Adverse analytical finding in recent mountain bike stage race

CSA moan they dont have enough money to test and then they waste it on a back marker?

 

Edit

I am sure if they test any number of riders at the Argus they will have a 98% hitrate....I have heard of so many people being sick before the Argus and I am SURE they dont ask the doc what is in the stuff of care since they just want to feel better but technically if they are tested = DONE!

 

Maybe someon had wispered something in someones ear at the Epic....

The Argus is not a UCI sanctioned event. The Epic is. I remember a few years back when the UCI determined that GoPro's and other sports cameras were not allowed and this was enforced at a few of the local MTN races as this all counts to UCI points. As ridiculous as it seems, we have to adhere to the UCI rules. I also don't agree with testing back markers and think that this is probably a pre-cursor to the Epic becoming a pro's-only event (or at least only available to riders with a UCI racing license). It seems that the UCI are not geared towards mass participation events like the Epic and the organizers of the Epic will probably have to come up with a non-UCI version. Will the event remain as profitable is this happens? Only time will tell.

The Argus is not a UCI sanctioned event. The Epic is. I remember a few years back when the UCI determined that GoPro's and other sports cameras were not allowed and this was enforced at a few of the local MTN races as this all counts to UCI points. As ridiculous as it seems, we have to adhere to the UCI rules. I also don't agree with testing back markers and think that this is probably a pre-cursor to the Epic becoming a pro's-only event (or at least only available to riders with a UCI racing license). It seems that the UCI are not geared towards mass participation events like the Epic and the organizers of the Epic will probably have to come up with a non-UCI version. Will the event remain as profitable is this happens? Only time will tell.

HELLO AKA

I dont know why everyone is carrying on about the testing of backmarkers like it's a waste of time.

That's like saying that it's ok for an F student to have crib notes - he's only going to get 40% anyway, so leave him to cheat his way to a pass.

Rules are rules and should be enforced at all levels.

I agree, but it seems when you only have R6mil and we know the top is dirty and you moan that you dont have money then it is a bit ill applied ?

I'm very happy that the odd "ordinary" guy gets tested; it should improve the overall honesty of the field.

Would love to see the piles of stuff that would come out of a pills and potions amnesty for some of our events.

I dont know why everyone is carrying on about the testing of backmarkers like it's a waste of time.

That's like saying that it's ok for an F student to have crib notes - he's only going to get 40% anyway, so leave him to cheat his way to a pass.

Rules are rules and should be enforced at all levels.

The point I was trying to make (can't speak for the others) is NOT that it's ok for backmarkers to cheat. The point I was trying to make is that if you are fighting a battle with the odds against you, you have to be clever about it and use your limited resources effectively.

And spending limited resources testing backmarkers is not going to help one bit to deter the Armstrongs & David George's of the world, the cheats that are actually hurting the sport.

SAIDS list of dopers for anyone thats interested:

Michael Dean Pepper: Clenbuterol & Testoserone 48 mnths

Russel Lund: Methandienone 24 months

Enzo Lezzi: Deca Durabolin 15 months

Jaco Rheeder: Methamphetamine 24 months

Andries van Straaten: Methylhexaneamine 6 months suspension

SAIDS list of dopers for anyone thats interested:

 

Michael Dean Pepper: Clenbuterol & Testoserone 48 mnths

Russel Lund: Methandienone 24 months

Enzo Lezzi: Deca Durabolin 15 months

Jaco Rheeder: Methamphetamine 24 months

Andries van Straaten: Methylhexaneamine 6 months suspension

The Pepper guy certainly went for gains, didn't he.

Eish!

The point I was trying to make (can't speak for the others) is NOT that it's ok for backmarkers to cheat. The point I was trying to make is that if you are fighting a battle with the odds against you, you have to be clever about it and use your limited resources effectively.

 

And spending limited resources testing backmarkers is not going to help one bit to deter the Armstrongs & David George's of the world, the cheats that are actually hurting the sport.

+1

When you have limited time and resources you have to use them wisely.

It is NOT ok for anyone to cheat.

Wow...this thread really has gone down 50 strange roads...

 

Eldron's views:

 

Barry's confession - pretty much the least he could do. Confessions shouldn't turn rule breakers into heros - they best they can do is polish out some of the tarnish. I don't buy into the big balls respect feelings...

 

Should he be banned from the Epic for life? Yes. He knew the rules - he knew he was in danger of breakingthem and should endure the conequences. Should Owen etc be banned too? Absolutely. Everyone knows my feelings on VIP treatment for convicted dopers.

 

General ban of 12 months in my opinion. Not too serious a sanction for a non pro and will hopefuly make the other non pro dopers do a rethink and the other accidental dopers check their flu medication. Letting him off scott free will have zero impact and lord knows we need some kind of impact on ALL dopers (accidental, semi accidental and knowing).

 

Should he have been tested in the first place? In a perfect world yes. If we had enough cash to test everyone then we should do that. We don't have the cash so we should target those whos cheating has the biggest impact. Pros. Perhaps my "no harm no foul" comment didn't quite take into account the impact on the people finishing behind dopers (even in the middle to back portion of races).

 

Me - I'm in no danger of singing long term lucrative contracts on foot or bike but you can be damn sure I check what medicine I take. There is no confusion here - the epic organisers don't have to answer any questions. Go here: http://www.drugfreesport.org.za/ and download THE LIST or click on the "is my medication ok" button or the WADA list or download the TUE form - it's all there. Easy peezy.

All good, but where do you draw the line? Say UCI prohibits the use of cut-off jerseys, does that mean that riders not complying should be DQ'd in the Epic?

Who pays for the anti doping control tests at the epic or any other UCI sanctioned event?

IMO random tests are just that and the larger the field (aka CE) then the more likely it is that a "nobody" (no offence meant to anyone) will get tested.

Obviously the main effort should be focused on the professional riders and looking back over time how many "nobodies" have been tested compared to professionals, I'll wager not many.

Saw Bruce Fordyce on Tv in an interview with Ali B

Looked fine to me

Thanks - therein lies my point

All good, but where do you draw the line? Say UCI prohibits the use of cut-off jerseys, does that mean that riders not complying should be DQ'd in the Epic?

Call me a putz but hey - follow the rules - if the rules say 6 month ban for not wearing sleeves I suggest wearing sleeves.

You can debate the definition of "stupid rules" but personally I don't think being forced to wear sleeves and leave your go pro at home is unreasonable.

I hate nanny state anything but I don't think any UCi rules are at the sutpid rule state yet...

Really busy at work today, some comments I'd like to make and respond to, so I'll post a bit later. You know, to rally up support and sympathy etc for poor old me.

 

Call me a putz but hey - follow the rules - if the rules say 6 month ban for not wearing sleeves I suggest wearing sleeves.

 

You can debate the definition of "stupid rules" but personally I don't think being forced to wear sleeves and leave your go pro at home is unreasonable.

 

I hate nanny state anything but I don't think any UCi rules are at the sutpid rule state yet...

Ok put differently: how many teams were DQ'd for wearing sleeveless jerseys in the 2013 Epic?

Ok put differently: how many teams were DQ'd for wearing sleeveless jerseys in the 2013 Epic?

Seriously? You're going to push that point? In a doper thread?

To be quite honest - I really don't care. Personally I couldn't care less if you raced the epic in a borat costume.

Not having sleeves doesn't give you a tangible advantage over the rest of the field. Doping does.

 

Seriously? You're going to push that point? In a doper thread?

 

To be quite honest - I really don't care. Personally I couldn't care less if you raced the epic in a borat costume.

 

Not having sleeves doesn't give you a tangible advantage over the rest of the field. Doping does.

What if the banned substance does not give you a tangible advantage?

I know some things I am on for non sport reasons, no advantage to sport but are banned. It may in fact make me slower. I think the point is the rules are rules, regardless of advantage or not.

Ok put differently: how many teams were DQ'd for wearing sleeveless jerseys in the 2013 Epic?

The rules doesn't say anything about sleeveless shirts:

http://www.cape-epic.com/data/files/downloads/rules_2013_20130307170336.pdf

Section 8.3 Appropriate riding attire, including a shirt, must be worn at all times.

First Offence - Verbal Warning,

Second Offence - 1 Hour Penalty,

Third Offence - DQ

So if I understand the general idea here....

Most recreational riders, back markers, holding down a job and have a snotty sick one at home

Now goes and does the ODD MTB half or full (not even the Ultra) must carry with them the table of banned substances just incase?

So no more bioplus if you have an excam tomorrow, NO we dont care that you work and study and try to train also...."it is BANNED"

You have a cold, or even worse sinus (allergy) make SURE you know what is in it.....because it is the rule?

I understand the rules, but not the logic

So if I understand the general idea here....

 

Most recreational riders, back markers, holding down a job and have a snotty sick one at home

Now goes and does the ODD MTB half or full (not even the Ultra) must carry with them the table of banned substances just incase?

 

So no more bioplus if you have an excam tomorrow, NO we dont care that you work and study and try to train also...."it is BANNED"

You have a cold, or even worse sinus (allergy) make SURE you know what is in it.....because it is the rule?

 

I understand the rules, but not the logic

Its just like the "cannot have your cake and eat it" saying....

So if I understand the general idea here....

 

Most recreational riders, back markers, holding down a job and have a snotty sick one at home

Now goes and does the ODD MTB half or full (not even the Ultra) must carry with them the table of banned substances just incase?

 

So no more bioplus if you have an excam tomorrow, NO we dont care that you work and study and try to train also...."it is BANNED"

You have a cold, or even worse sinus (allergy) make SURE you know what is in it.....because it is the rule?

 

I understand the rules, but not the logic

Have you visited drugfreesport.co.za? Click on the medicine list to see if your medicine is allowed.

It's simple.

What if the banned substance does not give you a tangible advantage?

 

I know some things I am on for non sport reasons, no advantage to sport but are banned. It may in fact make me slower. I think the point is the rules are rules, regardless of advantage or not.

I agree that rules are rules.

In the end if they did random testing in the Bronze medals of almost any running race, most would fail. I prefer the more tolerant European approach to the whole doping thing. Testing and punishment should be in relation to the "weight" of the result. The better you do the more stringent the testing. The greater the anomoly the greater the suspision.

In the end what has happened is that cyclists should realise that the Cape Epic is not a mass participant fun event like Comrades. It is a UCI event and all cyclists entering are elite cyclists and therefore bound by UCI rules and conventions.

I don't think that is however the marketing message that goes out from the organisers. They seem to accept anyone who throws money at them, their cutoffs are very liberal and entry requirements almost non existent. I would almost go to say that they should be pulled over the coals for misleading marketing on this one.

Playing a bit devils advocate here......But you don't believe in the devil right? hehehehhe

Seriously? You're going to push that point? In a doper thread?

 

To be quite honest - I really don't care. Personally I couldn't care less if you raced the epic in a borat costume.

 

Not having sleeves doesn't give you a tangible advantage over the rest of the field. Doping does.

Rules are rules. You break one.....you break all. Is that not the base of an event? Rules. mmmmmmmm.................

The rules doesn't say anything about sleeveless shirts:

 

http://www.cape-epic...30307170336.pdf

 

Section 8.3 Appropriate riding attire, including a shirt, must be worn at all times.

 

First Offence - Verbal Warning,

Second Offence - 1 Hour Penalty,

Third Offence - DQ

That is the Epic's org rules. Go check on the UCI rules. B)

Have you visited drugfreesport.co.za? Click on the medicine list to see if your medicine is allowed.

 

It's simple.

Not all medicine are on there. I have mailed them a couple of times asking this and that etc. Their database is not always up to date.

Then the second biggest gripe is that if it is not a scheduled medicine, it won't be on there.

Medicine is not the problem here I think. Supplementation is.

And THAT my friend is an absolute mess! No one can guarantee anything or knows anything because too much money and sponsorship is made out of it.

 

 

 

 

I know some things I am on for non sport reasons, no advantage to sport but are banned.

 

I think the point is the rules are rules, regardless of advantage or not.

You are right, rules are rules and the rules provide for a TUE (therapeutic use exemption) for people in your position.

Fill out the form and tell them what you are on and why BEFORE the event (or after you got bust if you are LA) and you are good to race.

It is neither complicated nor difficult. It is also relatively fair.

Playing a bit devils advocate here......But you don't believe in the devil right? hehehehhe

 

 

 

Rules are rules. You break one.....you break all. Is that not the base of an event? Rules. mmmmmmmm.................

 

 

 

That is the Epic's org rules. Go check on the UCI rules. B)

 

 

 

Not all medicine are on there. I have mailed them a couple of times asking this and that etc. Their database is not always up to date.

 

Then the second biggest gripe is that if it is not a scheduled medicine, it won't be on there.

Medicine is not the problem here I think. Supplementation is.

And THAT my friend is an absolute mess! No one can guarantee anything or knows anything because too much money and sponsorship is made out of it.

I'm all for robust debate :-)

Rules are rules - yes I agree. I think some people are interpreting my borat comment as some rules being more important than others. I'll use that old yes and no answer as my cop out. I abide by all rules - I don't own a sleeveless top or a go pro. I do, however, think that banning someone for a sleevless vest is silly. There isn't a practical reason for banning sleeveless tops. To put sleeveless wearers and dopers in the same league is to do the fight against dopers an injustice. But, like I said, rules are in place so follow them and most of the UCI rules I've seen are not laborious or stoopid.

Agreed on the medicines. It isn't a dfficult system though - I only have to take meds once or twice per year. Not that difficult to check. That said - the SAIDS list is not always up to date. In this instance though Barry wasn't a victim of supplement contamination or poor advice on medicine. He knw there were lurgies in his system.

Double agreed on the supplements. That is just a crap shoot. My solution is to limit supplements. It aint perfect but it's the best I can do. That said - the serious stuff like EPO/NESP/CERA is unlikely to be in a supplement - same more steroids. More common would be the ephedrines etc.