Barredo, Robobank and the new list

[maxmartin]

who has the complete 2012 list??

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/barredo-responds-to-ucis-queries-regarding-blood-values

 

[maxmartin]

And why Barredo wasn't asked to explain his 2010 value until 2012??
UCI is very very efficient!!!

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

This is about his blood values for the period 2007-2011, by the way. Somehow the CN article failed to mention that.

 

[BroDeal]

This is about his blood values for the period 2007-2011, by the way. Somehow the CN article failed to mention that.

There is something weird about this. JV says that the mean blood values have changed significantly in the last few years. Obviously for that to be true, a large number of riders from that period would have blood values that changed. Probably nearly every GT GC contender and classics contender would have changes that would be difficult to explain. So why single out Barredo? Are his blood values any more ridiculous than Menchov's or Leipheimer's? The UCI could target almost anyone and make a strong case for doping.

 

[sniper]

So the Barredo warning got leaked? Meaning that several other warnings are likely to have been sent out (as we speculated) to other riders/teams and that those were not leaked?
Getting closer to understanding Cadel Evans lack of form this year. Perhaps Fränk was on the 2010 suspicion list, causing his samples to be targeted also in 2011 and 2012. One other on the list was of course Contador. Was LA on the list?

 

[sittingbison]

...Getting closer to understanding Cadel Evans lack of form this year. Perhaps Fränk was on the 2010 suspicion list, causing his samples to be targeted also in 2011 and 2012. One other on the list was of course Contador. Was LA on the list?

EBH 0, Canc 0, Frank 2, Sastre 2, LL Sanches 2, Jens 2, Basso 3, Andy 3, Cunego 3, Cadel 4, Lance 4, CVV 4, Levi 4, AC 5, Wiggo 5, Vino 5, Knees 6, Rogers 7, Kloden 7, Siutsou 8, VDB2 8, Menchov 9

The vast majority had a 4 or less

Not sure I should bold Lance as he will not be a TdF winner for much longer hehe

(Sky 2012 employed Knees, Rogers and Siutsou lol)

BTW perhaps Cadel is showing signs of advanced decrepitude? It happens to the best of us %)

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Ah yes, Menchov an 8. Almost forget about that. Explains his lacklustre year atm

Then again, JvdB had his best Tour ever..

 

[sniper]

thanks sittingbison, although i'm now confused about the lists. i knew the suspicion list that you mention, but barredo's warning stems from a different list, doesn't it? I mean he's not even on this list.

 

[hrotha]

thanks sittingbison, although i'm now confused about the lists. i knew the suspicion list that you mention, but barredo's warning stems from a different list, doesn't it? I mean he's not even on this list.

That's not the complete list (that one included every rider at that Tour). Bison only posted some highlights. Barredo was indeed a 10 in that list.

 

[sittingbison]

... barredo's warning stems from a different list, doesn't it? I mean he's not even on this list.

Sorry, I just listed the big names. Here are the top of the tree:

9 Denis Menchov
10 Carlos Barredo,Yaroslav Popovych

In fact, here are the top ten places 2010 TdF, withtheir suspicious rating:
1 Andy Schleck 3
2 Denis Menchov 9
3 Samuel Sánchez 4
4 Jurgen Van Den Broeck 8
5 Robert Gesink 1
6 Ryder Hesjedal 1
7 Joaquim Rodríguez 3
8 Roman Kreuziger 3
9 Chris Horner 0
10 Luis Leon Sánchez 2

And although this is not the JV thread, notice Hesjedal has a suspicion of 1, so maybe it IS possible to win the Giro clean

 

[The Sheep]

 

[the big ring]

Oh good. Voekler is at 0. There's a list worth considering then.

 

[Benotti69]

Thanks for posting this.

Wiithout really understanding how the numbers were derived we cannot for sure point to anything.

How many tests and when were riders tested?

Seems UCI are putting pressure on Barredo/Rabo, but not RSNT/Popo or Katusha/Menchov. All part of the smell that emenates from the UCI!

 

[hrotha]

Voeckler wasn't suspicious in 2010. He was in 2011.

People often forget this list was a snapshot of the peloton just before the 2010 Tour de France. We don't even know much of how it was compiled, since there are suggestions that it didn't rely exclusively on blood values, but also on a rider being expected to peak for the Tour and on particularly good performances (those suggestions weren't very coherent, IMO, and I'm more inclined to think they were mostly damage control and that the list probably is all about blood values).

Regardless, just because someone didn't have suspicious values in 2010 it doesn't mean they wouldn't have suspicious values in 2012. Hell, it doesn't even prove they were clean in 2010. It just means their blood values were consistent. Scoring a 5 or more in that list is very telling - scoring 0-4, not so much.

 

[the big ring]

Voeckler wasn't suspicious in 2010. He was in 2011.

People often forget this list was a snapshot of the peloton just before the 2010 Tour de France. We don't even know much of how it was compiled, since there are suggestions that it didn't rely exclusively on blood values, but also on a rider being expected to peak for the Tour and on particularly good performances (those suggestions weren't very coherent, IMO, and I'm more inclined to think they were mostly damage control and that the list probably is all about blood values).

Regardless, just because someone didn't have suspicious values in 2010 it doesn't mean they wouldn't have suspicious values in 2012. Hell, it doesn't even prove they were clean in 2010. It just means their blood values were consistent. Scoring a 5 or more in that list is very telling - scoring 0-4, not so much.

My bad - thought that was for this year?

Someone listed 3x years worth for 2010, 2011 and 2012 - any idea where that was sourced?

 

[neineinei]

In WADAs Independent Observer Report from the 2010 Tour they give examples of UCi's response to the laboratorys recommendations for testing (page 19). For instance:

"• For a rider identified as having a priority index of ten, no blood samples were collected following the Laboratory recommendations after interpretation of blood passport data from the first week of the Tour, with only urine being collected and no blood as recommended by the Laboratory. Further, a recommendation to target test the rider for EPO took seven days to be executed.

• A rider identified as having a priority index of ten was not tested for either urine or blood from 3 April to the start of the Tour. Recommendations made by the Laboratory following testing in the first three days of the Tour resulted in no further blood samples being collected but rather only urine and approximately ten days later. The IO Team became aware of the remarks made by the laboratory regarding the analysis of this rider’s specific sample that raised the suspicion of the use of proteases. No further information regarding any actions taken by the UCI for further analysis of that sample was made available."

The list was said to be a tool to better target the testing. And UCI did indeed use it to target the testing, that is they used it to steer away from the most suspicious riders.

 

[Benotti69]

Voeckler wasn't suspicious in 2010. He was in 2011.

People often forget this list was a snapshot of the peloton just before the 2010 Tour de France. We don't even know much of how it was compiled, since there are suggestions that it didn't rely exclusively on blood values, but also on a rider being expected to peak for the Tour and on particularly good performances (those suggestions weren't very coherent, IMO, and I'm more inclined to think they were mostly damage control and that the list probably is all about blood values).

Regardless, just because someone didn't have suspicious values in 2010 it doesn't mean they wouldn't have suspicious values in 2012. Hell, it doesn't even prove they were clean in 2010. It just means their blood values were consistent. Scoring a 5 or more in that list is very telling - scoring 0-4, not so much.

If USADA have evidence from LAs blood values that point to doping then a 4 has to be dodgy!

So look at those 4s again. Evans, Leipheimer, Millar and Vandevelde????

 

[RichWalk]

If USADA have evidence from LAs blood values that point to doping then a 4 has to be dodgy!

So look at those 4s again. Evans, Leipheimer, Millar and Vandevelde????

And Wiggins at 5, before his marginal gains..............

 

[hrotha]

If USADA have evidence from LAs blood values that point to doping then a 4 has to be dodgy!

So look at those 4s again. Evans, Leipheimer, Millar and Vandevelde????

I think a score of 4 meant a mostly consistent biological passport but with one or two "interesting" features. 5 and above was described as very hard to explain without blood manipulation and "almost definite", so a 4 must have been pretty borderline.

 

[Cavalier]

I'm still a bit surprised there's shock over Evans being 4. Do people seriously think he should be higher? Based on a one-off visit to Ferrari over 10 years ago?

 

[Benotti69]

I'm still a bit surprised there's shock over Evans being 4. Do people seriously think he should be higher? Based on a one-off visit to Ferrari over 10 years ago?

Are you not surprised he has the same number as Armstrong?

 

[Nick C.]

I noticed Frank Schleck had a 2 FWIW.

 

[the big ring]

http://www.sportsmed.info/articles/epo.html

Very readable article on how to detect rhEPO directly or via markers.

 

[sniper]

In WADAs Independent Observer Report from the 2010 Tour they give examples of UCi's response to the laboratorys recommendations for testing (page 19). For instance:

"• For a rider identified as having a priority index of ten, no blood samples were collected following the Laboratory recommendations after interpretation of blood passport data from the first week of the Tour, with only urine being collected and no blood as recommended by the Laboratory. Further, a recommendation to target test the rider for EPO took seven days to be executed.

• A rider identified as having a priority index of ten was not tested for either urine or blood from 3 April to the start of the Tour. Recommendations made by the Laboratory following testing in the first three days of the Tour resulted in no further blood samples being collected but rather only urine and approximately ten days later. The IO Team became aware of the remarks made by the laboratory regarding the analysis of this rider’s specific sample that raised the suspicion of the use of proteases. No further information regarding any actions taken by the UCI for further analysis of that sample was made available."

The list was said to be a tool to better target the testing. And UCI did indeed use it to target the testing, that is they used it to steer away from the most suspicious riders.

Thanks for recalling those issues. Your conclusion nails it.
Let's imagine the "10" referred to in the report (i.e. the one who wasn't target-tested inspite of the lab's recommendations) was Barredo. So instead of target-testing Barredo during the Tour, Pat approaches Rabo/Barredo asking him "to provide answers and to defend himself". "Those questions were informative, there is no procedure." What does all that mean anyway?

 

[sniper]

(...)
Seems UCI are putting pressure on Barredo/Rabo, but not RSNT/Popo or Katusha/Menchov. All part of the smell that emenates from the UCI!

See my previous post. What if Barredo was the "10" who didn't get target-tested even though the lab recommended it. In that case it looks more like the UCI cut him and Rabo some slack.