


Consider a donation if you like what you see here!

Did you know?


Friday, July 18, 2008

le Tour de France 2008: Third doping shock

Another dark day for cycling as it fights to clean up


Tour hits strike three with Riccò







Surprising or predictable?





The Agency for Cycling Ethics



WADA + Pharma companies







Anonymous said...

I don't know about anyone else, but I think "only" 3 busts so far is an improvement.

Anonymous said...

"WADA is beginning to work with drug companies to detect potential doping agents prior to those substances becoming available."

I hate to be cynical (well, that's not always true), but does anyone else suspect the drug companies of Machiavellianism?

Unknown said...

A group of us triathletes are following the tour from Lake Placid, NY where Ironman in the Adirondack's will take place in 2 days. We were all amazed at Ricco's abilities in the mountains, boosted by the thoughts that this was a clean tour. It was a shock to us that he was caught doping and good riddance to him. We often wonder about the amazing age group performances of ironman athletes and wish that testing were done on some of the athletes going for Kona slots. Unfortunately, people will look for the edge and do what they can get away with until they are caught and this will continue.

Andrew said...

According to VeloNews (in their stage 13 live update) all three riders tested positive for CERA; VN wrote:

AFLD director Pierre Bordry confirmed that Ricardo Ricco was not the first rider to test positive for the new drug, Micera. In fact, all three riders who turned up positive at the Tour this year were caught using this new "third generation" version of EPO. Apparently, the rumor that AFLD and WADA didn't have a test for the new drug were wrong. Surprise gentlemen!

I read elsewhere (I forget where) that the maker of CERA provided samples to WADA months ago, but WADA kept it a secret.

Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas said...

Hi Jen,

Thanks for commenting here. I suspect there is more abuse at that level than any of us would like to believe. The drugs are pretty easy to get via the internet, tests are few and between, and triathletes tend to have enough disposable income to fork out a few hundred bucks (or more?) per month.

It seems even more pitiful than doping at the elite level, because what are you really racing for? To be sure these people are good athletes, but they are most certainly sub-elite and will never have a professional contract.

Kind Regards,

Anonymous said...

Doping will never be eradicated. I just think it is part of human nature to want to "gain an advantage". That being said, I am optimistic about the effectiveness of the anti-doping programs being put into place and I think the majority of pro cyclists are racing clean.

I think cycling has done more than just about any other sport to reduce doping and I think it is beginning to work. Riders are starting to understand that sponsors will stop supporting teams if doping continues. No sponsors, no contracts.

Let's hope that the progress continues.

Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas said...

Hi Andrew,

Correct! I also read that after doing the post. The funny thing is that the doping expert Michel Audran was quoted as saying there was not yet a test for CERA. But it is possible that WADA did develop one and he did not know about it yet.

The fact that WADA kept this secret is a sly move by them and a repeat of the BALCO scandal and THG. At that time they knew they had a designer steroid, and Don Caitlin had cracked the code prior to the USATF Champs that year. They with held this info and bagged a few athletes, thrower Kevin Toth among them.

Even more, I seem to recall a similar incident at the winter Olympic games in Salt Lake City (2002). They developed a test for Darbepoetin and did not release this news. The result was three positive tests amongst the cross country skiers.

This shows that WADA has learned to be a bit savvy and realizes that they must be at least slightly cunning to catch these guys.

Kind Regards,

Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas said...

Hi Mark,

I hear what you are saying about the flight of sponsors from the sport. I think many share your view especially after T-Mobile left and The Discovery Channel team could not find a replacement sponsor.

Yet this year, just before the tour, we saw to big names step up and infuse some cash into the sport: the clothing manufacturer Columbia and GPS leader Garmin. In addition, Saxo Bank went in with CSC, and Quickstep agreed to a renewal for that team even though Tom Boonen had just tested positive for cocaine.

Have sponsors left? Yes. However, I really think that there will always be another company for whom the circumstances are right to sponsor a cycling team. Somehow there is just too much money out there in the world!

Kind Regards,

Jeff and Debi said...

Won't the Bio passport (assuming it is off and running for the next tour) make the game of "new drugs vs. tests for the new drugs" moot?

Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas said...

Hi Jeff, and thanks for the question.

The biological passport promises to help in the fight against doping, but is still very much in its trial period.

As I understand the system, it is meant to track an athlete at least once a month and do two things. First, it is meant to establish the "normal" range for that athlete. For example, the high end of the normal range of hematocrit for men is 48%, yet some individuals fall outside of that (naturally) and have Hct values close to 50%.

Second, when an athlete with a normal value of 44% suddenly increases to 50% over one to two months, this is reason to sound an alarm and take some proactive steps such as removing him from the racing roster until the team can figure out what is happening.

So it is meant to pick up spikes in the profile that might suggest the use of doping products.

The Agency for Cycling Ethics that we mentioned in the post also tests for a wide range of banned substances as part of their approach profiling each athlete.

Will it make drug testing a moot point? I do not think so. The first problem is that as I mentioned, the teams still hold all the info. Second, the more oversight the better. The teams should be "protecting" their investments anyway, and that means doing everything they can to prevent doping or catch guys who are so they can remove them. So having WADA police the athletes at events is still a good thing as it helps cover the fact that some teams might not be as vigorous in monitoring their athletes as others.

Kind Regards,

Jonas said...

What you have to remember is that most doping is abuse of pharmaceuticals that are actually made for other purposes. For instance Micera is created to be used in the treatment of cancer and kidney diseases.

Of course the pharmaceutical companies could take the stance that it's more profit and boohoo to the losers, but increasingly it seems like they don't want their trademarks to be associated with doping and their medicine to be abused, thus the cooperation between WADA and Hoffman-LaRoche.

I'm looking forward to seeing more pharmaceutical companies take an active role in this work, thereby making life harder for the dopers.

Anonymous said...

Why am I the only one that feels the right to do what you want with your own body is fundamental and more valuable than sport? If dopers bring the end of a sport than good riddance to the sport. Why is the body you're born with so important and the only one you can compete with? Why can't people improve their physiology with medical science? Why can't they at least maintain a base performance with medicine? Where do you draw the lines with testing and surveillance of athletes? Why are they criminals by default that have to prove their innocence? Would you guys be happy if pro athletes were kept in concentration camps?

Anonymous said...

Hi there. I"m really sorry that this comment is redundant to this post. I'm an avid reader of this blog, but i have had a burning question for a long time, the answer to which could not be found on the web, and I thought that you would be able to answer it. The question is this: do flat-footers have a disadvantage when it comes to running long-distance, and why?

thank you, and once again, my sincere apologies for making a redundant comment.

Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas said...

Hi Anonymous, and thanks for your comment here.

Your aim appears to be provocative in nature, but we'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume these are sincere questions and remarks.

To be sure, many people share this view with you. In fact an article was written in I think the British Journal of Sports Medicine in the last couple of years that argued that athletes should be permitted to take drugs.

Perhaps the most compelling reason beyond fairness not to allow drug use in professional sport is that of the health of the athletes. Part of the model we use to understand this subject says most of these drugs have acute and chronic debilitating or deadly side effects. Therefore to condone drug use and permit uncontrolled doping is seen by many as unethical as it would likely result in many untimely deaths.

In addition, most of the products athletes use are controlled substances in most countries, and possessing them without a prescription is prohibited and in some countries like France a serious criminal offense.

Your point about them being presumed guilty is valid, but this is the result of years of negligent administrators who turned a blind eye while doping escalated. This lead to events like the Festina scandal in 1998 and many subsequent doping violations that highlighted the problem's pervasiveness so that currently we are justified when expressing cynicism and doubt when cyclists turn in incredible performances in the tour. Ricardo Ricco is a case in point.

We would not be happy if professional athletes, or anyone for that matter, were kept in concentration camps. The current testing system does not, to my knowledge, restrict the movement of any athlete. Each individual is free to travel where they please and has complete freedom of movement. The only stipulation is that they must inform WADA and/or their national federation of their itinerary prior to departure, and if that is not (one of) the job(s) of an agent, then I don't know what is. Therefore the athlete should experience only minimal disruptions to their routines.

Thanks again for visiting the Science of Sport.

Kind Regards,