Originally Posted by richtea
That is a plausible explanation. Although now we know LAs actual blood test parameters from 2009, which were arguably highly suspect, it doesnt make sense to me that he didn't get a higher score (if it is an objective tool based on good analysis). I suppose we don't know what period they took into account, or the values from anyone else scoring higher, so difficult to comment on this.
Bolded part - I don't think anyone really knows what UCI suspicion index is based on - i've so far heard Blood passport (fine) , results in races & not being tested as reasons to raise you higher or lower in the suspicion index. i.e LA might have been tested lots of times on his return but suprise suprise was negative - this according to others theories might have lowered his suspicion index rating.
However as far as i can tell this is all speculation there has never been any official release of how the UCI Suspicion Index was compiled. With regards to time period i think it was 2009 TDF (don't quote me on that its from memory - but sure you can find article on CN News or in USADA report?) Reason for method not being published would seem to be L'Equipe got hold of it without consent (know where that goes to..) and published this is why we only have the Suspicion Index for 1 particular race.
From what i've seen and read (again don't quote me as this is on memory) this was supposed to be used as guide for testing in TDF 2009 or 2010. Dunno someone more informed should be able to fill you in or look up online.