> Shocker : Vino fails doping Test

the riders “are playing Russian roulette” by continuing to try to sneak doping practices past cycling officials

“The system doesn’t work,

“A system that doesn’t defend the world’s most popular cycling race is a failure, and it can’t carry on.”

T-Mobile is considering ending its sponsorship of the T-Mobile team, the biggest sponsorship in the sport at about $18 million.

The contract runs through 2010, but Patrik Sinkewitz's positive for testosterone may cause the telecom giant to withdraw from the sport.

Sinkewitz's B-sample is scheduled to be tested on July 31, with the results to be released as soon as that day.

“We have started a war on doping, and unfortunately in war there are losses, but it is out of the question to quit,” Clerc said. “There was never a question the Tour would stop. Then the cheaters would win.”

“In a period of crisis such as we are living in at the moment, a champion must be a good example,” said Clerc. “His attitude, his lack of respect shown to the administrative rules, which is unacceptable, should be made known to us and we would have refused his participation, because he is not a good role model for the others in the peloton.”

“Jesus Christ, I'm speechless. It makes me sad. I have the impression the riders will never understand.”

"That is a surprise. I don't know what to say,"

"Vino is one of my favourite riders. He is a guy of class. Given what we have done, with our current situation, we may as well pack our bags and go home."

"No, I don't believe the Tour should stop here. We are 40 years after [Tom] Simpson's death and the Tour still goes on."

"We have given the benefit of the doubt for a while, we really have," he commented. "A lot of people were given the benefit of the doubt and I think the benefit is now over."

"That is true, there is no cohesion," continued Millar. "I think, if there is one thing, I try my best not to critique the UCI. But, I am going to critic the UCI today, and say that they have to pull their finger out and get their controlling system properly sorted out.

"I feel sick. I hope that Vinokourov won't be a coward and deny everything. He said that he worked with Ferrari just for training plans. He always told us what a brave guy he is, that he is stronger than the pain, that the French ride behind everyone else because they are lazier. Now we see that he is a big *******. These practices discredit all of cycling again."

"This is naturally very bad and I feel like Vinokourov has made a fool of me, but it shows that the controls work."

"If you declare war on doping there will be some casualties. Sinkewitz and Vino are both signs that the UCI isn't pulling any punches. Maybe its further damage to the sport's reputation, but it serves to clean it up.

"It's very good news for young riders. If people really want clean sport, this is what has to happen. The majority of the riders have cleaned up, so the few who persist are not trying to even the playing field, but instead are trying to cheat. They stick out like sore thumbs these days, and the UCI knows who they are.

"Anne Gripper, the new head of antidoping efforts at the UCI is a smart and tough Aussie lady. She will get the job done, no matter how much pain it causes, so my advice is to not mess with her. Nature culls sick herds of animals. Cycling is just going through a natural culling....sad to say, but true. The riders and teams that have chosen to be clean will survive this. We will too."

"I am overwhelmed and absolutely shocked. I can't say any more. We will still start the Sachsen Tour."

"A surprise? Not really!"

"It is amazing, how the results of doping controls are unpacked for the press. That was the case at the Giro and now it goes on that way. It is especially the French press, which has a very aggressive attitude."

"What a shock. That is unbearable. Where do we go from here?

"I don't know what to say," Heppner told the Associated Press. "How can you do something like that today. Vinokourov doesn't really need any more money or fame. It only makes sense that the team leaves the Tour. Vino was always the leading figure, who brought on virtually all the sponsors. I find it too bad for Klöden, although he wouldn't have been able to win the Tour anyway. So the team's decision isn't so hard for him." He added that other doping cases may come to light. "It is still possible that more cases will be presented in the next few days. I wish the best for cycling, but it wouldn't surprise me."

Dear Vino,

You provided us quite a show. We all picked you as a favorite to win this Tour de France. We pulled for you after you crashed. We celebrated your time trial. We were disappointed when you fell behind in Stage 14. And we were amazed at your tenacity to comeback and win Stage 15; a great consolation prize, we said.

Now we know one of the reasons for your resilience. Was that tenacity and power really yours, or was it the blood transfusions you were receiving? We'll never know. Neither will you, since you apparently chose to cheat and deceive...and got caught.

Enjoy your retirement.

P.S. Please, as you leave the Tour de France in shock and shambles, do your best to challenge all other cyclists who are cheating to come clean right now. This is an opportune time. Let the professional cycling house be completely swept clean--right here and now. Challenge those who looked up to you or who were complicit with you to 'fess up. That's one redemptive thing you could for the sport, don't you think?

Well, it turned out to be a day for doping stories, that’s for certain. This time the subject of the story is Alexander Vinokourov. And great surprise that it is, Damien Ressiot of L’Equipe broke the story, citing a source within France’s anti-doping laboratory, LNDD. And, of course, this is all based on the results of Vino’s A sample from tests taken on the day he powered to an impressive time trial win.

Pundits, sports writers and a number of folks on the blogosphere have already pronounced Vino guilty, taking the A sample results as being incontrovertible proof that he doped. Trial by media has already occurred and Vino has already been pronounced guilty.

Nobody in the media (at least in the stories I’ve read so far) has dared to examine how Ressiot gets his information, and whether, given the lab’s controversial past, the results can actually be trusted. And though the test is said to be, well, almost foolproof, no one in the media has really taken the time to research that yet, either.

Unless Vino pipes up and says, “Yeah, it’s a fair cop,” then the results of the A sample test are not proof of anything. WADA’s procedures require that the B sample must confirm the A sample’s results for an adverse analytical finding to be considered proof of doping.

And even then, it’s not necessarily proof. Vino, if the B sample agrees with the A sample, will still have the right to appeal any findings against him through the same arbitration process that Floyd Landis has been working through since word of his positive results started leaking out … exactly one year ago tomorrow. It’s only when the case comes to a final conclusion that we can say, with any degree of certainty, that Vino doped. Because until then, we don’t have all the evidence on which to make a judgment. Unless, as I said before, he admits to it.

But that doesn’t seem to be what he’s doing. Reports have it that he’s already requested the B sample be analyzed. If this were any lab other than LNDD, I might be able to believe that the results are accurate. But it is LNDD we’re talking about, and as the testimony in the Landis hearings showed, there’s a certain laxness to the training and conduct of the technicians at France’s anti-doping laboratory that is nothing short of appalling. So the results are a bit suspect, to begin with.

Not that Vino might not have doped, mind you, but LNDD is not exactly the gold standard for by-the-book lab technique, no matter what kind of lab you’re talking about. And information security at the lab is lax, to say the least, as well.

You can’t fault Damien Ressiot too much. As a reporter, his job is to dig up stories. And sometimes those stories are sensational and sometimes the information that he gets is information that he shouldn’t have been allowed to see. What’s deplorable is that WADA has certain rules preventing the release of information before a B sample confirms the original test results. And time and time and time again, someone at LNDD thumbs his or her nose at the rules and passes information to Ressiot.

Why that person does so is anybody’s guess. But Ressiot’s source must be getting something out of the deal. What is it? Money, perhaps? (And by the way, paying your sources for information not only makes that information less trustworthy — the source might just be looking to make a quick buck, after all — but it is also unethical. Period.)

Ressiot and his employers certainly get something out of the deal. More newspapers sold equals more profit. So he has an incentive to stir up controversy. And, for whatever reasons, the ASO — who own both L’Equipe and the Tour — must be getting something out of it, too. This one’s harder to figure, at least just a bit. After all, they do make more profit at L’Equipe, but it’s also a way of getting publicity for the Tour, and a way of discrediting the UCI, WADA and anyone else they wish.

WADA, by not sanctioning a serial violator of its rules of conduct, has shown that while they’re happy to make the rules, they only wish to enforce those rules when it is convenient to do so. How else can you explain the fact that LNDD has never been sanctioned for repeated violations just like the one today?

In a bizarre twist to the story, Pat McQuaid has actually acted in a somewhat statesman-like manner and been cautious in his commentary.

Pat McQuaid, president of cycling’s world governing body, the UCI, said he couldn’t comment as long as the backup B-sample result wasn’t confirmed.

“We have a process in place, and we have to see this process through,” he told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

What a change that is, since almost exactly a year ago McQuaid was speaking about a “worst-case scenario,” effectively naming Floyd Landis as the athlete who tested positive during the 2006 edition of the Tour.

Before we go convicting Vino of anything, we need to wait and see whether the B sample’s results confirm the A sample’s results. And even then, we need to see whether or not the tests were properly conducted and properly interpreted. All the more so since the lab that’s conducted these tests is LNDD.

And we would do well to remember that this test has not been without controversy in the few years that it’s been used. Tyler Hamilton mistakenly tried to argue against the science behind the test when his case came up in 2004. Big mistake, since WADA deems the science behind the tests to be correct — regardless of whether it is or not.

Although I can’t find the references now, it seems that scientists (and not just those who worked in Hamilton’s defense) have raised questions about whether the test was rushed into use before it had been fully evaluated and perfected (perfection being a relative thing, especially in the world of anti-doping science).

I can understand the frustration cycling fans feel with yet another positive drug test being trumpeted throughout the media, yet again casting aspersions on the sport that they (and I) love. But before we go and toss Vino (or anyone else who allegedly tests positive) to the wolves, we need to hold the anti-doping system to the same high standards that they hold the athletes.

Rules must be enforced, even when that means sanctioning or revoking the accreditation of a prominent anti-doping lab. Privacy must be upheld. Continuing leaks from a lab to a particular reporter must stop. Just as doping must stop.

And, when all the evidence is in, and when we can all see that it was properly and fairly evaluated, then — and only then — can we decide whether or not Vino, or Floyd, or any other athlete is guilty of the charges against them.

Trial by media must stop. And those who aid and abet it must be found and dealt with. In the case of LNDD, the leaker needs to be found and fired. And charged with and tried for violating the privacy of the individuals whose results have been improperly released.

While the many doping scandals make a mockery (in many fans’ eyes) of cycling, the many violations of rules, standards and protocols by LNDD make a mockery of any pretensions of fairness in the anti-doping system. We all deserve better than what scandal-mongers like Damien Ressiot scoop up and hurl upon our sport.