AFLD has issued a report accusing the UCI of giving favorable treatment to Astana during the drug testing process at the 2009 TDF. The report was transmitted to WADA, the French ministers of health and sports, and ASO.

http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article/2009/1...#ens_id=1249221

"L'équipe Astana a bénéficié d'un traitement privilégié de la part des officiels de l'UCI ."

The report goes on to explain:

- Astana always had the latest morning controls and delays for presenting themselves to the sample takers.

- the AFLD inspectors noted that on July 11 the obligation to appear immediately for sample taking wasn't respected following the intervention of UCI officials. The UCI officials also refused the presence of AFLD escorts despite the compulsory nature of such escorts to ensure no manipulation between the control notification and the sample taking.

- The Astana riders benefited from a 45 minute delay which was accorded without justification and didn't permit respect of the procedure.

- On July 25 planned testing wasn't possible because the UCI had underestimated the time required to travel to the Astana hotel.

- During the preparation for the TDF the UCI had informed the AFLD of the location of all the teams in order to perform drug testing, with the exception of Astana.

- the controls were not necessarily unannounced, as the UCI inspectors discussed them loudly in the hotel restaurants the evening before, or informed the riders in a haphazard manner.

- morning and evening controls were incorrectly considered "out of competition" by the UCI, and were therefore tested for a more restricted list of products.

Another article reports on the pharmaceutical list of products found by police in various team's garbage. Apparently no PED's, but many products associated with doping practices and some that are not authorised for importation.

http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article/2009/1...#ens_id=1249221

We understand better now the satisfaction of Lance when UCI was dieclared in charge of TDF testing!

The old recipe are still valid: will UCI order new testing machine with the money they have gotten?

Only if they can get the kind of machines that work properly. Not those terrible machines that the WADA labs have that provide failure results.

Talk about a no-surprise report. What was obvious was only the tip of the iceberg.

How big was the doping program contribution this year?

Dave.

nothing more than fish wrap by some fish hacks.

You are right, something fishy going on here.

In any case Le Monde is nothing but a tabloid, heck you can even fit it in your pocket. Not even enough newsprint to wrap a medium size halibut, much less a yummy fresh lobster.

About the only good that will come out of this is that maybe Rama Yade (Secretary of State for Sport) will comment on the news. She is as elegant as she is eloquant.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rama_Yade

Just to note (already highlighted by OAR), these were my two favorite parts so far.

Deja Vu all over again?

Sure would be nice to get the 'more restricted list of products'.

Dave

Before TDF McQuaid had said that there would be no positive case on the future TDF. Now we know how he achieved his purpose.

Is this just a nail in the "Astana" coffin?

This will be the rationale for excluding that team next season, even though that team will then be named Radioshack and Radioshack will race all the big races.

It will be especially nice for Contador to have a valid contract with the smoldering ruins of a team.

astana was trying desparately to get contador to hold off attacking, to basically make it a one stage, dope-infested climb to the title. disgusting.

http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article/2009/1...#ens_id=1249221

Does this article also say that the UCI has not given AFLD permission to test for hematide?

The list of thrown-away products is certainly impressive: clearly some very ill team members out there...

Edit to fix the link: it's the same story as the second one in FF's post...

So why couldn't this have come out before the UCI congress?

True Champions or Cheats? indeed.

PS Kiwi, there seems to be a problem with the url you posted. The link by the OP still works.

Lister
'Holding his tongue on supporting the UCI until this is explained'

Not exactly, it says that AFLD suspects that Hematide is being used, but the confusion is that in the same paragraph it says that AFLD has not yet received permission from the UCI to retest samples from 2009.

You are right, the list of medicines is impressive. Two types of Hypertension medicine suspected to be linked with the practice of transfusion, anti-depressents, an anti-convulsive used for treatment of manic depression and an anti-diabetic drug that stimulates the production of insulin.

In a separate article it says that the AFLD suspect that a medicine called Aicar was also being used, which helps to burn fat

Champions or cheats? Did you see the response to the LeMonde poll? Pretty universal response regarding any belief in Astana.

As for holding your tongue, since you were able to get the ear of McQuaid, you might want to offer him your latest two-cents worth.

Dave.

The reference was (a biotchy one) to the name of the new UCI education program. The Lemonde poll I haven't seen, but is hardly surprising, whether the story is right or not; cycling is clearly not out of the woods from the earlier polls showing 80+ % think doping is a major problem in cycling.

Yep, I write to them, good or bad, but not sure I have their ear. Everyone should. Why should cheating cyclists, Nelson-like national federation presidents, and corrupt DS's have all the fun? Have you?

The UCI fights back:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-consid...-on-french-soil



I suppose the UCI would be much happier with their proclamations of a clean TDF, despite the fact that everyone knows what was really going on. Bordry's pursuit of the truth goes against the UCI's position of treating doping as a PR inconvenience.

Undoubtedly there was a significant amount of work done by the UCI controllers, but if there was what appears to be deliberate favoritism this work could be legitimately questioned. The UCI is all to quick to cover up problems and declare victory, their record of accepting donations doesn't help their credibility.

The UCI will need to figure out how to spin this. Might start to explain why some ex-time trialers are so thin and how some folks can climb like they did years ago....

Bordry's intentions?

<ahem> Isn't he the head of the French Anti-Doping Agency?

What intentions does the UCI think he might have? Cover up doping? You are right, Bordry apparently needs to accept the new religion. Stamp out doping by stamping out positive tests. Especially on French soil, dammit.

This nonsense is right out of Verdruggen's mouth or Vrijman's report.

Drugs in the trash? At the Tour? Anyone ever heard that before? What team was involved?

What a joke.

As you point out FF, there likely were some hard working UCI folks. Imagine how disillusioned they must feel to find out why they got posted to chaperoning drug tests for the kids on tricycles.

This might be a first time for such disillusionment. But, do you think something like this would motivate someone at the UCI to hand out athlete sample identification/release forms for athletes they know to have doped, but who haven't been caught?

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

Dave

Good find Roadent

Bordry: "Two new products were used at the Tour"

According to Le Monde, the two new products are hematide, a third-generation EPO that maintains haemoglobin levels, and Aicar, a product that works on muscular tissue and encourages the burning of fats. Bordry is quoted as saying he was shocked to see how thin some Tour riders looked.

The UCI needs to figure out how it can possibly overcome the obvious conflicts of interest between promoting cycling and (not) battling doping.

This isn't a new problem. And, it isn't isolated to cycling. But, the UCI is clearly unable to face or deal with the obvious.

So who is really in charge here?

Dave.

More details(?):

http://www.timeslive.co.za/sport/article141811.ece

Jean-Pierre Verdy, who is chief of the team which carries out the controls, said: “It was mostly Astana. For the other teams it wasn’t quite as blatant.

“I won’t be asking to work with the UCI doing the controls in 2010,” added Bordry.

A clean Tour for the UCI and McQuaid successfully re-elected. It's a win-win..!

One thing I notice is the lack of specific examples, from both sides. Why not some dates, times, and places? AFLD must have some, as must the UCI have records of when teams were approached, when riders were found, when they gave samples. Both should be providing these. Right now all we have is another pissing match. Unless it's posted somewhere I haven't seen yet.

According to their press release, the AFLD report is 10 pages long and includes the specific examples, dates, times and teams necessary to make their case.

Thanks. I guess we'll have to wait for some examples. I wonder why none are mentioned in the coverage?

Maybe it relates to evidentiary rules in France, about which I certainly have no insight.

Dave.

If Bodry is such a doping vigilante then why didn't he sanction Lance from riding in France when he had the opportunity to do so during the famous "shower" incident earlier this year? Was he afraid of having the AFLD sued to the point of financially being broke by the Lance Mafia? He had perfect legal grounds to stand on, yet caved when it came time to make a hard decision.

Now he decides after the Tour is long over he wants to make LA and Astana his whipping boy!? He's just as screwed up as the UCI is, as far as I'm concerned. He had a chance to cut LA off at the pass and blew it and now wants to revise history months after the fact to prove he and Astana are rife cheaters. The whole sports a mess, if you ask me. Too many personal and hidden agendas on all sides of the debate.

Some strange events within both these organizations in my opinion.

AFLD dropping a report that slams one team in particular. UCI countering with their own side of events?

One thing that is important to remember is, the UCI should always work in the best interest of the cyclist. This is my opinion only. For example the baseball players union stands up for the players regardless of the events.

This is what we are witnessing? Or is this situation targeted for one team only?

Very interesting if you factor into this …..some people remember that there was a “donation” made to the UCI,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, by a member of the team that is the primary suspects errrrr subjects.

I believe you have been mistaken, the first taget of Bordry is McQuaid and UCI for his passiveness about doping fight.
Before TDF and when the feud was still on Bordry said that AFLD would only accept to work with UCI if they were a real player.
AFLD is just pointing that it's not acceptable to fight doping like that, CONI has said so about UCI.

Of course Astana are in the middle of battle, not surprising most of their riders are not reputed to be the cleanest, and needed to be more closely under watch than others. It's not by catching the small fishes the fight will be won, if big fisches cannot dope so small fiches would or could not do it to. The reverse is not true.

I think the AFLD squabble is indicative of where the anti-doping fight is right now. Narrow(er?) mandate groups like IOC have taken a stand (eg founding and co-funding WADA), but they don't manage any particular sport. That has lead to national governments stepping up to co-fund wada, establish NADA's, and in some cases pass laws. But we can see from the tortuous process in Spain that this is far from speedy, or even adequate for what cycling needs to avoid disaster.

In the meantime the sport groups themselves have to say 'yes, we're against doping' to stay in the Olympics, get government funding, but they're dragging the ball and chain of ambivalant members, habituated doper riders/coaches/DS's, and financial interests that stand to lose big time if the stars are caught. (Nothing new here, just organizing my thoughts). So it's not really surprising there's friction. In fact, it may be a deliberate and necessary step to either spur the sport goups to take the next steps, or force national governments to pass and enforce stronger laws. The WADA folks must tear their hair out when politicians like our border security Senator here in Canada suggests it's not his job to notice obvious doping materials being imported for the Olympics. If it weren't for UCI's legitimate efforts to wring money out of teams for the passport and to improve testing, I'd say they should give up and hand it over to AFLD. But for all my typing, I'm not sure where it should turn at the moment... I do wish AFLD and UCI had chatted before the AFLD report, and failing that, at least report some specifics so we can tell better what the problem is.

Another possible twist here is that, noting how generally quiet WADA has been, since the departure of Dick Pound WADA may also have changed strategies.

It is possible that WADA is now putting their support (and information database) behind the national organizations (i.e. AFLD) to fight doping in their country.

Arguably such a strategy is more likely to received sustained support as the local governments will support local crime-fighting where they may turn a deaf ear to some international group telling them what to do.

If so, then this is a hopeful turn of events. The UCI might be able to fight off WADA, but France is going to be a lot tougher.

Dave.