Sky - Page 892 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #8911  
Old 11-22-12, 01:47
red_flanders's Avatar
red_flanders red_flanders is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,521
Default

Yeah, I'm not perfect. Move on.
Reply With Quote
  #8912  
Old 11-22-12, 02:00
martinvickers martinvickers is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine Seguros View Post
So you agree that there is evidence Mick Rogers should not pass the Team Sky 'Zero Tolerance' test and should be jettisoned like the expendable DSes were?
I'm afraid you'll have to clarify the evidence you are referring to for me - though in principle, i've no problem with giving him the boot.
Reply With Quote
  #8913  
Old 11-22-12, 02:17
slowspoke's Avatar
slowspoke slowspoke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 190
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martinvickers View Post
I'm afraid you'll have to clarify the evidence you are referring to for me - though in principle, i've no problem with giving him the boot.
So we have Working with Ferrari

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycli...011-27fom.html

and eyewitness accounts of blood doping

http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/tmo...619042013.html
Reply With Quote
  #8914  
Old 11-22-12, 02:35
martinvickers martinvickers is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slowspoke View Post
Very suspicious, would certainly justify the authorities in keeping a beedy eye on him, but not evidence per se

Quote:
and eyewitness accounts of blood doping

http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/tmo...619042013.html
Incorrect. There is no eye witness account in this article of MR specifically blood doping, or any form of doping. MR is not mentioned specifically, and sinkewitz doesn't specify anyone specifically. if it was everyone in the team, or some. Did he go onto specify him?

Very suspicious, i'll grant you - but this is from 2007 - since that time, did Sinkewitz ever name Rogers? Did anyone else?
Reply With Quote
  #8915  
Old 11-22-12, 02:43
sittingbison's Avatar
sittingbison sittingbison is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 2,128
Default

The whole sordid Freiburg thing was effectively hushed up with the peculiar German technique of accepting money in lieu of prosecution. See Kloden.

The problem is Dodger has now been involved in the two of the largest doping scandals in cycling - Freiburg and the Evidence. Levi specifically named Dodger as being on Tenerife with Ferrari while Levi was there to dope. Ask yourself this - when omerta reigns supreme, why would Levi specifically name Dodger with Vino and the others.

The Sky anti doping policy was meant to exclude ANYBODY with an association with doping. So the team could be seen to be clean. Dodger is a fail. Just not quite in the Leinders category (remember him? lol).

hehe got post 9000! now dont go and delete one to cheat anybody lol
__________________
Quote:
“Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves Moriarty? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”

Last edited by sittingbison; 11-22-12 at 03:13. Reason: YAY got post 9000 lol
Reply With Quote
  #8916  
Old 11-22-12, 02:59
Tinman's Avatar
Tinman Tinman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,100
Default

Come on Vickers, do you want guys like Rogers in your sport? Y/N.

And then, do you want them in your team Sky, screwing your/its reputation? Y/N

Should be pretty simple really.

Should also be simple to resolve for Rogers, ie. to either sign and declare himself clean, or explain himself otherwise and find another team or retire.

But no need for you to defend the man, he can do that quite simply himself in public. As a high profile rider and quite chatty to the media should be no problem.
__________________

“Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Reply With Quote
  #8917  
Old 11-22-12, 03:11
Tinman's Avatar
Tinman Tinman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krebs cycle View Post
Calls for publishing biopassport data are meaningless and not revealing that data also isn't a sign of non-transparency because the biopassport data already gets reviewed by an independent panel of experts. Allowing the lay public to view that data won't achieve anything because the lay public doesn't know how to analyse biopassport data since they are not experts.
I disagree entirely. As one familiar with the process of peer review I thought you would argue differently. Publication of blood data (note the word 'public-ation'), will allow discussion and validification. The concepts you refer to are not rocket science (not wanting to diminish your PhD at all) and quite accessible by many enthusiasts and other public experts not currently on the independent panel. And hence it will shift the emphasis of false positives away to a more rational level, where the onus is on the athlete to explain the abberations, not the panel. Restricting data use to an 'independent panel' will always be challenged by external critics, as currently happens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krebs cycle View Post
The problem doesn't reside with the teams being non-transparent, it resides with the UCI, who as we know are corrupt.

What needs to happen is that the process of sanctioning riders on the basis of biopassport data must not be left in the hands of the UCI. Those riders who are deemed positive by an independent panel should have a ban put in place by some other body such as WADA, and the UCI must comply with that ban or face expulsion from the olympics or some other consequence such as the formation of breakaway leagues that support "clean cycling" and do comply with WADA.
This I fully agree with. And hence I see no issue with doing both.
__________________

“Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.”


Last edited by Tinman; 11-22-12 at 03:13.
Reply With Quote
  #8918  
Old 11-22-12, 03:20
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 5,551
Default

Please define "independent panel of experts".

Experts in what?
Independent of what?
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
Reply With Quote
  #8919  
Old 11-22-12, 03:34
Ferminal Ferminal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 16,454
Default

UCI has more control over ABP data than the independent panel of experts.

They may be experts and they may be independent, but nothing happens without the blessings of the highly incompetent UCI.
Reply With Quote
  #8920  
Old 11-22-12, 03:53
Krebs cycle Krebs cycle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 770
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinman View Post
I disagree entirely. As one familiar with the process of peer review I thought you would argue differently. Publication of blood data (note the word 'public-ation'), will allow discussion and validification. The concepts you refer to are not rocket science (not wanting to diminish your PhD at all) and quite accessible by many enthusiasts and other public experts not currently on the independent panel. And hence it will shift the emphasis of false positives away to a more rational level, where the onus is on the athlete to explain the abberations, not the panel. Restricting data use to an 'independent panel' will always be challenged by external critics, as currently happens.
Maybe I should have explained this differently. It's less about the science and more about due process. Should there be a system where evidence is reviewed anonymously by a panel of experts whose recommendation then gets presented in a court or tribunal overseen by a non-corrupt regulatory body or should we just allow mob rule, with all its emotional bias and predjudice? Same concept applies to any legal matter. For example, why don't we just release evidence to the public regarding crimimal cases and then let mob rules decide what the sentencing should be as opposed to judges? Its a slippery legal slope to go down and the risk is that you let dopers off the hook because it could be argued that they were previously tried in the court of public opinion, which would thus lead to a mistrial.

If you have a proper system untainted by UCI corruption, then what would it achieve if you released the biopassport data, say in the event that an athlete has already been cleared any blood manipulation? How will you discourage doping moreso by doing that?

Regarding discussion on how the passport system works, well there already is quite a lot of publications detailing the method and its development in the scientific literature.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.