The long time DS Kim Andersen has just been released from contract to pursue his goal of creating a new Luxembourg based team(and to prevent him from persuading Saxo riders to follow him).

Continue reading this post »

According to Danish TV2's site, Bradley Wiggins is fully aware of the fact that his transformation has created speculations about doping.

For that reason he has decided to make his blood values from the last couple of years public, he might even go as far back as 10 years as these values are kept by the British cycling federation(yeah, I do not know the actual fancy pansy  name :p).

Now that's a rider who deserves our utter most respect.

Source (opens in a new window)

According to multiple newspapers(or so I've read :p) today, Team Sky are aiming to sign with the following riders:

Agritubel
Romain Feillu

Barloworld
Chris Froome UK
Geraint Thomas  UK
John-Lee Augustyn
Steven Cummings UK

Cofidis
Pierre Rolland

Columbia-High Road
Edvald Boasson Hagen
Marco Pinotti
Mark Cavendish UK
Thomas Lövkvist

Francaise des Jeux
Rémy Di Gregorio

Fuji-Servetto
Eros Capecchi

Garmin-Slipstream
Bradley Wiggins UK

ISD
Ian Stannard UK

Katusha
Ben Swift UK

Lampre-NGC
Alessandro Ballan
Damiano Cunego

Liquigas
Vincenzo Nibali

Rabobank
Juan Antonio Flecha

Quite an ambitious list which is going to be hard for Santa to fulfill without disapointing the other kids.

I do not know how Barloworld and Columbia can see this list as anything than a declaration of war.

Oddly enough there can't be found any GC riders on this list(sorry Jens :p :)), but I thought Team Sky High Ambitions' main goal was to win Tour de France. oO

The Austriant authorities are now charging Michael Rasmussen for having  purchased a blood centrifuge, which can be used in connection with blood doping.

Allegedly he should have bought the machine together with bicycle colleague Bernhard Kohl and the Austrian skier Christian Hoffmann. The accusation is that the trio has made the unit available to others for blood doping, which is punishable under Austrian law.

Yeah I know it isn't a big surprise, but it was a big relief to me when first reading the story on Team Saxo Bank's official forum(thanks for sharing SarahforSaxoBank).
Not so much because a doper was caught, but because if all he needed to beat Alberto Contador was blood doping then there's a great chance the sport is getting clean and that Damsgaard can be trusted when he says Bert and Andy are clean.

Google translated article (opens in a new window)

EDIT: Quick correction, he is only charged for posession of the machine which in it self is illegal in Austria. (:

Disclaimer: This is a straight copy waste of KD Teammate's post at the official Team CSC Saxo Bank forum, enjoy.

Today I took time to read the entire new revision of the WADA rules (135 pages), and I have to admit being extremely satisfied with this new revision! First of all they have removed previous loopholes in the paragraphs. Second, the sanctions have become more severe. Third, they are now making a much more fair and detailed differentiation, between sanctions for different kind of violations/circumstances. All in all, its rather good, eventhough I had still prefered lifetime for "aggravated violations" without full collaboration, instead of the stipulated 4 years.

If you have time, I recommend to read the first 95 pages of the WADA rules: www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/code_v2009_En.pdf

Most important sections are of course:
* Definition of doping violations and burdens of proof (art.1-3, p.18-28)
* Disqualification of results, and sanctions of individuals/teams (art.9-11, p.50-77)

The content of those articles, define the new international antidoping rules, not only for Cycling, but for all sports. Since its rather comprehensive, I wont make a complete review of all the articles. Instead I have in this post right below, only highlighted all the important changes/clarifications compared to the current WADA rules (being in force for doping violations in 2004-2008).



All changes/clarifications with effect from 1/1-2009:
Below I have listed all the articles with changes or clarifications. Everything in italic is a direct quote. My own comment stands with blue(OctaBech EDIT: the blue text was lost in translation, so you'll have to do with bolded text instead *hugs*).


Comment to Art.2.2 - about how to establish proof of "Use or attempted use":
Use or Attempted Use may also be established by other reliable means such as admissions by the Athlete, witness statements, documentary evidence, conclusions drawn from longitudinal profiling, or other analytical information which does not otherwise satisfy all the requirements to establish "Presence" of a Prohibited Substance under Article 2.1. For example, "Use" may be established based upon reliable analytical data from the analysis of an A Sample (without confirmation from an analysis of a B Sample). Demonstrating the "Attempted Use" of a Prohibited Substance requires proof of intent on the Athlete’s part.
-The new part is the inclusion of Longitudinal profiling and other Analytical tests, to proof "use"!


Comment to Art.2.4 - about how to count whereabout filing failures or missed tests:
Separate whereabouts filing failures and missed tests declared under the rules of the Athlete’s International Federation or any other Anti-Doping Organization with authority to declare whereabouts filing failures and missed tests in accordance with the International Standard for Testing shall be combined in applying this Article.
-New part is, that WADA demand all whereabout failures to be added between all Antidoping organisations!


Art.6.5 - Retesting Samples:
A Sample may be reanalyzed for the purpose [to test for prohibited substances/methods] at any time exclusively at the direction of the AntiDoping Organization that collected the Sample or WADA. The circumstances and conditions for retesting Samples shall conform with the requirements of the International Standard for Laboratories.
-The new part is, that now also WADA by their own, can make such a request to retest samples!


Art.7.6 - Retirement from sport:
If an Athlete or other Person retires before any results management process has begun, the Anti-Doping Organization which would have had results management jurisdiction over the Athlete or other Person at the time the Athlete or other Person committed an anti-doping rule violation, has jurisdiction to conduct results management.
-Thereby preventing "guilty" persons to try and escape a doping conviction, by just retirering!


Art.10.3.3 - Ineligibility for violations of Article 2.4 (Whereabouts Filing Failures and/or Missed Tests):
Ineligibility shall be at a minimum one (1) year and at a maximum two (2) years based on the Athlete’s degree of fault. The sanction under Article 10.3.3 shall be two years where all three filing failures or missed tests are inexcusable. Otherwise, the sanction shall be assessed in the range of two years to one year, based on the circumstances of the case.
-Earlier WADA allowed each sports federation to formulate own rules, now its specified for all federations, that 3 failures or missed tests within a roling period of 18 months, shall result in Ineligibility of 1-2 years!


Art.10.5.3 -Substantial Assistance in Discovering or Establishing an AntiDoping Rule Violation by another person:
The extent to which the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended, shall be based on the seriousness of the anti-doping rule violation committed by the Athlete or other Person, and the significance of the Substantial Assistance provided by the Athlete or other Person to the effort to eliminate doping in sport. No more than three-quarters of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended. If the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime, the non-suspended period under this section must be no less than eight (8) years.
-Earlier a full collaboration could give max.50% reduction, this has now been increased to max.75% reduction!

Factors to be considered in assessing the importance of the Substantial Assistance would include, for example, the number of individuals implicated, the status of those individuals in the sport, whether a scheme involving Trafficking under Article 2.7 or administration under Article 2.8 is involved and whether the violation involved a substance or method which is not readily detectible in Testing. The maximum suspension of the Ineligibility period shall only be applied in very exceptional cases. An additional factor to be considered in connection with the seriousness of the anti-doping rule violation is any performance-enhancing benefit which the Person providing Substantial Assistance may be likely to still enjoy. As a general matter, the earlier in the results management process the Substantial Assistance is provided, the greater the percentage of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended.

If the Athlete or other Person claims entitlement to a suspended period of Ineligibility after a final decision finding an anti-doping rule violation has been rendered and is not subject to appeal under Article 13, but the Athlete or other Person is still serving the period of Ineligibility, the Athlete or other Person may apply to the Anti-Doping Organization which had results management responsibility for the anti-doping rule violation to consider a suspension in the period of Ineligibility under this Article. Any such suspension of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall require the approval of WADA and the applicable International Federation.
-In other words, a suspended athlete can anytime decide to provide valuable information, and thereby recieve a significant reduction in the earlier enforced suspension time!


Art. 10.5.4 - Admission of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation in the Absence of Other Evidence:
Where an Athlete or other Person voluntarily admits the commission of an anti-doping rule violation before having received notice of a Sample collection which could establish an anti-doping rule violation (or, in the case of an anti-doping rule violation other than Article 2.1, before receiving first notice of the admitted violation pursuant to Article 7) and that admission is the only reliable evidence of the violation at the time of admission, then the period of Ineligibility may be reduced, but not below one-half of the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable.
-This article is completely new!


Art.10.5.5 - Where an Athlete or Other Person Establishes entitlement to Reduction in Sanction, under several articles:
If the Athlete or other Person establishes entitlement to a reduction or suspension of the period of Ineligibility under two or more of Articles 10.5.2 (No Significant Fault or Negligence), 10.5.3 (Substantial Assistance in Discovering or Establishing Anti-Doping Rule Violations) or 10.5.4 (Admission of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation in the Absence of Other Evidence), then the period of Ineligibility may be reduced or suspended, but not below one-fourth of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility.
-This article is completely new!


Art.10.6 - Aggravating Circumstances Which May Increase the Period of Ineligibility:
If the Anti-Doping Organization establishes in an individual case involving an anti-doping rule violation other than violations under Articles 2.7 (Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking) and 2.8 (Administration or Attempted Administration) that aggravating circumstances are present which justify the imposition of a period of Ineligibility greater than the standard sanction, then the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable shall be increased up to a maximum of four (4) years unless the Athlete or other Person can prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel that he or she did not knowingly commit the anti-doping rule violation. An Athlete or other Person can avoid the application of this Article by admitting the anti-doping rule violation as asserted promptly after being confronted with the antidoping rule violation by an Anti-Doping Organization.

Examples of aggravating circumstances which may justify the imposition of a period of Ineligibility greater than the standard sanction are: the Athlete or other Person committed the antidoping rule violation as part of a doping plan or scheme, either individually or involving a conspiracy or common enterprise to commit anti-doping rule violations; the Athlete or other Person Used or Possessed multiple Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods or Used or Possessed a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method on multiple occasions; a normal individual would be likely to enjoy the performance-enhancing effects of the anti-doping rule violation(s) beyond the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility; the Athlete or Person engaged in deceptive or obstructing conduct to avoid the detection or adjudication of an anti-doping rule violation.
-This article is completely new!


Art.10.7.1 - Second Anti-Doping Rule Violation:
Ineligibility will be longer for a second violation compared to if the violation had happened for the first time. For a second anti-doping rule violation the period of Ineligibility shall be within the range set forth in the table at page 66 in the WADA rules.


Art. 10.7.3 - Third Anti-Doping Rule Violation:
A third anti-doping rule violation will always result in a lifetime period of Ineligibility, except if the third violation fulfills the condition for elimination or reduction of the period of Ineligibility under Article 10.4 involves a violation of Article 2.4 (Filing Failures and/or and Missed Tests). In these particular cases, the period of Ineligibility shall be from eight (8) years to life ban.


Art.10.7.4 - Additional Rules for Certain Potential Multiple Violations:
For purposes of imposing sanctions under Article 10.7, an anti-doping rule violation will only be considered a second violation if the Anti-Doping Organization can establish that the Athlete or other Person committed the second antidoping rule violation after the Athlete or other Person received notice pursuant to Article 7 (Results Management), or after the Anti-Doping Organization made reasonable efforts to give notice, of the first anti-doping rule violation; if the Anti-Doping Organization cannot establish this, the violations shall be considered together as one single first violation, and the sanction imposed shall be based on the violation that carries the more severe sanction; however, the occurrence of multiple violations may be considered as a factor in determining aggravating circumstances (Article 10.6).
-This article has been clarified, and related to the new art.10.6!


Art.10.7.5 - Multiple Anti-Doping Rule Violations During an Eight-Year Period:

For purposes of Article 10.7, each anti-doping rule violation must take place within the same eight-year period in order to be considered multiple violations.
-This aticle is new, and related to the general statute of limitation (art.17), being defined as 8 years for doping violations!


Art.10.9.2 - Commencement of Ineligibility Period, in case of a Timely Admission:
Where the Athlete or other Person promptly (which, in all events, for an Athlete means before the Athlete competes again) admits the anti-doping rule violation after being confronted with the antidoping rule violation by the AntiDoping Organization, the period of Ineligibility may start as early as the date of Sample collection or the date on which another antidoping rule violation last occurred. In each case, however, where this Article is applied, the
Athlete or other Person shall serve at least onehalf of the period of Ineligibility going forward from the date the Athlete or other Person accepted the imposition of a sanction, the date of a hearing decision imposing a sanction, or the date the sanction is otherwise imposed. This Article shall not apply where the period of Ineligibility already has been reduced under Art.10.5.4 (admission of an Antidoping rule violation in the absence of other evidence).


Art.10.9.5 - Special justifications are needed, for starting the period of Ineligibility earlier than the date of the hearing decision:
No credit against a period of Ineligibility shall be given for any time period before the effective date of the Provisional Suspension or voluntary Provisional Suspension regardless of whether the Athlete elected not to compete or was suspended by his or her team. Arbitration delays not attributable to the Athlete, timely admission by the Athlete and Provisional Suspension are the only justifications for starting the period of Ineligibility earlier than the date of the hearing decision.
-This article has been clarified, to avoid earlier misinterpretation.


Art.10.11 - Reinstatement Testing:
As a condition to regaining eligibility at the end of a specified period of Ineligibility, an Athlete must, during any period of Provisional Suspension or Ineligibility, make him or herself available for Out-of-Competition Testing by any Anti-Doping Organization having Testing jurisdiction, and must, if requested, provide current and accurate whereabouts information. If an Athlete subject to a period of Ineligibility retires from sport and is removed from Out-of-Competition Testing pools and later seeks reinstatement, the Athlete shall not be eligible for reinstatement until the Athlete has notified relevant Anti-Doping Organizations and has been subject to Out-of-Competition Testing for a period of time equal to the period of Ineligibility remaining as of the date the Athlete had retired.
-This article remained unchanged, but I thought it was interesting to highlight this rule, in connection with recent rumours about the retired riders Vinokourov and Landis wanting to make a comeback. In that case they need first to be available for OOCT for a period of 2 years!


Art.11.2 - Consequences for Team Sports
If more than two members of a team in a Team Sport are found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation during an Event Period, the ruling body of the Event shall impose an appropriate sanction on the team (e.g., loss of points, Disqualification from a Competition or Event, or other sanction). The ruling body for an Event may elect to establish rules for the Event which impose Consequences for Team Sports, stricter than those in Article 11.2 for purposes of the Event.
-This rule is now less strict. Earlier WADA demanded team sanctions if more than one member of a team was positive, from 2009 this has been changed to "more than two members of a team". Each ruling body for an Event, are however still entitled to launch stricter rules if they feel like it.