Lance Armstong confession

Here is the opening of Lance Armstong's interview with Oprah Winfrey last night. It answers all the questions cycling fans like myself wanted answers to, the details came later.


I don't need to say anything else

Crash land ends the flight of the Contador

Andy Schleck in white (left) is now the 2010 Tour winner

The guy in the middle, in the Maillot Jaune is not the winner of the 2010 Tour de France.

After a long drawn out process it has been agreed that four days before this picture on the second rest day of the 2010 Tour traces of clenbuterol in Alberto Contador's sample. On 6 August while he and the rest of the peleton were resting after the tiring race he was informed of the positive result. He blamed it on a contaminated steak.

But today the Court of Arbitration in Sport have upheld the positive results and Contador is serving a 2 year ban from the 6 August 2010. It means he has been stripped of the 2010 Tour de France, his 2011 Giro d'Italia win and will miss this year's Tours and Giro as well as the Olympics. He will however, have served his ban in time to start the Vuelta a España.

He is not the second winner of the Tour after Floyd Landis in 2006 to be stripped of the Tour title following positive drug tests. He is one of the shrinking number of pro-cyclists who are testing positive, but his dismissal from the Tour shows that the sport does not play favourites.

So delayed congratulation to Andy Schleck for his win in the 2010 Tour de France and Michele Scarponi was his win in his native Giro last year as well as his elevation to winner of the Volta a Catalunya.

Schleck therefore has joined the ranks of François Faber (1909), Nicolas Frantz (1927, 28) and Charly Gaul (1958) in the list of Luxembourgeois winners for the Tour. Instead of being chief bridesmaid after rolling into Paris the last three years in second he now has the highest honour in cycling alhtough he missed the celebrations. Along with Jan Ullrich and ironically Alberto Contador his now one of the rare breed to have won the Tour de France while still eligible for, and therefore winning, the young rider category.

Apparently it is controversial to be "evidence based" #DailyFail

It is with great delight that I link to the is Daily Mail story.

The reason is in the opening line where the Daily Fail say:

"Senior Liberal Democrat MPs have escalated their controversial campaign to force the Government into decriminalising drugs."

The controversy of course is that Tom Brake has laid down parliamentary Early Day Motion 2404 which states:

"That this House notes the serious harm caused by drugs; recognises the need for evidence-based policy making with a clear focus on prevention and harm-reduction; and calls on the Government to establish an independent panel tasked with carrying out an impact assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, reviewing the approach adopted by other countries, and making recommendations for reform."

It calls for an independent review on drug policy, it calls for recommendations to be based on evidence. Yes this may prove controversial as it may very be that evidence suggests that the safest way for drug addicts to get their drugs is through monitored medical sources rather than through street suppliers who mix all sorts of contaminants into their supply in order to get greater value for money. Many of these are more deadly than the  drug use itself, that if proved by evidence may lead to a licensing of certain classes of drugs so that supply and quality can be guaranteed and so that life and support to wean off drugs can be monitored.

It may well lead to a revenue stream for government through licensing of such supply.

But the key element of the so-called controversial proposal is that it is evidence based. With such a knee-jerk response from the Daily Fail the one thing they don't want it the evidence to be looked into carefully as it may shake their world view.

Amy Winehouse another gone at 27

On 3 July 1969, 18 September 1970, 4 October 1970, 3 July 1971, 5 April 1994 and today we lost some of the iconic names in music. In order they were Brian Jones of the Rolling Stones, Jim Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain and Amy Winehouse, they all died aged 27.

• Jones 27 and 125 days
• Hendrix 295 days
• Joplin 258 days
• Morrison 207 days
• Cobain 44 days 
• Winehouse 314 days

All of them were part of or breakthrough acts of their times. All of them were undoubtedly talented. Although Morrison's death was recorded as heart failure there was no autopsy carried out on the young man when he died in Paris 40 years ago this month. The others all died (assuming the rumours of Amy's cause of death are correct) in tragic circumstances. For yes even if it come from a drug overdose the addiction that leads to that outcome is a tragedy.

In the case of Amy it is even more tragic as her top charting single, while she was alive*, was Rehab which of course opens with the line. "They tried to make me go to rehad, I said No, No, No!". She lived out her addiction in the public eye. They were court appearances for possession and her ex-husband Blake Fielder-Civil once told a magazine interview that he had introduced the singer to crack cocaine and herorin.

Her father said that he and his family made public statements about her substance and alcohol abuse as a form of intervention to get her to get help. In October last year she cliamed that she had been drug free, but earlier this year in a comeback performance in Slovakia she appeared obviously drunk on stange and her come back tour was cancelled.

She was a talent, but for whatever reason, and her parents believe it was the death of her grandmother in 2006, she plunged into addiction.

If you are or know someone who has an addiction to drugs or substance you can get help just Talk to Frank free at 0800 77 66 00, by texting 82111. For Alcoholics Anonymous call 0845 769 7555 (charged at local rates from a BT landline)

In the meantime here is my favourite Winehouse song Back to Black



* There is possibly going to be a bigger hit now she is dead.

How About Some Science Fact Tom?

It looks like Tom Harris is having a go at Nick Clegg over policy regarding the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). He says:

"Hang on a second – "interfering in the advice they are given"? What on earth is [Clegg] talking about? If he means that literally, then he’s accusing ministers of changing the advice that the council gives them before they give it. Since this has never happened, I guess that what he actually means is that ministers – now brace yourself for this and have those smelling salts within easy reach – sometimes reject the advice they receive."

Err now Tom, I think you will find he is talking about the reality of the situation that is the implosion of independent experts prepared to serve on the ACMD, currently counting seven individuals either sacked or resigned since Home Secretary Alan Johnson sacked Professor David Nutt last October as Chair of the ACMD.

Don't take mine or Nick Clegg's word for it here's what Professor Nutt said at the time he was sacked:

"If scientists are not allowed to engage in the debate then you devalue their contribution to policy making."

Or look at what Polly Taylor's statements on her own, the sixth, resignation in March:

"The government's first response [to the guidelines] was highly unsatisfactory and appeared to justify ministers appointing and dismissing independent scientific advisers according to trust, which is an arbitrary and subjective matter."

Going on to add.

"I feel that there is little more we can do to describe the importance of ensuring that advice is not subjected to a desire to please ministers or the mood of the day's press."

Then look at Professor Nutt who was sacked by the Minister as Chairman of because he made a statement based on science:

"I am very concerned that too many scientists have been left in the position of having to decide between advising government and maintaining their scientific independence.

"I established the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs because I felt it was vital to develop scientific knowledge on drugs independent of the perception or reality of political interference. The new guidelines on scientific advice suggest to me that the government has still not understood the matters of scientific principle at stake, nor what it means to work respectfully with independent scientific advisers."

What the Lib Dems are saying and it is on page 74 of the shiny new Manifesto that landed on my doorstep yesterday:

"Always base drugs policy on independent scientific advice, including making the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs completely independent of government."

Yeah let's quantify that advise on scientific evidence. After all politicians mocked Galileo when he said the earth wasn't at the centre of the universe, they mocked Christopher Columbus when he said the world wasn't flat. Thank God there were both allowed independence to prove their theories and come up with the scientific evidence. It may not have always been what the leaders wanted, but it was accurate.

Under Labour without the facts we may well find ourselves on a disc carried on the backs of four elephants called Berilia, Tubul, Great T'Phon, and Jerakeen, carried on the shell of a star turtle Great A'Tuin

Is Labour Control of Information to Blame?

This morning in the Independent we learnt that the the Youth Justice Board are not publishing their figures on youth crime as scheduled but in 6 months time. An official at the government agency has said that the reason for this is official "purdah" period. The former Civil Servant in me is screaming Gordon hasn't gone to the Palace yet he can't be suppressing reports under the election "purdah" period, that is unless the politico in me has missed the actually calling of the General Election (and I know that hasn't happened).

We also have Helen Goodman Labour MP for Bishop Auckland crying out:

"The police have talked to me about [mephedrone] and have really made the case for a legal ban on it.

She said it should for two reasons: "One is that it would send out a clear message to young people about how very dangerous it is.

"Secondly, it would mean that the police have more powers for dealing with it.

"The police have told me that there are people standing outside the primary school in one of the villages in my constituency trying to push that to people under the age of 12.

"We need to educate young people in the dangers and risks of taking drugs, but I also think we need to have a proper legal framework.

"Ideally, as well as looking at this one particular drug we'd have a new legal framework that would ensure you couldn't just go away, tweak it, and come back and sell something that's incredibly close."

On point one tobacco can be dangerous, alcohol can dangerous, indeed any alien item in the human body can be dangerous. Heck tasers can be dangerous, on people with minor heart conditions could be fatal.....oh hang on the police want to use them not ban them. I don't hear Labour MPs crying out for a complete ban on any of these to send out a clear message to young people, and the police, how very dangerous these are.

Also this is the same police force that have called out for ID cards, random stop and search, rights to detain for 90 days without charge, rights for fully exposing search at airports all of which, and more, have been pandered to by authoritarian Labour, without consideration of civil liberty considerations.

But then it all comes back to information, or more to the point Labour's control of information should I say. Just like we have a Youth Justice Board providing information to the Government about youth crime (even though the rest of us won't get that info for six months) how about a similar body for drug usage. Let's see let us call it the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), that'll work says exactly what is says on the tin. Lets appoint some experts in that field to that panel and let them look into things such as new drugs on the scene, just like methedrone. They could advise government based on scientific evidence just how dangerous the various drugs in our culture are.

Guess what? The ACMD does exist.

Guess what? The ACMD had a sub-committee looking into legal highs.

Guess what? Labour didn't like what the Chief expert Dr David Nutt had to say about cannabis in October so the Home Secretary sacked him.Other members of the panel also resigned.

As a result of losing the six experts Home Secretary Alan Johnson has said he would not pre-judge decisions on drug classification ahead of the committee issuing advice. However, we have Labour and Conservative members of the house now wishing to jump just such a gun before scientific opinions are made.

As Chris Huhne Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary points out:

"If the Home Secretary hadn't meddled in the work of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs we would already have had their advice and the Government would be able to act.

"The failure to classify mephedrone is a direct consequence of the Government’s interference in the independent advice of its scientific advisers.

"If the Home Secretary hadn't meddled in the work of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs we would already have had their advice and the Government would be able to act."

So it is all very well Mandelson saying a review into mephedrone should be "speedily, carefully" carried out. Thing is that process was stalled by Labour own stubbornness to accept scientific fact. They'll happily accept scientific 'fact' when it suits them, weapons on mass destruction in Iraq springs readily to mind, but not when it goes against what they have already said.

Wow! That Didn't Take Long - The Dark Lord Speaketh

At 9:58 I blogged:

"However, just like that and the Digital Economy Bill I'm expected a knee-jerk, ill-conceived, poorly thought out Labour reaction any minute now."

The connection with the DE Bill was uncanny at 10:21 the BBC are reporting that Lord Voldemort of Foy and Hartlepool (aka the Business Minister) is saying the government would take "any action that is justified to deal with this" and that it will be examined "very speedily,very carefully". I'm sorry but as the Government are currently proving with Lord Voldemort's Digital Economy Bill speedily and carefully do not sit well side by side with this parliamen

Quote of the Day on mephedrone

"Just because [mephedrone] is legal to possess it does not mean that this is at all safe."

That is a balanced view from Kay Aisthorpe of police community initiative Safer Neighbourhoods. There are a lot of things in our live that are not entirely safe if used in the wrong way:

• household bleach
• kitchen knives
• motor cars

Just because something is not "at all safe" through one use does not mean that all the rest should be banned. Same goes for our net usage. However, just like that and the Digital Economy Bill I'm expected a knee-jerk, ill-conceived, poorly thought out Labour reaction any minute now.

Although it does take me back to my time at the end of one school term working as the chemistry department lab technician in my old school. One of the younger teachers was trying to replicate one of the old time experiments for his sixth form class as an end of term treat. He'd written his required chemicals in the request book. I had to tell him that I was unable to provide the As₂O₃ he'd requested. Why asked why I had to inform him that no compounds of arsenic were allowed on school premises.

Scientist Farm

Drayson was one of the smarter pigs on Manor Farm he was an Oxford Sandy and Black by breed. After Mr Nutt the Pharmacist was driven away from Manor farm by Johnson the Eastern Yorkshire, Brown the Scottish Saddleback charged Drayson with creating some rules by which all the animals could settle their grievances.

After a few days of thought he came to Brown and said he was ready. All the animals assembled from both barns met down by by the river and listened to Brown as he read out what Drayson had previously written up on the side of the big barn in whitewash.

1. Whatever goes against science is an enemy
2. Whatever comes from open views, or has proof, is valid for consideration.
   
3. No animal mind shall be closed.
4. No animal shall heap scorn on the views of the living or dead.
5. No animal shall think another a fool.
6. No animal shall sack any other animal for their opinion.
7. All scientific opinions are equal.

All of the animals nodded and thought that they were a good set of rules by which to bring things before the council of elders that Brown had established. Some of them felt they could advise as to the needs of the sheep for fresh grass, or the chickens for little tabs of feed. Even old Benn nodded his approval as he supped on some of the fermented berries.

However, as time passed some of the ideas brought by some of the other animals were rejected by the elders. But when they were they were taken to the barn and told to look at the rules. Sure enough they read.

1. Whatever goes against our view of science is an enemy
2. Whatever comes from open views, or has proof, is valid for consideration.
   
3. No animal mind shall be closed to the way of the elders.
4. No animal shall heap scorn on the views of the living or dead with snouts.
5. No animal shall think another a full advisor with his own say.
6. No animal shall sack any other animal for their opinion shared by the elders.
7. All scientific opinions are equal.

One day however, two of the goats got all uppity about never being taken seriously on the matter that some interesting mushrooms were ideal for the animals, and not as dangerous as they had been led to believe. They went to the council of elders and said but didn't you get rid of Nutt so that we could get on with thinking for ourselves. Wasn't all opinion of equal, isn't all open views something you have to consider.

The elders said we have considered and rejected your view, the troll is more dangerous that the fire that comes from the sky, or the festered water that if you drink too much of you can die. And those mushrooms are not to be eaten.

As they walked away from the council the goats looked back at the writing and they thought there was less of it, but Brown's bodyguard assured them that they were mistaken, this was the way it had always been. The white letters read:

• Whatever comes from open views, or has proof, is valid for consideration, but will be rejected if it is against our goals.
• All scientific opinions are equal but some are more equal that others.

With apologies to George Orwell.

Schumacher and Piepoli Found Out

Back in July I reported how ITV 4 attacked Stefan Schumacher after his stage win in this years Tour de France over anomalies and a police intoxication test. Well in retesting of samples by the French Anti-Doping Agency the German along with Italy's Leonardo Piepoli have tested positive for Continuous Erythropoiesis Receptor Activator (CERA) and 3rd generation version of erythropoietin (EPO). Italy's Riccardo Ricco had already confessed to using CERA which makes winners of 5 of the 21 stages of this years race now proven drug cheats.

While endurance events like the Tour de France are a target for the use of EPO and CERA type enhancement drugs it is good to see that the Tour is taking testing to new levels and retrospectively carrying out tested when new tests are available. It means that the cheats cannot get away with it, even if they think they may initially have masked their misuse.

The continual testing in professional tour cycling and the comparison to a normal sample looking for anomalies seems to be working in highlighting just what samples look suspicious. As the examples of Schumacher and Piepoli show as do other examples from this year's Tour the organisers are doing their utmost to change the image of the sport. It means weeding out the cheats but they are pro-active in seeking out samples from anomalous samples in the run up to the race during competition, and now show they are prepared to follow up with new testing procedures after the event if necessary. They want the greatest cycling spectacle to be above suspicion. However, to do that every suspicious improvement or result is going to have to be looked at, sudden improvements and rapid recovery are signs that something may be up.

Other sports including Athletics may well take a page out of the Tour de France's book. As their regime is starting to pay off, racers are calling for clean racing and are shunning those who are now caught out. They are being suspended or sacked from their teams upon suspicion even if they are a favourite. That is one sport taking the drug cheats seriously and treating them as such.

A Tale of Two Drug Cheats

Yesterday Dwain Chambers took his case to the High Court to try and get an injunction against the British Olympics Association bye law, which state that any Athlete since 1992 to have cheated using drugs is ineligible for selection to the GB & NI Olympic Team for life. Today he will get the verdict of that court. Meanwhile across the Channel is news that the third and most prominent rider of this years Tour Ricardo Rico was excluded, banned and arrested by French authorities for using EPO.

Let's look at these two stories from the same day. Rico was a promising young rider, he actually was leading the young rider classification and had won two stages this year before his positive test came back. He will now find it hard to gain employment in a sport that is doing its best to be seen to be beyond suspicion, like the other two who were tested positive so far on this years tour, he had been targeted by the new system that compares irregularities against a norm blood sample stored by the sports anti-doping authority.

He is in a team sport and therefore unlike Chambers need to be employed to take part in his sport, once he serves his ban it is unlikely that this may happen as Astana were excluded from the premier cycle race this year because of a past history of doping, despite having the defending champion on their team. If Chambers wins an injunction today it is a travesty. Sport is trying to clean up their image in athletic, cycling, even golfers now being tested in the hope of gaining Olympic accreditation. Therefore Dwain should do the honourable thing and accept his ban for his past behaviour so that we can throw aside any doubt over his or a relay team's performance in a GB & NI vest at the highest level.

Chambers Knew the Law

In 1992 I still held some hope of getting fit again to possibly challenge for Olympic selection. That was also the year that the British Olympic Association passed their eligibility bye-law which renders any athlete found guilty of a doping offence, from that date on, ineligible for selection to the Team GB.

Dwain Chambers in 1992 was 14 and therefore was yet to consider just how close he may have been to senior, never mind Olympic selection for his country. Therefore throughout his entire senior career he knew that the bye-law he is challenging in court this week was in place. Even when he was taking performance enhancing drugs he was aware that if found out his eligibility would be taken away.

Over the weekend we held the 2008 Olympic trials and chambers won the 100m in 10 seconds flat. A less than 3 years after he was banned by the IAAF. Sue Barkers two sparring partners Colin Jackson and Jonathan Edwards had their own opinions on the ban and these weeks inevitable court case after Dwain's success. Colin was of the opinion that the bye-law was clearly known by all including Chambers. It wasn't protested before by anyone who might be affected and then only rarely by those who have been affect. David Millar accepted his fate and knew he would never be able to pull on an Olympic vest again. Millar, the cyclist, was far more voluntarily forthright about drugs than Chambers was who almost at the last minute helped with further enquiries when he saw it as a a way to possibly sway a judgement in his favour.

Edwards on the other hand argued the case for a redemptive second chance, but only with a condition that the IOC (International Olympic Committee) and the other international bodies came down harder themselves of offenders. He argued for a 4 or 5 year initial ban, which as he pointed out would act as far more of a deterrent than the current 2. It would show that the world of sport really wanted to get clean. Then after that period if the athlete still wanted to compete, and was still good enough to qualify there should be nothing in their way to prevent it.

Despite all the drugs-free toil I went through I would have to agree with Edwards. A longer initial ban would act as an initial deterrent. It would also make it harder for someone caught cheating to maintain their level of fitness for the period of the ban to get back. They really would have to be determined to come out fighting. However, it would give a chance for the truly repentant people like David Millar to have a chance to make amends, I can see him still racing in 2012 and possibly up for being part of the GB team in London. He is an example of user turned advocate against in the best sense, I'd rather see Millar given a second chance than the chancer Chambers.

Schumacher Fast on Two Wheels

Mister Stephen is getting over the lack of Wimbledon on television this week by settling down to his month long trip round the roads and mountains of la belle France. He is very much hoping it is a clean race however from what I've seen those cyclists sweat a lot and must need a shower ever day.

Anyhoo, yesterday a German man named Schumacher (no not Michael or Ralf) won the first time trial of le Tour 2008. Unusually in recent years this was not the prologue but occurred on day four. You can see Herr Stefan Schumacher to the left holding one of my cousins.

Now ITV4 were quickly on Schumacher's case last night, in possibly a sad day for the sport. You see he didn't just beat the rest he smashed them. Schumacher is a one day racer and may have had a chance over a shorter time trial but over 29.5 kilometres he was 18 seconds quicker that Scot David Millar and Kim Kirchen both fancied time triallists and also 33 seconds faster than the world time trial champion Fabian Cancellara.

However as ITV4 and others were quick to point out last September the Gerolsteiner rider crashed his car while drunk as as well as a high blood alcohol content there were amphetamines detected. As it was a police rather than a UCI sanctioned test this has not affected his participation in cycling but until the statutory results of tests on the stage winner and other selected participants are known there will remain a cloud of suspicion in this sport that is trying to shake that image off.

Today he set off in the longest stage of this year's tour in yellow, 12 seconds ahead of Millar and Kirchen, 235km from Cholet to Châteauroux.


Update: There was sadly more to Schumacher's speed than the quality of his rice cakes, he later tested positive for EPO and was banned for 2 years from racing in France.