Iban Mayo

italiano

JohnO, you are spot on. LNDD must be scheming. Mayo never need to blodd dope. Unlike a uniballed Armstrong, it was proven earlier this year that Iban has high natural testosterone. Everybody knows that testosterone raises red blood cells. That’s why Armstrong had to blood dope while Mayo never needed to.

Even doped Armstrong was dropped by clean Mayo a couple a’times. Here’s the proof your man is strong and clean.

classic1

This is Chewbacca...

JohnO

Oh, come on, now. If doping is to be brought under control, then all aspects of it must be cleaned up.

That includes the sloppy, politically influenced LNDD lab. Information leaks. Outdated software on their equipment. Failure to follow even the simplest procedures. Can't secure their computers. Mistakes that a first year chemistry student would be flunked for.

I don't for one minute think that Landis was framed, or that Armstrong was clean, but what was shown during the Landis trial was a very poorly run operation. With Mayo, their work was cross checked by a Belgian lab, and found to be lacking. I'm shocked and surprised. Maybe he was doing EPO, but if the labs can't even agree when they're supposed to be following the same protocols, it's just another sign of the general disorganization that's killing pro cycling.

Credibility is what cycling needs. And that includes the labs.

Drongo

I don't disagree with with the characterisation of the LNDD lab as sloppy at times: the Landis hearing showed that at least. LNDD does need to made ship-shape, if only to stop giving ammunition to the armies of conspiracy theorists who are convinced they're out to nab anyone who isn't French. Justice must be done and be seen to be done, of course.

But I'm not sure that the Belgian result found LNDD to be lacking. So far, they haven't found squat, whatever dross the Spanish are saying notwithstanding.

As for the leaks--true, l'Equipe has some good inside info. But the Lance tests leak, for example, didn't come from LNDD, as I understood (weren't the names put together elsewhere?) and the leak of a positive result won't change what's it's in the sample. It's a bad look if it happens, and should be stopped, but it doesn't mean the rider didn't dope.

In short, they need to clean up their act; but I say that as a result of other 'revelations', rather than the self-serving BS pushed by the Spanish authorities in defence of their man Mayo.

poulidor

It's just because there were too many doping cases in cycling that you could see it killing pro cycling...
Can you name a year without doping story since 1990?
We agree that we need a strong "police" to clean the field but when the cycling government had covered doping for a while with the satisfaction of fans who preferred put their head in sand.

italiano

LNDD mistakes that a first-year chemistry student would be flunked for? Could you give a real example from chemistry?

I understand and agree with your expectations. WADA labs need to keep their end of the deal. Otoh, too much rhetoric spun by some LNDD “victims” does no good either.

I always liked Mayo. I tended to believe him when he got off the earlier testosterone charge. But his EPO case is a different story. There was always something strange about his roller coaster performances. It’s no proof of anything but that yo-yoing was too consistent with the typical blood doping cycles described by Jaksche.

We don’t know enough yet to blame LNDD. Had LNDD not gone on vacation, they, and not a Belgian lab, would test his B sample. The inconclusive B sample may indicate that WADA is unprepared to analyze EPO at different labs. It may also point to sloppiness at the Belgian lab. May be Mayo sample got infested by the bacteria. Wasn’t it the same Belgian lab associated (in 2003??) with a famous acquittal of some EPO-accused triathlete?

We agree, JohnO, on one thing -- labs aren't perfect. But the overwhelming evidence points in the other direction.

LNDD being hacked by a criminal may indicate that they need some lessons from the Pentagon and it has nothing to do with Mayo.

snood

Mayos doctor was Jesus Losa. He is the one who gave EPO to David Millar. Mayo went awful when Euskaltel fired Losa before 2004 Tour de France.

poulidor

LNDD has found EPO in Mayo's piss!
From http://sports.voila.fr/fr/cmc/scann...ppe_159627.html

Crankyfeet

Let me have a go at a translation of your quote pouli (correct me please if it's erroneous):

__________________

italiano

A quote from the Frenh Eurosport article:

..Eugenio Bermudez, secretary-general of the Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC): "If Mayo does not accept the Châtenay-Malabry result there could be a legal conflict."

I don't think Mayo and RFEC will win in TAS if they pressed any further.

poulidor

The point is PT teams had an agreement to not hire suspected riders. Even if some dirty teams broke this agreement, we can be sure that ASO, MPCC is pushing the plug further so Mayo' career is now finished.

cyclingheroes

In principal yes...

But... who says Saunier is targetting for the Tour. They might target the Giro and Vuelta. The Giro had no problem with inviting Basso to the presentation for the 2007 Giro and when Ivan comes back they will let him start at the Giro...

__________________
Cycling news, picture galleries & live coverage


www.cyclingheroes.info

Trev_S

So in short
LNDD find 'A' sample positive.
Belgium Lab find 'B' sample negative or inconclusive
Australian Lab find 'B' sample negative or inconclusive
UCI don't like the results so lets do it again.
So LNDD find 'B' sample positive.
UCI - ahhh thats better.

in essence I think the correct way to test would be for a 'B & C' sample be tested by 2 independent labs.

That way best best 2 out of 3 wins (or loses ).

kennf

I think it's more like:

LNDD finds A sample positive
Belgian lab test has inconclusive result (not negative or positive)
Australian agrees Belgian test is inconclusive, but does not perform a test
LNDD finds B sample positive.

Mayo cries out about his human rights.