Sunday, October 12, 2008

Irregular Report 31

Finding Ways to Help Others is on a big charity ride/survivor-like event, and Landis was on hand for a send-off:

Floyd Landis was present this morning to wish us all a fair well and safe riding up the coast. His words of wisdom where to ride hard the first 3 or 4 days so that we are tired out by the time we reach our last leg of our journey so we won't beat him up too much. He plans to connect with our group on Oct 24th.

Got the CSC jacket as surplus from Z?


whareagle said...

UM, is that Haven Hamilton to the right? Seriously. I'm askin'. It looks like her, at least.

whareagle said...

Scratch that - I think it's Mari Holden. She moved to CA not too long ago.

Eightzero said...

Hokay, kiddies. Today is Kohl's turn in the barrel:

Once again, we've labelled a cyclist a doper based on the results from an "A" sample.

But golly, note the change in standard here. Maybe this is just a CN journalistic slip up, but it says we've decide the guy is a doper because his "A" sample was "non-negative." WTF? Meaning you're a doper if they (you?) can't prove you're not?

Reminds me of this exchange:

Cyclists might be made of wood.

DR said...

Re: Kohl
I understand your point about nothing being proven by an "A" sample, but WOW!

In what is supposed to have been the "cleanest" Tour in years, we are now seeing five stage wins, a polka dot jersey and a podium finish implicated.

I'm a fan of neither witchhunts nor cheaters. Here's hoping they all go away.

Unknown said...

It would seem AFLD, in the fall of 2008, feels no ethical, legal, or professional obligation to follow the rules related to the reporting of AAF’s associated with an athlete’s A-Sample. On the other hand, perhaps the results are being reported to the team and a “betrayed” Holczer is running to L’Equipe with the story? Either way, it’s not in the athlete’s interest for news of an A-Sample AAF to be made public prior to analysis of the B-Sample. But then again, it matters little. AFLD will validate its own results related to the A-Samples. That’s understood and the same as it’s always been. (I’m assuming the same senario with Kohl. Guilty or not, they’re always guilty)
Stefan Schumacher has a bit more time to ask for his B-sample of his positive doping test to be analysed. The usual five-day period has been doubled for Schumacher and he will have to demand the B-sample analysis with the French Anti-Doping agency (AFLD) directly, rather than through his national federation.
The reason for this change in procedure is the fact that the Tour de France was not held under UCI regulation this year. Therefore, the French rules apply for the doping procedures. AFLD gives athletes who live in a foreign country ten days to ask for the B-sample.
Schumacher had received documents from the French prosecution one week ago, which his lawyer, Michael Lehner, forwarded to the German federation (BDR). After checking with AFLD, the UCI (international cycling union) and NADA (German national anti-doping agency) the BDR will wait before deciding on any further action. "The 2008 Tour de France was not done under UCI regulation, but under French national law. AFLD will forward the results to us after they are done with their investigations," said BDR's Secretary-General Martin Wolf.

(Rather generous of AFLD. An extra five days for non-French riders to decide upon the inevitable.)