[Roadent]

The head of the AFLD is none too happy that they won't be doing the testing in next year's tour - great quote:

Bordry had harsh words for the UCI and its effectiveness in catching dopers. "Between 2003 and 2007, there were no riders caught for EPO," said Bordry. "Well, I got seven in a month! The UCI didn't catch anyone, and we did. [Riccardo] Riccò was already known to have doped in the Giro d'Italia. Where were the UCI? "

By the way, is it just me, or is this the first that I've heard about the AFLD not doing the testing? What's with all the posturing from LA if it is in fact the UCI doing the testing?

[walt]

I agree this is the first time I have heard this.

[pugdog]

As I understand it, AFLD is doing the testing. What Bordry is upset about is that the testing will be under the control of the UCI. As usual, the arguement is about territory.

[fab]

As I understand it, AFLD is doing the testing. What Bordry is upset about is that the testing will be under the control of the UCI. As usual, the arguement is about territory.

The argument is not about territory but more about competence! That is clearly his message: UCI testing are inefficiency. Indirectly he said UCI is not doing their job because they should have caught dopers targeted with the help of the biopassport.
UCI anti-fight failure should require a change in their procedure, their fight,... but Mc Quaid as usual has done nothing, he has the opportunity to catch more dopers by GIRO retrotesting and he refused proving that he don't want a real anti-doping fight.

[ZigZagged]

As I understand it, AFLD is doing the testing. What Bordry is upset about is that the testing will be under the control of the UCI. As usual, the arguement is about territory.

The pissing contests never end. There may be an argument about the UCI's past competence, but jeez, "Can't we all just get along?" If the UCI were really smart they'd supply their profile info to the AFLD and push the AFLD to handle all the Tour testing, oversight and logistics themselves- it'd save the UCI money and would let the AFLD rule over their territory. And the AFLD did seem to handle it okay this year, so everybody'd win the contest (pissing or pecker length, whichever contest you prefer, though since Gripper is the UCI person it better be pissing).

This post has been edited by ZigZagged: 26 October 2008 - 10:26 PM

[bambi]

Vaughters take on this
http://www.velonews.com/article/84656/look...ahead---part-ii

VN: What are your thoughts on the news about the AFLD going back and re-testing suspicious urine samples and finding Kohl, Schumacher and Piepoli positive for Continuous Erythropoietin Receptor Activator [CERA] at the Tour de France?

JV: I knew that the AFLD would be extremely thorough; they made that very clear to us before the start of the Tour. And they have been. And that’s great. I see it as silly that people say the AFLD did a better job than the UCI and so on and so forth. Those anti-doping agencies work in conjunction with each other much more than people know on the outside. Anti-doping is not a PR stunt. It’s sort of a labor of love by some very scientific-minded people, and some people that work together under the umbrella of WADA to get it done.

VN: So if the UCI had conducted the anti-doping testing at the Tour instead of the AFLD, we would have had the same results?

JV: When the UCI does testing at the Tour de France, they use AFLD to execute that testing. The only difference is that at the Tour this year, ASO was paying the AFLD to do the testing, whereas before it was ASO and the UCI paying the AFLD to conduct the testing on behalf of the UCI. What happens in the lab isn’t any different. You look at the samples that were re-tested, they had to ship them back from Lausanne. Well that’s a UCI laboratory, that’s the main IOC laboratory. If the UCI and the AFLD were in a contrarian position, the UCI wouldn’t have shipped those samples back to the AFLD to have them tested.

The AFLD and the UCI work together behind the scenes, even if they disagree in public. They are working together on this stuff. It might not appear that way from the exterior, but it was a situation where the AFLD was contracted directly by ASO to do the testing at the Tour. But at the end of the day, those CERA tests are WADA-certified tests, and they are not performing those tests until WADA gives the green light. WADA is sort of the end-all, be-all. WADA has to approve what the UCI does, what the AFLD does. That is who is running the endgame on all this, is WADA. I think the AFLD and the UCI and WADA work together more than some people know. They are all working for the same purpose."

This post has been edited by bambi: 27 October 2008 - 10:50 AM

[fab]

Some precisions:

Lausanne's lav is a part of swiss hospital, it don't belong to UCI or IOC.
http://www.doping.chuv.ch/en/lad_home/lad-...sommes-nous.htm

The disagreement is more about "Who are tested? When?" than about the testing process.

If the tested riders would have chosen as usual they would have not caught Ricco by urine, and probably UCI would habe not allowed TDF retrotesting as they did with Giro and Vuelta!

[pugdog]

Some precisions:

Lausanne's lav is a part of swiss hospital, it don't belong to UCI or IOC.
http://www.doping.chuv.ch/en/lad_home/lad-...sommes-nous.htm

The disagreement is more about "Who are tested? When?" than about the testing process.

If the tested riders would have chosen as usual they would have not caught Ricco by urine, and probably UCI would habe not allowed TDF retrotesting as they did with Giro and Vuelta!

What makes you say that Ricco would not have been caught through the urine test??

[D-Queued]

Vaughters take on this
http://www.velonews.com/article/84656/look...ahead---part-ii

...
JV: ... Those anti-doping agencies work in conjunction with each other much more than people know on the outside. Anti-doping is not a PR stunt. It’s sort of a labor of love by some very scientific-minded people, and some people that work together under the umbrella of WADA to get it done.

... I think the AFLD and the UCI and WADA work together more than some people know. They are all working for the same purpose."

Refreshing to hear!

Dave.

[fab]

What makes you say that Ricco would not have been caught through the urine test??

Because all his urine tests were not positive. With the UCI testing methods, Ricco would probably not be tested in the first stages!

AFLD collected nails and hairs too, probably something that can diminish the use of other PEDs.

To summarize AFLD made a more profound job than the usual UCI testing. Why should UCI abandon such improvements which gave good results?

[pugdog]

I thought it was information from the UCI that caused the AFLD to target test riders in the Tour. If I remember rightly, it was unusual readings at the Giro that aroused interest in certain of the riders.

[bambi]

I thought it was information from the UCI that caused the AFLD to target test riders in the Tour. If I remember rightly, it was unusual readings at the Giro that aroused interest in certain of the riders.

That's how I read and remember it too.
Had nothing to with nail or hair samples...

[fab]

Of course, CONI belt the alarm but wasn't it any UCI actions?

And I repeat could they have caught Ricco under UCI regulation?

This post has been edited by fab: 27 October 2008 - 07:32 PM

[bambi]

Of course, CONI belt the alarm but wasn't it any UCI actions?

And I repeat could they have caught Ricco under UCI regulation?

according to Vaughters, yes.
See my post above.
You make no sense fab, sorry.

This post has been edited by bambi: 27 October 2008 - 10:39 PM

[fab]

according to Vaughters, yes.
See my post above.
You make no sense fab, sorry.

You should read UCI rules and the post about AFLD testing, and then explain us why my post has no sense.

Explain us how Ricco could have been tested before Pyrenees under UCI regulation! What were the odds that he would have been tested?
What would the odds have been that an urine sample like Ricco would test positive based on the 2009 TDF experience under UCI regulation?

And under UCI regulations would blood samples of all riders have been collected?

Vaughters propably confused samples testing with the whole testing process.
If the UCI and AFLD whole testing process were identical what could be Bordry's points? That would have no sense.

[bambi]

You should read UCI rules and the post about AFLD testing, and then explain us why my post has no sense.

Explain us how Ricco could have been tested before Pyrenees under UCI regulation! What were the odds that he would have been tested?
What would the odds have been that an urine sample like Ricco would test positive based on the 2009 TDF experience under UCI regulation?

And under UCI regulations would blood samples of all riders have been collected?

Vaughters propably confused samples testing with the whole testing process.
If the UCI and AFLD whole testing process were identical what could be Bordry's points? That would have no sense.

umm, I highly doubt Vaughters was confused about the testing etc., more likely you are confused of what he said...?
Read it again, that might help. Also answers your Giro questions.