More drugs : Gaumont

Discussion in 'Doping in Cycling' started by limerickman, Mar 15, 2004.

  1. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115
    here is more information about that paragon of virtue,
    Phillipe Gaumont : Cofidis : as reported on Eurosport today :

    Quote :
    Gaumont had to take drugs!

    Former Cofidis rider Philippe Gaumont says he would have been kicked out of his team if he had refused to take performance enhancing drugs. "If you did not take drugs, you were just fired after a year," Gaumont, who is under investigation in an alleged doping scandal involving Cofidis, told Monday's Le Monde newspaper.

    Gaumont, a 1992 Olympic bronze medallist in the 100-km team competition, has been accused of drug taking twice in the past. He tested positive for the banned steroid nandrolone in 1997 and for amphetamines in 1999.

    He said he did not take anything in the first six months with his first team, Castorama, whom he joined in 1994. "In June, 1994, a team doctor gave me a shot of Kenacort and it went on from there," he added.

    Kenacort is a corticosteroid, a banned substance which reduces fatigue and swelling.

    Gaumont said he was amazed by the quantity of drugs he had to take before time trials. "An intravenous injection of Fonzylane to dilate the veins and let the blood spread well. Some injectable caffeine. A pill of Theostat so that I could breathe easily and some analgesic to stop pain," he said.

    Gaumont said random tests were ineffective.

    "The tests occur during training and races. Every rider knows that intravenous erythropoietin (EPO) stays for three days in the urine. So you just have to act consequently and stop the treatment three days before the test.

    "And the effect of EPO is still effective 10 days after you take it." EPO stimulates the production of oxygen-carrying red blood cells.

    The rider said he had never been told about the risks of taking banned substances. "The only risks I was told about were the risks of being caught," he explained. "I take full responsibility for my mistakes, but it is the whole system leading us to doping that has to be judged."

    end quote :

    Where does this statement leave the likes of David Millar & Co ?
    Gaumont is implying that he was going to be fired if he did not take drugs, by Cofidis.
    Is he suggesting that the rest of Cofidis are doping ?
     
    Tags:


  2. dot

    dot New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2003
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    0



    Where did you get this?
     
  3. GuyStevens

    GuyStevens New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  4. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115
    http://eurosport.com/home/pages/V3/L0/S18/sport_Lng0_Spo18.shtml
    This link should bring you to the Gaumont story.

    There are other links www.velonews.com, www.cyclingnews.com and www.procycling.com
    Each of these sites cover the Gaumont story too.

    It should be remembered that Gaumont is no stranger to being charged with drug offences.
    Gaumont was found to be guilty of steroid abuse in 1997.
    The UCI imposed a short ban on him for that offence.
    Recently Gaumont was found to be centrally involved in a drug trafficking case (January 2004) while cycling with Cofidis.

    There are two issues which are of concern in this matter.
    The UCI imposed a short ban on Gaumont in 1997 after his first conviction.
    A perception was thus created that, even though a cyclist is found to be cheating,
    the corresponding sentence and re-admission to the sport, was not sufficiently punitive.
    Indeed one could argue that the effectiveness of the UCI’s punishment, in July 1997, did not dissuade Gaumont from cheating once again in 2004 !
    This level of recidivism is alarming.

    Secondly, how can any cyclist who finished below Gaumont in any race between 1997-2004 be certain that Gaumont’s performances were not drug enhanced ?

    Gaumont now alleges that his team put a template in place whereby team members were
    forced to take drugs !
    Perhaps Gaumont is spreading malicious allegations because he himself has been uncovered ?
    Perhaps Gaumont needs to issue such excuses in order to justify, to himself, that the
    taking of drugs was standard practice ?

    It is now essential in my opinion that the UCI thoroughly investigate the claims made by Gaumont.
    If following a thorough investigation, Gaumont's claims are found to be true, the UCI will be compelled to alter and increase the
    frequency of their testing procedures.
    If following a thorough investiagtion, Gaumont's claims are found to be false, well then one can conclude that this instance of cheating was random.
    Either way, there does need to be an investigation because this
    'halfway house' is neither tolerable nor conclusive.

    Finally, i would suggest that Cofidis cyclists, management and team sponsor would surely be pushing, and pushing hard for
    Gaumont's claims to be investigated - if only to exonerate those cyclists and management.
     
  5. Mouse Potato

    Mouse Potato New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Somewhat related, from CyclingNews.com:

    Sigh.
     
  6. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115
    Evidence - if more evidence was ever needed - that drug abuse in the professional ranks is endemic.

    When our friends like Verbruggen going to do the right thing ?
     
Loading...
Loading...