Anyone else hoping Ashenden will hold off

[PosterBill]

until USADA has a chance to release the report? The USADA reports will give the Ashenden articles more context and believeability. Without that context the general population will just glaze over Ashenden's reports because nobody wants to digest all the scienfitic stuff but the diehards. It gives Lance's team a good chance to jump in and muddy up the waters right before the USADA evidence is released. If he waits until after the USADA then people will have more a propensity to sign off on the Ashenden material.

 

[TheEnoculator]

until USADA has a chance to release the report? The USADA reports will give the Ashenden articles more context and believeability. Without that context the general population will just glaze over Ashenden's reports because nobody wants to digest all the scienfitic stuff but the diehards. It gives Lance's team a good chance to jump in and muddy up the waters right before the USADA evidence is released. If he waits until after the USADA then people will have more a propensity to sign off on the Ashenden material.

Exactly my sentiments. I was surprised that Ashenden publishing the LA blood values so close to the USADA report. Though I have no doubt his numbers are right, it doesn't give a lot of credence to the case and it wasn't exactly revelation compared to the other stuff that has already been published.

 

[thehog]

Exactly my sentiments. I was surprised that Ashenden publishing the LA blood values so close to the USADA report. Though I have no doubt his numbers are right, it doesn't give a lot of credence to the case and it wasn't exactly revelation compared to the other stuff that has already been published.

He published nothing. They were released elsewhere on NYDailynews from court filings.

He just interpreted them.

Grow up.

 

[sittingbison]

I have no doubt this was released with the full knowledge and approval of USADA.

This info has been in the public domain (despite Armstrongs frantic attempts at deleting it when the realisation was made) for three years. It was also presented to Judge Sparks by Armstrong, again making it public domain.

It looks like a rebuttal of the Fabiani BS

 

[Galic Ho]

He published nothing. They were released elsewhere on NYDailynews from court filings.

He just interpreted them.

Grow up.

Sometimes the lunacy of people amazes me and I always expect the worst.

It's not like Ashenden is pretty much the leading expert in the anti-doping brigades on blood doping and what it entails. Of course asking him for an interpretation is just meaningless isn't it!

Anyone thinking this is bad should see some of the garbage posted on the Facebook page for cyclingnews. Lots of hard core denial occurring this week with every article involving less than wonderful boy. I cannot believe people buy the crap Fabiana sprouts. Given his record being the barking dog for numerous frauds and liars, one would have thought they'd put two and two together. But that is the point. The fans are mostly idiots and are treated as such by their idols. Oh well

 

[Tinman]

Anyone thinking this is bad should see some of the garbage posted on the Facebook page for cyclingnews. Lots of hard core denial occurring this week with every article involving less than wonderful boy. I cannot believe people buy the crap Fabiana sprouts. Given his record being the barking dog for numerous frauds and liars, one would have thought they'd put two and two together. But that is the point. The fans are mostly idiots and are treated as such by their idols. Oh well

It's a good point. There is a hierarchy of social media at play here. The superficial seem to do facebook, the more in depth and group discussion types come here, and the small select few within the core network do twitter.

To lock in the LA loyals and continue to polarize the debate facebook is probably where you need to be. So that's where we can expect the Fabiani/Lehane/Demand Media show to be targeting the customer. As well as the secondary main stream and cycling media that are still controllable...

 

[pelodee]

http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/expert-armstrongs-blood-data-shows-signs-doping-18322

 

[Dear Wiggo]

http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/expert-armstrongs-blood-data-shows-signs-doping-18322

Whilst I agree Lance's data indicates doping, I el oh el'd at this:

In a follow-up email, Fabiani, Armstrong’s lawyer, contended that Ashenden was “fatally biased” because he had been an expert witness for a Texas sports promoter embroiled in a multimillion-dollar dispute with the cyclist.

Surely this is s a far better CoI claim to be made with respect to Ashenden and USADA: http://siab.org.au/about-siab/funding.php

Funding
Funding to conduct SIAB’s research is obtained via grant applications to a range of international antidoping organisations. These include the:

World Anti Doping Agency (WADA);
United States Anti Doping Agency (USADA);
Australian Government’s Anti Doping Research Panel (ADRP);
Danish Government’s Anti Doping Danmark (ADD);
French Government’s French Agency for the Fight against Doping (AFLD).

 

[Tinman]

He's not holding off now. More like dropping the bomb. Implying UCI cover up of LA 2009 bio passport data.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...-file-was-ever-sent-to-any-of-us-experts.aspx

 

[zigmeister]

Kind of getting tired of his antics lately. Obviously he is just trolling to find some employment and income since he left his position.

I don't think the USADA report is going to tell anything different than we already know.

All he is saying is that the passport data "may indicate doping". The problem is with the passport, it isn't a proof positive.

I know, I sound like pharmstrong and his team of mouthpieces, but that is the facts. You still only have a few guys like Tyler/Floyd and their word.

Ashenden isn't making himself look any better with all of these statements/articles lately. Kind of sounding desperate to somehow provide himself with justification and proof that the UCI is all wrong and corrupt for vindication.

 

[Ferminal]

How did CAS uphold ABP sanctions if it isn't a "proof positive".

Good enough for Pellizotti, but not others, right.

 

[jraama]

What I don’t understand is how the UCI, JV and others can herald the biopassport as changing doping in cycling and being a model for the future of clean sports given what MA just revealed. It’s great that suspicious profiles are being reviewed by experts, and those expert reviews are the basis for opening BP cases, but apparently the UCI have non-experts with exclusive power in determining which profiles are initially flagged as suspicious.

There is a really weak link in that chain which I don’t believe has been mentioned before now.

 

[Merckx index]

What I don’t understand is how the UCI, JV and others can herald the biopassport as changing doping in cycling and being a model for the future of clean sports given what MA just revealed. It’s great that suspicious profiles are being reviewed by experts, and those expert reviews are the basis for opening BP cases, but apparently the UCI have non-experts with exclusive power in determining which profiles are initially flagged as suspicious.

There is a really weak link in that chain which I don’t believe has been mentioned before now.

The way it's supposed to work is that it goes to an expert panel to review if the values are significant at a certain level. There is software that determines the level of significance, this is completely objective, and not dependent on anyone's view, including anyone at the UCI. The panel then determines if the values indicate doping, and this is a somewhat subjective process.

This is my understanding of how the process works. My understanding also is that while Ashenden believes he never saw LA's values in his capacity as a panel member, he doesn't know whether or not someone else did. So there are two possibilities (not counting possible scenarios involving corruption): 1) the software indicated that LA's values did not rise to the necessary level of significance; or 2) the values did trip the criterion and were sent to a panel, but the panel concluded that the evidence was not strong enough for doping.

Far be it from me to criticize Ashenden for his claim that the values indicated blood doping, but none of the values I have seen come close to the old off-score standard of 132 that determined if the ratio of Hb/retics was too high. Therefore, I don't think the values tripped the software. Ashenden said in another interview that many times an expert can conclude blood doping even if the values do not appear objectively significant. He said in cases like these, it just isn't possible to convince non-experts that blood doping occurred, and so the case is not pursued. (Just as GJ might conclude there is enough evidence to indicate guilt, but doesn't indict because it doesn't believe it can convince a jury of this). So this may be one of those cases.

As has been discussed here before, this is where rider testimony could really help. If it can be shown that LA transfused shortly before some of these suspicious values occurred, that would greatly strengthen the case against him.

Edit: In an earlier discussion of Parisotto's analysis, which also concluded that LA transfused, I pointed out that a large, nominally suspicious increase in HT was elevated to some extent because it was being compared to a "baseline" value taken during the Giro, when in fact LA's HT would have been expected to be lower than normal. When his later HT/Hb value was compared with a more normal baseline, the increase was not so much. That said, as Ashenden notes, any time a rider's HT doesn't decrease during a GT (as was the case in the 09 TDF for LA), it is suspicious.

 

[thehog]

What I don’t understand is how the UCI, JV and others can herald the biopassport as changing doping in cycling and being a model for the future of clean sports given what MA just revealed. It’s great that suspicious profiles are being reviewed by experts, and those expert reviews are the basis for opening BP cases, but apparently the UCI have non-experts with exclusive power in determining which profiles are initially flagged as suspicious.

There is a really weak link in that chain which I don’t believe has been mentioned before now.

The passport is a dope control mechanism. You can't dope like you did prior when there was no OOC tests and there was no EPO test. So it does limit the ET type performances along with OOC testing and better EPO testing

Beating the passport is easy but complex. You need need resources and money.

That's why only the lower level guys get snared. They can't afford to precision program. They also don't carry any weight within the UCI to avoid selection.

JV knows the score. You can beat it if you have the will, the money and most of all the connections.

JV's comments on the infamous IM ring true - logistics. That's what it is. Logistics. Not a lot else. That's why guys like Ricco after his downfall had to undertake home made transfusions. They can't afford their own personal motorman.

 

[sniper]

What I don’t understand is how the UCI, JV and others can herald the biopassport as changing doping in cycling and being a model for the future of clean sports given what MA just revealed. It’s great that suspicious profiles are being reviewed by experts, and those expert reviews are the basis for opening BP cases, but apparently the UCI have non-experts with exclusive power in determining which profiles are initially flagged as suspicious.

There is a really weak link in that chain which I don’t believe has been mentioned before now.

As long as Dr. Maserati understands it, all is ok.

 

[sniper]

He's not holding off now. More like dropping the bomb. Implying UCI cover up of LA 2009 bio passport data.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...-file-was-ever-sent-to-any-of-us-experts.aspx

Really exquisite stuff from MA. not beating around the bush.

I thought the UCI congress stuffed their head in the Maastricht sand. I think the motion they put to the management committee was self-serving twaddle. For example, they claimed that some doping practices can only be detected by police methods. That’s just rubbish. USADA are not the police, they do not have subpoena powers, and yet they were able to unearth evidence of blood tranfusions simply by interviewing cyclists who were persuaded to tell the truth.

But even more worrying was the claim by the UCI congress that awareness of what had happened in the past does not help clean up cycling today. At this point, so contorted was their logic, that the collective head burying must have damn near penetrated the earth’s crust. USADA had to go back in the past to unravel the web. But when they did, every single one of Armstrong’s conspirators named by USADA were still active in sport today. How on earth does banning them from sport not help clean up cycling today? Either the UCI congress had not read USADA’s charging letter - head in the sand - or they had wilfully disregarded it - head in the crust.

Here's a rethorical question that probably only Dr. Maserati will have an answer to: why exactly is a guy like JV not saying this kind of stuff in one of his many interviews?

 

[Parker]

Kind of getting tired of his antics lately. Obviously he is just trolling to find some employment and income since he left his position.

I don't think the USADA report is going to tell anything different than we already know.

All he is saying is that the passport data "may indicate doping". The problem is with the passport, it isn't a proof positive.

I know, I sound like pharmstrong and his team of mouthpieces, but that is the facts. You still only have a few guys like Tyler/Floyd and their word.

Ashenden isn't making himself look any better with all of these statements/articles lately. Kind of sounding desperate to somehow provide himself with justification and proof that the UCI is all wrong and corrupt for vindication.

I agree with you. He's an anti doping guy who wants business.

For example. If a Home Security salesman said this to you:

Despite the self-serving data bending and associated propaganda from to the contrary from City Hall, I am led to believe that there are pockets of organised, highly sophisticated burgulars even within ‘safe' gated communties. Personally, I don’t accept that the ‘crime wave' has ended, it has just morphed into a new threat.

If a saleman said that, you would think BS, he's just trying to sell me an alarm.

But Ashenden says it - it's fundemental truth apparently.

His Omerta 101 opinion piece was a straight out sales pitch. When, at the end of the piece, he suggests an independent body to oversee drug testing, he falls short of saying "But who could head such a project? Which anti doping crusader would be worthy of controlling such a well funded role? Me? Well I'm flattered. If you insist"

This doesn't mean he's wrong, he probably isn't most of the time - but please realise that Ashenden is quite interested in kieeping his profile high and the threat of doping high.

 

[biker jk]

I agree with you. He's an anti doping guy who wants business.

For example. If a Home Security salesman said this to you:

Despite the self-serving data bending and associated propaganda from to the contrary from City Hall, I am led to believe that there are pockets of organised, highly sophisticated burgulars even within ‘safe' gated communties. Personally, I don’t accept that the ‘crime wave' has ended, it has just morphed into a new threat.

If a saleman said that, you would think BS, he's just trying to sell me an alarm.

But Ashenden says it - it's fundemental truth apparently.

His Omerta 101 opinion piece was a straight out sales pitch. When, at the end of the piece, he suggests an independent body to oversee drug testing, he falls short of saying "But who could head such a project? Which anti doping crusader would be worthy of controlling such a well funded role? Me? Well I'm flattered. If you insist"

This doesn't mean he's wrong, he probably isn't most of the time - but please realise that Ashenden is quite interested in kieeping his profile high and the threat of doping high.

Ashenden may well benefit from independent drug testing being introduced and ending the UCI's conflict of interest but who can disagree with this much needed reform?

 

[sittingbison]

...Obviously he is just trolling to find some employment and income since he left his position....Kind of sounding desperate to somehow provide himself with justification and proof that the UCI is all wrong and corrupt for vindication.

I agree with you. He's an anti doping guy who wants business....please realise that Ashenden is quite interested in kieeping his profile high and the threat of doping high.

FFS the guy invented the EPO test, and instituted the bio passport. He resigned in disgust at the ineptitude (now make that corruption) of the UCI. $hitting in the nest and upsetting the apple cart are NOT what someone does who wants a job in the industry.

You guys are a disgrace

 

[Dear Wiggo]

A rider contacted Ashenden, that's what sparked his original rant about pockets of dopers on new age teams.

SIAB has no direct contact details.

Ashenden works in anti-doping at the UCI ABP panel level, not with teams (apparently) and has not been at the AIS since 2000. There is no reason for him to have direct contact with individual riders.

So how did the rider get Ashenden's phone number? And why talk to Ashenden? To what end?

Is Ashenden moonlighting as a counsellor now?

As much as it hurts to agree with the LA fanboys, there's an element of truth in their claims: it's in Ashenden's best interest that doping remain in the peloton, or he goes out of business.

Things are not always as they seem.

 

[thehog]

A rider contacted Ashenden, that's what sparked his original rant about pockets of dopers on new age teams.

SIAB has no direct contact details.

Ashenden works in anti-doping at the UCI ABP panel level, not with teams (apparently) and has not been at the AIS since 2000. There is no reason for him to have direct contact with individual riders.

So how did the rider get Ashenden's phone number? And why talk to Ashenden? To what end?

Is Ashenden moonlighting as a counsellor now?

As much as it hurts to agree with the LA fanboys, there's an element of truth in their claims: it's in Ashenden's best interest that doping remain in the peloton, or he goes out of business.

Things are not always as they seem.

Maybe because the rider was of the same nationality? Knew him from his home country?

Also if Ashenden needed doping to keep himself in business then wouldn't he say nothing and let doping thrive?

Why expose it unnecessarily? Does he get paid by the hour or per dope case?

Don't be so ridiculous.

I think we need to be more concerned with Ferrari than Ashenden!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Maybe because the rider was of the same nationality? Knew him from his home country?

Also if Ashenden needed doping to keep himself in business then wouldn't he say nothing and let doping thrive?

Why expose it unnecessarily? Does he get paid by the hour or per dope case?

Don't be so ridiculous.

I think we need to be more concerned with Ferrari than Ashenden!

Ashenden gets paid by the hour. 130 euro per hour.

I'm the same nationality as Ashenden. I don't know him, or his number. How do I get it? Why do I want to talk to him? How is he going to help me? How is it that as a rider I would be interacting with someone on the ABP panel? Or someone in doping research?

The Biological Passport - yes the thing Ashenden helped create - is being lauded as the beginning of the end of the doping era - even Hiero2 thinks so, enough to start a thread on it. It is being touted as the panacea for the peloton. ABP = clean peloton, clean teams can now win, just look at Giro and Tour 2012, both won clean by clean riders from clean teams, David Millar even said so himself as he "asked questions" of Pat McQuaid. If Talanksy had have won the Vuelta, we could all pack up and go home now, doping solved.

If Ashenden says nothing, this myth (ABP = clean peloton) is perpetuated. That's why he had to say something. UCI is majorly on the back foot, so they are an easy target, just ask David Millar, and you can level innuendo at them and get away with it.

I am not looking to be popular, I am just looking for the truth.

Ashenden is perceived as a hero by some here - as is David Millar. If it hurts when I question this scenario, I understand, but calling me ridiculous for questioning is tantamount to enforcing omerta in the forum.

And only mods can shut me up.

 

[thehog]

Ashenden gets paid by the hour. 130 euro per hour.

I'm the same nationality as Ashenden. I don't know him, or his number. How do I get it? Why do I want to talk to him? How is he going to help me? How is it that as a rider I would be interacting with someone on the ABP panel? Or someone in doping research?

The Biological Passport - yes the thing Ashenden helped create - is being lauded as the beginning of the end of the doping era - even Hiero2 thinks so, enough to start a thread on it. It is being touted as the panacea for the peloton. ABP = clean peloton, clean teams can now win, just look at Giro and Tour 2012, both won clean by clean riders from clean teams, David Millar even said so himself as he "asked questions" of Pat McQuaid. If Talanksy had have won the Vuelta, we could all pack up and go home now, doping solved.

If Ashenden says nothing, this myth (ABP = clean peloton) is perpetuated. That's why he had to say something. UCI is majorly on the back foot, so they are an easy target, just ask David Millar, and you can level innuendo at them and get away with it.

I am not looking to be popular, I am just looking for the truth.

Ashenden is perceived as a hero by some here - as is David Millar. If it hurts when I question this scenario, I understand, but calling me ridiculous for questioning is tantamount to enforcing omerta in the forum.

And only mods can shut me up.

Are you a Pro cyclist? Maybe if you were you'd know "how" to get in contact?

Ashenden is no hero. Just a guy trying to do his job.

You really have no idea. If you were doping and wanted some "advice" on how to stop it or get away from it where would you go? The UCI? Your federation?

Don't make me laugh.

You're green boy. Very green.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Are you a Pro cyclist? Maybe if you were you'd know "how" to get in contact?

Ashenden is no hero. Just a guy trying to do his job.

You really have no idea. If you were doping and wanted some "advice" on how to stop it or get away from it where would you go? The UCI? Your federation?

Don't make me laugh.

You're green boy. Very green.

I may be green.

But I am not an idiot.

If I wanted to stop doping or get away from it I would. Stop. And get away from it. I don't need to talk to anybody to do that.

How does a "pro cyclist" know how to get in touch with someone on the ABP panel? Or in doping research?

 

[thehog]

I may be green.

But I am not an idiot.

If I wanted to stop doping or get away from it I would. Stop. And get away from it. I don't need to talk to anybody to do that.

How does a "pro cyclist" know how to get in touch with someone on the ABP panel? Or in doping research?

Really you just stop? What do you tell your teammates who are doping with you? What do you tell the DS? The doctor? What happens if you want to race the Tour but clean and knowing the team you're on only wants the A team? You want keep your contract and you'd never want your teammates to fallout because of your change in ways.

You have to be kidding me. It's your job and you still want to ride so how do you stop?

Have you note taken note of anything that's occurred in the last 12 years?

Believe me you can't talk with anyone. You can only confide in someone you trust and someone who understands cycling.