Originally Posted by maltiv
I agree there are some names on that list that are clearly ill-placed, such as Horner (0) and Lance (4), but that doesn't make the entire list worthless. It's not like they just made it up...People who are high rated most likely have unstable blood values, but of course some of them might have plausible, non-doping related explanations.
Don't forget that the scores were not just based on blood values, but also on results. I also seem to remember Quick Step or OPL saying something about their suspiscion indexes being higher simply because no OOC tests were taken for their riders over a certain period (hence greater targeting of tests). So it has never really been 100% clear what the scores are actually based on, and difficult to compare riders sensibly because you don't know where the individual scores came from.
In the context of the USADA report, and comments from the likes of Ashenden afterwards, it does make you wonder how good the scale is (and whether they are targeting their resources in the right places). Would be interesting at least to examine whether those getting higher scores have had a higher probability of being caught now 2 years have gone by.