Clifton CC

'ere we go....

http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2008/to ... /jul12news

On a more positive note, we should all cheer Mark Cavendish's win from a couple of days ago. He is someone who I really do think is clean.

I'd agree with that. I think there *is* a new generation coming in; it's just a bit frustrating meantime while we wait for the remains of the old generation to find their way out...

I dont understand why a rider would take EPO on a stage when all they do is sit in the bunch anyway!!! On that stage there was no benefit to him so whats the point of him taking it. Its stupid to dope at all, but seems even more stupid on a stage when the rider doesnt do anything!

EPO works by increasing the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood - it's benefits last several days/weeks after dosing.

Arthur: there's a massive benefit in taking it. Even on a flat stage the hard bits are hard, so if you can make those easier, you save energy for the mountains.

And as Phil says, you have to take it for a while to get the effect, which then lasts for a while, so he'd need to take it now both to keep the effect for the mountains and to offset the reduction in hemocrit that occurs naturally over the course of a three week tour.

Looks like his doctor got the dosing wrong and so he got caught.

So what if a rider doped, say, a few days before the event - would the benefits then last during the three weeks? And would they avoid being caught?

As I understand it (no first-hand experience but who knows what I'll be on if I'm still doing vets races in me seventies) dosing with EPO etc is a very complex business and as Arthur says, getting the dosing right from day to day and week to week - so that haematocrit levels are below the legal threshold and - importantly - don't show big variations - is the name of the current game. And yes, doping during preparation for a race will give benefits even if the rider didn't dope during the race - they can train harder, recover quicker, and hence perform better - as David Millar stated was the case with him.

Where was I? Ah yes thas the 4th of Lance's ex team members to get caught.
No doubt Manuel is one of the old school but its guilt by association as far as I'm concerned. As I remember we were all fairly opptimistic this time last year and look what happened!
Collectively they are a set of agricultural sporting pillocks + Mark Cavendish who I genuinely think is about the only one unblemished.
So why are Liquigas still in the race???????????

Liquigas I think should be allowed to stay because Manuel Beltran, at the moment it seems, was doping as an individual, not as a team. I think that a whole team should only be removed if they are doping as a team, whilst if it is individuals doping independantly then only the individuals should suffer - why throw out the rest if they are clean?

I don't agree Arthur. It would surely be more of an incentive for riders to ride clean if their actions led to the explulsion of the whole team if they are found to be positive?
Besides I'm very suspicious of riders supposedly acting individually. Lets face it he's not innocently taken a cold cure - he's tested positive for EPO - I doubt he's involved in this alone - presumably some "health care professional" must be monitoring to make sure he stays under the limit - I'm also presuming Beltrans been doing this for years??

He would not be alone, but the "Health Care Professional" would not have to be associated with the team.

It may or may not be an incentive, but it would lead to clean riders being unfairly excluded, which must be avoided for the racing to be credible, just as the doping itself.
That policy did not stop the Cofidis rider doping last year, which lead to the whole teams expulsion.
Also, if that rule did exist, then it must be applied universially, whereas last year when it was in effect during the tour, the organisers applied it to some and not others eg. Cofidis were excluded, but neither T-Mobile nor Saunier Duval were when they had positive tests.
Being sacked and banned should be enough for riders not dope - if they're willing to risk that, they would be willing to risk the team being expelled as well - if they are going to dope, they would do it whatever the risks.

I'm with Paul on this. I agree that on the face of it throwing out innocent riders isn't fair, but then if that's what it takes to get teams to take action to monitor the behaviour of their riders, then so be it. Often it seems that drugs do find their way to riders from outside "professionals", but I find it hard to believe that teams don't turn a blind eye when it's convenient to do so. If they get better results from their doped riders, and the riders can stay out of trouble, who's complaining? Ultimately though the teams have a responsibility to each other; if the sport is tainted, sponsors walk away and leave the teams - maybe those with no record of drugs - financially high and dry. The teams have a close relationship with riders - if anyone can keep tabs on them, the teams can.

Incidentally Cofidis weren't expelled but withdrew from last year's Tour at the request of their sponsor - all of which highlights the relationship between sponsor, team and riders.

Im with Paul on this also, lets face it during the run up to the tour each team assembles normally 4/5 days before hand to do all the press and publicity stuff, medical checks etc. When you are in a hotel with your team its not like you can slip out unnoticed for an hour or so?

Some one at Liquigas will have known about this Im sure.

I'm with Arthur...

Imagine Cavendish (who I guess we all agree is as clean as they get) makes it through the mountains and is a contender for victory in the last stage... then on the eve of the last stage someone in his team tests positive. Should the whole team including Cavendish be thrown out? What has he done wrong? Similarly what did Wiggins do wrong last year?

If that happens, Britain's only representative would be someone who has been proved to have been a cheat. Hardly fair.

In my opinion, you get caught cheating, it's proved, you should be banned for life. It tarnishes the sport to let them back in again, and for me it leaves a bad taste if innocent ones are thrown out.

Michael