Log in:  

Register

Sunweb

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

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen, Valv.Piti

Re: Sunweb

04 Jan 2018 21:43

Kwibus wrote:
Strange Loop wrote:


Yes, that was my association as well.

However, there are also some differences between the two cases.

The first difference is that in this case the money doesn't go through a major stakeholder in the sport (i.e., the UCI), but directly to an organization that should be relatively independent (an anti-doping agency). So, unlike Armstrong, Sunweb doesn't involve the UCI president in a secretive scheme involving money and payments.

The second difference is that the money isn't meant to finance (or dictate) a very specific testing regime. In Amstrong's case, he financed a very specific piece of lab equipment to analyze samples, thereby dictating how samples were going to be tested. We now know that one of the reasons for doing so was so he could manage his own blood values in order to not test positive as he had access to such a machine as well. It was basically a bribe to ensure the use of a testing method he could anticipate and take counter-measures against, all under the pretense of supporting the anti-doping effort.

In the case of Sunweb, this isn't really what's happening. They are basically financing the anti-doping agency to do more tests, without being involved in the details of the tests being performed, the selection of athletes, or the timing of the tests. I don't see how doing that would give Sunweb better means of anticipating and counter-measuring the anti-doping efforts. So, in principle, if we were living in a fully transparent world without scheming behind the scenes, then this wouldn't increase Sunweb's chances of defeating the tests.

The third difference is that in Armstrong's case it wasn't exactly sure where the results of the tests performed with the machine were ending up (did they only end-up at the UCI or were they send to WADA post 1999?). In Sunweb's case, the tests will be treated as regular tests, with their results being shared to WADA and recorded in the ABP. This should leave less room for selective favoritism from the UCI.

Now, everything I said here is "in theory if everything were to be fully transparent". If things aren't going to be transparent, then we have no way of knowing what actually happens to the money, with the testing regime, and the results. Still, I would rate funding an independent anti-doping agency to do additional tests above buying a specific machine for the UCI so you know how to defeat it.


Good post.

Another problem is that by financing the doping authority they could influence the independency of it.

If sunweb's intentions are indeed bad you could compare it with the maffia giving money to the police.

That could still backfire though if the doping authority wont let themselves get bribed.

Still its unlikely the doping authority is corrupt in the netherlands... then again you never know these days.


Why, are they not human?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dutch_sportspeople_in_doping_cases

When it appears all other ADAs are at best PR for their home athletes and IQ testers, why should the Dtuch ADA be any different?
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,217
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

04 Jan 2018 21:47

I admit to not being fully up to date on the overall procedure, but wouldn't any testing by a Dutch NADO require consent from non-Dutch athletes and their respective NADOs?
User avatar roundabout
Veteran
 
Posts: 12,976
Joined: 07 Jun 2010 11:43

05 Jan 2018 12:31

It's internal testing, so only riders need to consent to being tested i'd imagine, which probably is already part of their contracts as they are ADAMS athletes already. Their nado doesn't need to approve another nado to allow them to test a rider and update bio passport as this happens anyway as each athlete travels around the world being tested by all other countries nados already.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,289
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re:

05 Jan 2018 18:51

samhocking wrote:It's internal testing, so only riders need to consent to being tested i'd imagine, which probably is already part of their contracts as they are ADAMS athletes already. Their nado doesn't need to approve another nado to allow them to test a rider and update bio passport as this happens anyway as each athlete travels around the world being tested by all other countries nados already.


They dont need the riders consent. They can be tested at any time.
User avatar Kwibus
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,353
Joined: 25 May 2010 05:54
Location: the Netherlands

Re:

06 Jan 2018 01:36

roundabout wrote:I admit to not being fully up to date on the overall procedure, but wouldn't any testing by a Dutch NADO require consent from non-Dutch athletes and their respective NADOs?


Yeh my thinking was it would only apply to Dutch riders. Pretty sure this is correct and that NADOs would only conduct tests for riders not registered locally in the case of events where they are specifically given authority to conduct the testing by the sanctioning sporting federation (why the AFLD can't do tests in July?). @samhocking I thought only the UCI could tell NADOs to test athletes they don't have authority over. Indeed if the NADO does not have authority over a rider and tests them anyway (because their employer said they must subject to testing) it raises questions as to whether or not that test actually means anything in the context of the ADRs.

I guess we can't comment until we see any proper details (and if we don't that is already a red flag) but pretty normal to treat these moves with some cynicism.
Ferminal
Veteran
 
Posts: 16,989
Joined: 03 Jul 2009 09:42

06 Jan 2018 01:58

Heh, totally wrong, all good as long as you are in-country. Kind of gives it away a bit though in terms of when you might get your bonus test.

Also see the UCI regulations which they are entitled to uphold as per the Code, so only UCI sanctioned testing during races.

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/WADA-2015-NADO-Model-Rules-v3.0-EN.docx

1.3 Application to Persons
NOTE: Article 5.2.1 of the Code gives a National Anti-Doping Organization jurisdiction over all Athletes who are nationals, residents, license-holders or members of sports organizations of its country or who are present in that country. Within that very broad pool of Athletes, the top tier of Athletes will fall within their respective International Federations' definitions of International-Level Athletes. The National Anti-Doping Organization needs to identify which of the remaining Athletes will be classified as National-Level Athletes (see Article 4.3 of the International Standard for Testing and Investigations). It should still retain the anti-doping jurisdiction conferred on it by the Code over all other Athletes in its country, so that it can test them and bring anti-doping rule violation proceedings against them in appropriate circumstances. However, in accordance with Article 4.3 of the International Standard for Testing and Investigations, the main focus of a National Anti-Doping Organization's test distribution plan should be National-Level Athletes, and National-Level Athletes should be prioritized in terms of provision of advance TUEs and collection of whereabouts information.

http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rulesandregulation/16/85/60/20161216UCIADRPart14-FINALversionenligne2016.12.16_English.pdf

5.3 Event Testing

5.3.1 Except as otherwise provided below, only a single organization should be responsible for initiating and directing testing at Event Venues during an Event Period. At UCI International Events, the collection of Samples shall be initiated and directed by the UCI.

At UCI International Events, any Testing during the Event Period outside of the Event Venues shall be coordinated with the UCI
Ferminal
Veteran
 
Posts: 16,989
Joined: 03 Jul 2009 09:42

Previous

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baldinger, bigcog, Bronstein, cadence, Carols, ClassicomanoLuigi, davebqvst, deneb, DFA123, dutchdescent, ecw445, Fearless Greg Lemond, Fruitzilla, Google [Bot], Inquitus, Jagartrott, jilbiker, Norks74, Pantani Attacks, proffate, quadsRme, Sestriere, SlickMongoose and 158 guests

Back to top