Doping

Contador?

Having the same doctor as Vinokourov probably helps

I guess so, and that could have easily been covered up (was a leak I think)

Contador.

Although quite how Chris Horner evaded detection defies medical science.

I'd like to believe Chris Horner really was one of the clean ones.

I'd also like to believe that there really is a Santa Claus and Trump isn't really the President of America.

Which reminds me when are the federal government going after Armstrong?

when are the federal government going after Armstrong?

It's grinding its way through the courts process, a trial in front a of jury is scheduled to start on May 7th.

Just speed reading, doesn't look good for him. On the other hand it looks like Floyd Landis can go ahead and put a deposit on his own private island!

Just speed reading, doesn't look good for him

A couple of recent opinions seem to have gone his way; he will be allowed to introduce some evidence that doping was so widespread and widely known that USPS must have not cared, and Landis et al will not be allowed to introduce evidence that USPS obtained zero benefit from sponsoring Armstrong.

Why is Froome still on an 'adverse analytical finding'? Shouldn't the process have moved on by now? Or is it always this slow?

Forgive my ignorance, but is one of the points not being sponsored/paid by a federal body whilst taking performance enhancing drugs an offence of some sort?

I thought that was the angle they were going for with him.

Is he going for the 'every one else was doing it' defence? Not everyone was being paid by the federal government for winning though?

I thought that was the angle they were going for with him

The angle is fraud. He represented his value as a promotional tool as something other than what it was, by claiming to win clean when really he was doped up to the eyeballs. The opinions cited above go to two questions which have to be proven by Landis et al in order to get a judgement against him

1. Being clean was a material consideration for USPS when they decided to continue sponsoring Armstrong
   
2. USPS suffered a loss as a result of the false claim, i.e. the benefit of sponsorship was less than what they paid.
   
   

It's not enough just to prove that Armstrong is a lying scumbag, otherwise the case would have been over by now, they have to prove that his lies caused USPS to hand over money which they wouldn't have if they had known he was a lying scumbag, and that they suffered a material loss as a result.

No but the argument is that by paying a cyclist to win they should have expected him to be taking drugs.

Appreciated, ta.

is it always this slow?

Sometimes it's really slow, see above.

Contador completed the 2011 Giro before his AAF from the 2010 Tour was finally confirmed as an ADRV

We don’t know as usually this happens behind closed doors.

Are there cases where it’s remained behind closed doors until it’s been announced as an ADRV?

All cases are behind closed doors unless announced as an ADRV. Saw an interview with an unnamed person at the UCI who said that there had been hundreds of adverse analyticals since 2012. We just don't hear about them. Due process init.

So other cases haven’t been leaked before?
I’m trying to ascertain how rare it is that such a case is leaked...

I wanted to, I really wanted to... but that andyp guy would've said something about innocent until proven guilty. ;) And he never rode for Sky so he's probably clean ;) ;)

Depends how big the name is. Most of the Pro cases seem to be leaked. Many of the amateur AAFs are fairly quiet.

“Professional Rugby gets clean bill of health”

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/feb/15/professional-rugby-england-clean-bill-of-health-rfu

So 302 Premiership tests in 2016/17. There are 12 Premiership Clubs each with a 25 man squad. So basically in a year it’s the equivalent of everyone being tested once. What’s the old cycling adage? You only get caught if you’re stupid. If you only get tested once a year you’d have to be really, really stupid.

The Rugby Football Union published its anti-doping report on Thursday which showed 623 samples were taken at professional level last season, with 87% of the tests coming out of competition. There were 302 samples taken at Premiership clubs for illicit drugs, with one violation.

Professional Rugby gets clean bill of health

I always assumed that the doping regime for rugby players was to bulk up at amateur level and then enjoy the benefits through your pro career without actually having to dope as a pro. For the top clubs, it's well worth telling young hopefuls to come back when they've put on 10kg of lean mass rather than taking them on in their undoped state and having to build them up while they're in the sights of the anti-doping police. If a few of them get popped on the way, it's no great loss to the clubs and they can keep pretending that elite level players don't dope.

Is now a good time to show the figures for current athletes serving band for doping violations handed down by UKAD?

This is what I've heard/been told too. There was a telling interview with the Exeter player called up for England a couple of weeks ago, the first thing Eddie Jones asked him every time he saw him was 'how much do you weigh', as he was constantly pressuring him to bulk up.

I'd be very surprised if doping wasn't prevalent in top level rugby with the requirement for endurance, large muscle mass and constant recovery from injuries/wear and tear.