, the entire team forfeits championships -- not just the guiltly students. Not screwing over your teammates is as good an incentive as any to stay clean.

[BdaGhisallo]

Absolutely -- IMHO.

The only way to stop it is to make the punishment unacceptable to all involved -- directly or indirectly. By removing entire teams it shifts in large part responsibility to the sponsors, team management, and other team members to police themselves. Otherwise it will remain a joke because a guy who can't get to the Tour without drugs in the first place has little to lose.

This illustrates the exact point I was trying to make. What athlete, when considering potential career paths, whether consciously or not, will want to enter a sport where he could get burned and have his life ruined when he hasn't done anything wrong, all to benefit the greater good? Who would want to see a lifetime of work go down the tubes for something they haven't done, and to rub it in, be totally cast to the wolves and spoken of in angered tones for years to come?

I know I certainly wouldn't, and I wouldn't advise anyone to take that chance.

[paczki]

Couldn't the Grand Tours only allow teams to compete that have as rigorous testing protocols as Slipstream? There are so many illegal but undetectable ways of cheating -- human growth hormone for example -- that it seems really unfair only to penalize riders who use the cheap stuff, and Slipstream tries to test as much as possible for the good stuff as well by doing regular checks and looking for irregularities in the bloodwork. I totally agree that unless something is done the sport will become a lot less moneyed -- which may not be a bad thing -- but the way the system works post-Festina from what I can tell is that everyone does a lot of nudge nudge wink wink but the riders are the only ones who get punished. Why is anyone allowed to be on a team and spend time with Dr. Ferrari! Isn't that the teams jobs, to stop that?

The idea of conspiracy against Vino might (well not really but ...) make sense if he had been competing for a jersey, but he wasn't. But why was Astana allowed in in the first place if everyone thought they were doping? Aren't the Tours a lot more responsible than they make out, and they dump all the blame on someone like Sinkewitz (who deserves blame, but not all of it)?

[BdaGhisallo]

What are Slipstream testing for? If they are testing like T-Mobile, then they are only monitoring the riders for abnormalities or unexpected changes in certain physiological parameters, like blood volume, that would act as indicators of doping, but not outright proof. T-Mobile, and WADA, didn't want them to do internal testing for the things WADA looks for. That could easily lead to a situation where an unscrupulous team tests their riders, but only in order to calibrate the levels at which they could dope and still pass the tests.

Much like the Sinkewitz situation, in that he tested positive for a substance T-Mobile doesn't test for, we could see other teams with rigid testing programs run into problems with cheating riders.

[paczki]

1) Sinkewitz got caught, and teams shodul just include that in their protocol.

2) Something has to be done to make it less profitable and more difficult. And it's not fair to have everything fall on the riders.

[J.Greene]

Koden is just chewing on sour grapes. His job is changing. A cycling version of downsizing atmo. He is of the old school, and if he doesn't change he'll be gone too.

JG

[michael white]

And it's not fair to have everything fall on the riders.

to me, this is the main thing . . . in any other walk of life, the users get away with a slap on the wrist; it's the suppliers that get shut down. In cycling, it seems it's the other way around.

[RPS]

This illustrates the exact point I was trying to make. What athlete, when considering potential career paths, whether consciously or not, will want to enter a sport where he could get burned and have his life ruined when he hasn't done anything wrong, all to benefit the greater good? Who would want to see a lifetime of work go down the tubes for something they haven't done, and to rub it in, be totally cast to the wolves and spoken of in angered tones for years to come?

I know I certainly wouldn't, and I wouldn't advise anyone to take that chance.I guess I don't understand your concern. Doesn't that shotgun approach work? In real life don’t innocent people sadly get caught in crossfire all the time?

When certain college teams were known to be cheating as a means to attract the very best athletes in the US year after year, which got them lots of national championships, didn't team-wide sanctions stop them cold in their tracks, leveling the playing field for all others?

I'm sure some of the lesser players that were not bought off were hurt in the process, but in the big picture it was necessary and did far more good than harm. Now when a student decides to commit to a university, he better have done his due diligence -- as it should be.

[weiwentg]

weiwentg:
I believe that you missed my point. If the sport is not cleaned up there won't be any reason to worry about testing procedures. There won't be a sport. Whether we like it or not T Mobile will announce soon if it is pulling out of cycling.
The riders can be a part of fixing the problem or they can whine about testing methods. I submit that if they continue the latter the sport will die. Worrying about testing methods ignores the elephant in the room: NO money if sponsors pull the plug. The riders need to become part of the solution and in doing so can protect the integrity of the testing. I wish that they would stop seeing themselves as victims and set some standards for thier own behavior.
A comment by Phil L just now stated that the Tour is looking to possibly having 50% French teams and the other half pro teams. That is the end of the Tour as we know it.

I did miss your point. I apologize.

however, I do still believe that Klöden has a point. if they can't trust the testers, then they have no reason to help solve the problem. and as I said earlier, I don't think that more testing will solve the problem by itself.

[benb]

I hear if you go to any prison in the US and talk to the inmates you will learn they are all innocent.

I can't believe people still question the lab(s). They've caught a few people who have all failed to prove they were innocent. And yet people would rather believe these cyclists who have shown over and over again that they will cheat at any cost, even though the cyclists are totally clueless about how testing works.

The sport needs to change. I wouldn't go be a pro if I could just over IVs. Even IVs are taking it too far. The Tour de France hasn't always relied on IVs has it? They can go back to the old way. What was it CSC was wearing on their wrist? Enough with the apologetics. If these guys want to make a living playing sports they put up with the rules. Having to go get a real job after getting caught is not the end of the world.

Jail time should probably depend on posession of the drugs as opposed to failing tests IMO. But if drug X lands average Joe a prison sentence then it should land pro cyclists the same drug sentence.