Sky - Page 1142 - 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
  #11411  
Old 01-08-13, 01:12
peloton peloton is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferminal View Post
I don't know how Siutsou and Rogers were so high riding for the clean Highroad outfit, must be an error.
Popo was a 10 and he's still racing... Lucky dude.
Clearly the list was working and the UCI tested them more often... wait..
Reply With Quote
  #11412  
Old 01-08-13, 08:02
will10's Avatar
will10 will10 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,989
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by maltiv View Post
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.
Is it really that surprising that Bruyneel's guys are lower than we might expect? Little wonder to me that just as having the best doctors pre-passport helped you not test positive better than the rest; having the best doctors now would help you beat the passport better than the rest.
__________________
Quote:
...[Walsh] thinks we're ahead of the curve. But think about it for a sec. We're building long-lasting, trusting relationships with people who are spending a lot of money - Coke, Nike, Subaru. If we're f***ing lying, we can kiss it all goodbye. And if we were lying we'd do some stupid stuff to try to cover it up, wouldn't we? Does anybody think for a second that a secret that big wouldn't come out? Bill Stapleton

Last edited by will10; 01-08-13 at 09:31.
Reply With Quote
  #11413  
Old 01-08-13, 08:36
bobbins bobbins is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MatParker117 View Post
They've just hired that Triathlon guy and Sutton is also heavily involved with the GB track team. Would not surprise me if he replaced Dan Hunt at British Cycling.
He's Dan Hunts boss.
Reply With Quote
  #11414  
Old 01-08-13, 10:52
Catwhoorg's Avatar
Catwhoorg Catwhoorg is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,694
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MatParker117 View Post
Wouldn't the lack of a spleen screw up your blood profile? (In the case of GT)
It would certainly make it more erratic than if you still had your spleen.
Reply With Quote
  #11415  
Old 01-08-13, 22:46
richtea's Avatar
richtea richtea is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 348
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by will10 View Post
Is it really that surprising that Bruyneel's guys are lower than we might expect? Little wonder to me that just as having the best doctors pre-passport helped you not test positive better than the rest; having the best doctors now would help you beat the passport better than the rest.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11416  
Old 01-08-13, 23:01
Tom375's Avatar
Tom375 Tom375 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richtea View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11417  
Old 01-08-13, 23:04
richtea's Avatar
richtea richtea is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 348
Default

It was for the 2010 TDF I believe.
Reply With Quote
  #11418  
Old 01-08-13, 23:13
Tom375's Avatar
Tom375 Tom375 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richtea View Post
It was for the 2010 TDF I believe.
Ok - Can't be arsed to look it up at the moment. The specific TDF reference comes from an earlier post asking why Monocutie wasn't on the list to which a poster replied that he wasn't racing the TDF that year. Not sure if it was on this thread or another.

Anyway my main point was that the suspicion index by itself is pretty useless without the reference points of how it was compiled as there are too many contradictories there. It maybe useful however as corrobotary evidence. UCI should publish how this was compiled that would stop this cr&p, and let us understand it. Maybe there was political bias in the way in which it was compiled that mean explaining it would be too embarressing. - I don't know!
Reply With Quote
  #11419  
Old 01-08-13, 23:25
martinvickers martinvickers is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom375 View Post
Ok - Can't be arsed to look it up at the moment. The specific TDF reference comes from an earlier post asking why Monocutie wasn't on the list to which a poster replied that he wasn't racing the TDF that year. Not sure if it was on this thread or another.

Anyway my main point was that the suspicion index by itself is pretty useless without the reference points of how it was compiled as there are too many contradictories there. It maybe useful however as corrobotary evidence. UCI should publish how this was compiled that would stop this cr&p, and let us understand it. Maybe there was political bias in the way in which it was compiled that mean explaining it would be too embarressing. - I don't know!
Did the UCI produce this list for WADA or ASO?
Reply With Quote
  #11420  
Old 01-08-13, 23:36
Tom375's Avatar
Tom375 Tom375 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martinvickers View Post
Did the UCI produce this list for WADA or ASO?
Sorry don't know for definite (welcome back by the way). Just looked it up on the CN news search, as Rich Tea says it was for 2010 TDF and seems to be based on Blood passport according to article i read. Although as i've said various posts on CN forum have claimed different, i haven't seen any supporting links though to verify.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-...x-of-suspicion
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 14:29.


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.