What can one say? Vinokourov has been painted black by an A-test and he and his team are sent home. So, like Landis et al it’s not “proven” that he homologously transfused (is that real or did I make it up?) but it looks so much like he did that “we” really can’t risk it. (One thought – did he have a transfusion in hospital after that fall? Surely if he did that’d be too obvious to overlook.) Plenty of people have expressed surprise that a rider of such class should bother to cheat but…

1. We are dealing with an entrenched culture of drug-enhanced racing going back at least 30 years, probably 50 – I think we all understand that, don’t we? I’m sure it’s the same in other sports, if not in most people’s everyday culture of alcohol and caffeine-driven lives!
2. Like Landis and his worn-out hip last year (not that I’m saying Landis is guilty as charged, as it’s still not proven) this is probably his last shot at winning Le Tour – so there’s a lot at stake personally
3. Vino was a contender apparently knocked out of contention by injury – and it’s always tempting to use anything to overcome the unfairness of such luckless injury
4. He’s human and can succumb to temptation just like anyone else.

Yesterday when writing about Vinokourov’s amazing comeback I said “go figure”. Well I guess we just figured it out. I also expressed puzzlement over Rasmussen’s amazing TT performance as well as Valverde’s inability to reproduce his past form. Now I fully understand that riders can train and enhance aspects of their riding by sheer effort and practice, and Rasmussen is no exception to that rule – so it’s unfair to suggest that he has done anything untoward, despite the latest allegations. It’s still a puzzle to me that he did so well – and can’t wait to see what he does in the next TT. As for Valverde I know equally as well how hard it is to maintain form and peak at the right time whilst avoiding illness and injury, but it is always notable when highly talented riders appear to lose form at the wrong time. I just hope my puzzlement over such reverses in fortune are based on natural causes alone.

What can one say? Vinokourov has been painted black by an A-test and he and his team are sent home. So, like Landis et al it’s not “proven” that he homologously transfused (is that real or did I make it up?) but it looks so much like he did that “we” really can’t risk it. (One thought – did he have a transfusion in hospital after that fall? Surely if he did that’d be too obvious to overlook.) Plenty of people have expressed surprise that a rider of such class should bother to cheat but…

1. We are dealing with an entrenched culture of drug-enhanced racing going back at least 30 years, probably 50 – I think we all understand that, don’t we? I’m sure it’s the same in other sports, if not in most people’s everyday culture of alcohol and caffeine-driven lives!
2. Like Landis and his worn-out hip last year (not that I’m saying Landis is guilty as charged, as it’s still not proven) this is probably his last shot at winning Le Tour – so there’s a lot at stake personally
3. Vino was a contender apparently knocked out of contention by injury – and it’s always tempting to use anything to overcome the unfairness of such luckless injury
4. He’s human and can succumb to temptation just like anyone else.

Yesterday when writing about Vinokourov’s amazing comeback I said “go figure”. Well I guess we just figured it out. I also expressed puzzlement over Rasmussen’s amazing TT performance as well as Valverde’s inability to reproduce his past form. Now I fully understand that riders can train and enhance aspects of their riding by sheer effort and practice, and Rasmussen is no exception to that rule – so it’s unfair to suggest that he has done anything untoward, despite the latest allegations. It’s still a puzzle to me that he did so well – and can’t wait to see what he does in the next TT. As for Valverde I know equally as well how hard it is to maintain form and peak at the right time whilst avoiding illness and injury, but it is always notable when highly talented riders appear to lose form at the wrong time. I just hope my puzzlement over such reverses in fortune are based on natural causes alone.

Yes, I reckon it is. We have stars who have tested positive – whether they have admitted it or not, they have been caught out in tests – and we can’t ourselves see inside their minds, so we must rely instead on the tests. Basso is just the latest. At least he admits it, or admits considering it, even if he didn’t actually do it. Millar did it, admitted to it, copped the suspension and came back. Hamilton? Well he admits nothing but did his time. Landis – probably the highest profile of the lot, given that it was all so public – denies it all. Pantani? Well his was the cruelest blow – to be in sight of the win and have it snatched away. Armstrong? Well if you believe the French papers anything is possible, but there is no real evidence. Anyway, the list is too long and you know it already.

Now I’d like to think they are all innocent and that it’s all done in error – but that seems a forlorn hope. Maybe some errors were made – and maybe there is some truth in some of the conspiracy theories. But not all. I know from my own amateur racing career that some riders popped caffeine pills and some visited gymnasiums for reasons other than weightlifting. And some got upset when they got “the wrong banana” at race end. Whatever. It’s a tough sport, we all want to get through it without too much pain and without too many injuries, and we all want to win. So we are all tempted to greater or lesser degrees to “aid” our recovery after hard training, to “assist” our return after injury and to do “what it takes” to win. It’s human nature to cheat, as humans are cunning and deceptive creatures, and it takes a great deal of willpower to resist temptation, no matter what that temptation may be. When it appears that the culture of this sport – or any sport, and I think some are in this same boat – is biased toward “assistance”, we have a problem.

I think we still have a problem. What do you reckon?

Yes, I reckon it is. We have stars who have tested positive – whether they have admitted it or not, they have been caught out in tests – and we can’t ourselves see inside their minds, so we must rely instead on the tests. Basso is just the latest. At least he admits it, or admits considering it, even if he didn’t actually do it. Millar did it, admitted to it, copped the suspension and came back. Hamilton? Well he admits nothing but did his time. Landis – probably the highest profile of the lot, given that it was all so public – denies it all. Pantani? Well his was the cruelest blow – to be in sight of the win and have it snatched away. Armstrong? Well if you believe the French papers anything is possible, but there is no real evidence. Anyway, the list is too long and you know it already.

Now I’d like to think they are all innocent and that it’s all done in error – but that seems a forlorn hope. Maybe some errors were made – and maybe there is some truth in some of the conspiracy theories. But not all. I know from my own amateur racing career that some riders popped caffeine pills and some visited gymnasiums for reasons other than weightlifting. And some got upset when they got “the wrong banana” at race end. Whatever. It’s a tough sport, we all want to get through it without too much pain and without too many injuries, and we all want to win. So we are all tempted to greater or lesser degrees to “aid” our recovery after hard training, to “assist” our return after injury and to do “what it takes” to win. It’s human nature to cheat, as humans are cunning and deceptive creatures, and it takes a great deal of willpower to resist temptation, no matter what that temptation may be. When it appears that the culture of this sport – or any sport, and I think some are in this same boat – is biased toward “assistance”, we have a problem.

I think we still have a problem. What do you reckon?

We can’t we just do it right? Why does every move that could ‘prove’ Landis innocent – or guilty – have to be tarnished with suspicion, doubt and intrigue? Today we seemingly have L’Equipe reporting on the unreleased results of the USADA’s test of the previously untested TdeF B-samples. (The respective A-samples were negative, only stage 17 came out with an inappropriate epitestosterone ratio.) Whilst we are fascinated to learn that some of these show synthetic testosterone, it’s disappointing that we are yet again reading a leak. Why can’t we see results released in a proper, controlled way? It gets worse. The Landis legal team has claimed that their UCLA independent witness was denied access during at least some of the tests. If true, why allow access sometimes and not at other times? Why immediately throw the tests into doubt by excluding an independent observer? Why would you do that?

You could blame L’Equip. They could indeed show more restraint. But we don’t shoot the messenger, do we? You could blame the leaker – he or she could also just act appropriately and resolve the matter. But they are only human. You could blame me – and yourselves – too, for wanting to know so badly that we have created the very demand that makes leaking worthwhile. But (if true) how do you explain the subterfuge involved in excluding the observer? Why does it have to be this hard?

Cyclingnews reports here and the Sydney Morning Herald has more.

We can’t we just do it right? Why does every move that could ‘prove’ Landis innocent – or guilty – have to be tarnished with suspicion, doubt and intrigue? Today we seemingly have L’Equipe reporting on the unreleased results of the USADA’s test of the previously untested TdeF B-samples. (The respective A-samples were negative, only stage 17 came out with an inappropriate epitestosterone ratio.) Whilst we are fascinated to learn that some of these show synthetic testosterone, it’s disappointing that we are yet again reading a leak. Why can’t we see results released in a proper, controlled way? It gets worse. The Landis legal team has claimed that their UCLA independent witness was denied access during at least some of the tests. If true, why allow access sometimes and not at other times? Why immediately throw the tests into doubt by excluding an independent observer? Why would you do that?

You could blame L’Equip. They could indeed show more restraint. But we don’t shoot the messenger, do we? You could blame the leaker – he or she could also just act appropriately and resolve the matter. But they are only human. You could blame me – and yourselves – too, for wanting to know so badly that we have created the very demand that makes leaking worthwhile. But (if true) how do you explain the subterfuge involved in excluding the observer? Why does it have to be this hard?

Cyclingnews reports here and the Sydney Morning Herald has more.