Guatemala goes for a record

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Bob Schwartz, Dec 31, 2004.

  1. Bob Schwartz

    Bob Schwartz Guest

    One of the things that surprised me when Dewey
    Dickey came up positive at the Vuelta a
    Guatemala a few years back was the total
    number of doping infractions. I think it was
    6 total, out of about 60 finishers. Although
    you can come up positive and not finish, I
    suppose. But seemed pretty high for such a
    small national tour.

    The number of positives is especially high
    given the amount of testing. The CAS decision
    mentioned a total of 52 tests. If you consider
    that some riders are represented by multiple
    tests that means their hit rate was pretty
    high, somewhere around 12-20%. And that a lot
    of guys were on the juice in spite of the
    testing.

    Well, this year they came up with 9 positives
    out of 100 starters, 60 finishers. This is
    crazy. It's like these guys are so intent on
    doping that the presence of testing doesn't
    mean anything.

    Ref:
    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/jan05/jan01news

    Dickey's CAS decision:
    http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/resources/press_releases/PressRelease_8_30_2002_c.pdf

    Bob Schwartz
    [email protected]
     
    Tags:


  2. "Bob Schwartz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >
    > Well, this year they came up with 9 positives
    > out of 100 starters, 60 finishers. This is
    > crazy. It's like these guys are so intent on
    > doping that the presence of testing doesn't
    > mean anything.
    >


    It appears doping is inversely proportional to suspension enforcement. Look
    at the publicity in Guatemala and also what [didn't] happened in Colombia
    after the Olys.
     
  3. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "Bob Schwartz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > One of the things that surprised me when Dewey
    > Dickey came up positive at the Vuelta a
    > Guatemala a few years back was the total
    > number of doping infractions. I think it was
    > 6 total, out of about 60 finishers. Although
    > you can come up positive and not finish, I
    > suppose. But seemed pretty high for such a
    > small national tour.
    >
    > The number of positives is especially high
    > given the amount of testing. The CAS decision
    > mentioned a total of 52 tests. If you consider
    > that some riders are represented by multiple
    > tests that means their hit rate was pretty
    > high, somewhere around 12-20%. And that a lot
    > of guys were on the juice in spite of the
    > testing.
    >
    > Well, this year they came up with 9 positives
    > out of 100 starters, 60 finishers. This is
    > crazy. It's like these guys are so intent on
    > doping that the presence of testing doesn't
    > mean anything.
    >
    > Ref:
    > http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/jan05/jan01news
    >
    > Dickey's CAS decision:
    > http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/resources/press_releases/PressRelease_8_30_2002_c.pdf
    >
    > Bob Schwartz
    > [email protected]


    One can only conclude that there are significant renal problems in the
    South/Central American peloton requiring the use of EPO. Res Ipsa Loquitur.
    ;-)
     
  4. Fred Marx

    Fred Marx Guest

    Bob Schwartz wrote:
    > One of the things that surprised me when Dewey
    > Dickey came up positive at the Vuelta a
    > Guatemala a few years back was the total
    > number of doping infractions. I think it was
    > 6 total, out of about 60 finishers. Although
    > you can come up positive and not finish, I
    > suppose. But seemed pretty high for such a
    > small national tour.
    >
    > The number of positives is especially high
    > given the amount of testing. The CAS decision
    > mentioned a total of 52 tests. If you consider
    > that some riders are represented by multiple
    > tests that means their hit rate was pretty
    > high, somewhere around 12-20%. And that a lot
    > of guys were on the juice in spite of the
    > testing.
    >
    > Well, this year they came up with 9 positives
    > out of 100 starters, 60 finishers. This is
    > crazy. It's like these guys are so intent on
    > doping that the presence of testing doesn't
    > mean anything.
    >
    > Ref:
    > http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/jan05/jan01news
    >
    > Dickey's CAS decision:
    > http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/resources/press_releases/PressRelease_8_30_2002_c.pdf
    >
    > Bob Schwartz
    > [email protected]

    note in the cyclingnews piece, the entire podium tested positive.......
     
  5. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "Fred Marx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    >> note in the cyclingnews piece, the entire podium tested positive.......


    I wonder how may other podiums have been all positive, but did not test
    positive.
     
  6. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On 1/1/05 12:22 PM, in article
    [email protected], "B. Lafferty"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    > "Fred Marx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >>> note in the cyclingnews piece, the entire podium tested positive.......

    >
    > I wonder how may other podiums have been all positive, but did not test
    > positive.
    >
    >


    If they are all doped up wouldn't that make it a level playing field???
     
  7. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:BDFC5FAF.E5C2A%[email protected]
    > On 1/1/05 12:22 PM, in article
    > [email protected], "B. Lafferty"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Fred Marx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >>
    >>>> note in the cyclingnews piece, the entire podium tested positive.......

    >>
    >> I wonder how may other podiums have been all positive, but did not test
    >> positive.

    >
    > If they are all doped up wouldn't that make it a level playing field???


    He fifth place guy was clean.
     
  8. Matt C

    Matt C Guest

    Negative = Clean?



    "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "Steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:BDFC5FAF.E5C2A%[email protected]
    >> On 1/1/05 12:22 PM, in article
    >> [email protected], "B. Lafferty"
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "Fred Marx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>> news:[email protected]
    >>>
    >>>>> note in the cyclingnews piece, the entire podium tested
    >>>>> positive.......
    >>>
    >>> I wonder how may other podiums have been all positive, but did not test
    >>> positive.

    >>
    >> If they are all doped up wouldn't that make it a level playing field???

    >
    > He fifth place guy was clean.
    >
    >
     
  9. Bob Schwartz

    Bob Schwartz Guest

    Matt C <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Negative = Clean?


    More likely the 5th place guy wasn't tested. He finished
    well in all the challenging stages, but never won. If
    the testing schedule is the same as when Dickey raced,
    there were 52 tests over what I believe were 13 stages
    that year. Or 4 tests/stage.

    Does that mean they take the daily podium + 1 random? Or
    the stage winner + jersey wearers + randoms in case the
    winner is also wearing a jersey? I dunno. But they surely
    didn't test everyone.

    Bob Schwartz
    [email protected]
     
  10. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

  11. Bob Schwartz

    Bob Schwartz Guest

    Carl Sundquist <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Bob Schwartz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>
    >> Well, this year they came up with 9 positives
    >> out of 100 starters, 60 finishers. This is
    >> crazy. It's like these guys are so intent on
    >> doping that the presence of testing doesn't
    >> mean anything.
    >>


    > It appears doping is inversely proportional to suspension enforcement. Look
    > at the publicity in Guatemala and also what [didn't] happened in Colombia
    > after the Olys.


    Indeed, this appears to be the case. Cyclingnews reported the infractions
    as being "mainly for EPO and testosterone". As for the sanctions...

    From http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/jan05/jan13news

    " Guatemalan coach suspended for life

    Guatemalan coach Augusto Bony P?rez has been given a life suspension
    by the disciplinary commission of the Guatemalan cycling federation
    after two of his riders, Nery Vel?squez and Abel Jochol?, tested
    positive for EPO in last year's Vuelta a Guatemala. Another coach,
    Fernando Pineda, was given a one year ban after his role in coaching
    Lisandro Ajc? and David Calanche, who also tested positive.

    The riders themselves were given comparatively light suspensions.
    Ajc? and Vel?squez were suspended for six months, Jochol? a year, and
    Calanche for two months for their transgressions. All riders were
    disqualified from their final GC placings in the Tour. "

    Imagine coming up +++ for EPO on three separate stages like Ajc? did
    and only getting six months. You'd never see that in Belgium!

    Bob Schwartz
    [email protected]
     
Loading...
Loading...