Barredo, Robobank and the new list

[Havetts]

Barredo IS the one who isnt tested by the UCI for half a year after the "10". He really considered opening a lawsuit against the UCI because of damage to his reputation.

 

[hrotha]

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?

QuickStep, not Rabo.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

I noticed Frank Schleck had a 2 FWIW.

A 2 is a bit suspect already. Only ones and zeroes had no (clear) blood abnormalities when they were tested. Horner's 0 does stand out, though.

 

[Cavalier]

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

I'm not surprised Armstrong is rated so lowly considering his special relationship with the UCI. But I wouldn't remotely put Evans on Armstrong's level on the basis of a single visit.

 

[JRTinMA]

I forgot Christophe Moreau was a 7, that makes no sense at all.

 

[JRTinMA]

I'm not surprised Armstrong is rated so lowly considering his special relationship with the UCI. But I wouldn't remotely put Evans on Armstrong's level on the basis of a single visit.

His visit to Ferrarri has nothing to do with him being a 4 but I agree with you he is no Armstrong. More like an Ullrich just not loved by the fans as much.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

In WADAs Independent Observer Report from the 2010 Tour

''The format of the Post-Finish test
distribution plan seemed to be well known by those on the Tour and would have benefited from being
more flexible and less predictable both in rider selection and analysis type. In addition, the IO Team
observed a number of occasions where a more aggressive approach to testing riders outside of the
Post-Finish sessions should have been undertaken. It is one thing to allow clean riders the
opportunity to rest in between the gruelling stages, but it is entirely another thing to allow riders with
suspicious profiles, backed up by robust intelligence, the same opportunity. It is fully acknowledged
that this is a difficult balance to find, but in order to protect those riders who compete clean, the IO
Team believes that the UCI has an obligation to act decisively and develop and execute testing
strategies that target riders who demonstrate the behaviour of doping and to seriously consider
removing the informal knowledge and comfort that all riders have in knowing that they will not be
tested in the middle of the night.''


That is quite an interesting read, I read this as in 'we know who is clean[er] en we know how is doped up: get them!'

 

[Lanark]

I forgot Christophe Moreau was a 7, that makes no sense at all.

Yeah, why wasn't that guy a 10?

Although I'm a big proponent of the bloodpassport, I do have my doubts about the legal side of this. How can you expect Barredo to explain changes in his blood values all the way back to 2007, how could he possibly remember what happened back then? Now he was a 10 on the suspicion list, so the chance of a false positive are extremely slim in this case, but the UCI should really speed this proces up a lot if you want suspected riders to have any chance of defending themselves.

 

[AntiGravityCycling]

These "suspicion values" are, unfortunately, not science. Not. At. All. They are much more like Olympic Figure Skating judging. Opinions from so-called experts as to the likelihood that the riders are clean. Opinions based on looking at blood/urine samples and then comparing the timing of large fluctuations to the riders' racing calendar.

Right?

I AM a scientist, and when I read the Ashenden non-explanations, I was floored. This Bio-Passport "suspicion rating" is built on the opinions of the judges.

This tells us a couple of things. First, that the science is so poorly understood that facts are in short supply. So nouveau experts like Ashenden - probably a fine fellow, but on the panel for only a few years - sniff at the data and decide whether they like it or not. Turn over some rocks, and that is what you find.

Combine that with the natural variance in people's non-boosted values, and it is very hard to come up with a comprehensive value e.g. 50% HCT as a ceiling.

At best, this is like NASCAR scoring. I am not a fan, but ask your friends that are. How many points for a win? For second? Betcha they don't know. They just let the officials handle that, trusting that all is well.

Damn.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I AM a scientist, and when I read the Ashenden non-explanations, I was floored.

Being a scientist you won't mind if I ask for evidence that you know what you are talking about, right?

 

[Benotti69]

I'm not surprised Armstrong is rated so lowly considering his special relationship with the UCI. But I wouldn't remotely put Evans on Armstrong's level on the basis of a single visit.

We only know of Evans 1 visit to Ferarri. He may have hads lots more. Evans lives just inside the border of Swizterland across from Italy. He may not have been monitored by the Italians because he does not live in Italy. But his name may crop up if the Italians are preparing the case against Ferarri and take it to court.

 

[zigmeister]

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

3 other Radio Shack riders were even higher. Popovych, after testifying to the Grand Jury about LA, had his place raided in Tuscan in Nov 2010. But, nobody has released if they found anything during that search that I know of?!?!

I suppose they only have so many resources to go chasing after the highly ranked people of the passport...Lance just wasn't as high, although the highest profiled rider for sure at the time.

 

[zigmeister]

Being a scientist you won't mind if I ask for evidence that you know what you are talking about, right?

Not defending or answering on behalf of the scientist, but the system has only caught 1 person maybe?

So what does that say about the system in general?

If the system was of any real value, it would be catching guys left and right. Instead, they have only really been catching guys with random tests still that are foolishly using PEDs. They are still relying on narcs, or investigations without valid tests to prove people are guilty. Things like raiding homes of suspicious people etc..to find doping related products. They don't have actual valid proof positive tests to back up most of these highly ranked values. Just like Popovych, after his high ranking on the list, and his Grand Jury testimony regarding LA to the Feds, they raided his home to search for PED related products. Guess the passport is pretty useless, if a guy who was one of the highest rated suspicious people in the system, wasn't caught with an actual PED blood/urine test for any drugs.

The passport system is pretty much a failure and worthless.

If you can cite the details of what makes the passport system worthy and valid, by all means, enlighten everybody here.

But the proof and facts remain, the Passport system has done nothing buy maybe...and that is a big maybe, deterred some guys, or at least have them now micro-dosing and not just outright slamming massive PEDs in their body. They have become more careful, smaller doses and upped their levels. Well, at least the smart ones have. The other fools who don't understand EPO and other PEDs, keep boosting their system ridiculously high and get cold stoned busted.

 

[Benotti69]

Not defending or answering on behalf of the scientist, but the system has only caught 1 person maybe? .

Igor Astarloa received a two-year sanction as a result of abnormalities detected in his biological passport.

Pietro Caucchioli received a two-year sanction as a result of abnormalities detected in his biological passport.

Antonio Colom tested positive for EPO in an out-of-competition control in April 2009, after having been targeted under the biological passport programme. He received a two-year sanction.

Francesco De Bonis received a two-year sanction as a result of abnormalities detected in his biological passport.

Thomas Dekker tested positive for EPO in a retroactive test carried out on a urine sample taken in December 2007. Dekker's hematological profile led the UCI to review the EPO analyses for urine samples conducted since the introduction of the biological passport programme.

Franco Pellizotti received a two-year sanction as a result of abnormalities detected in his biological passport.

Ricardo Serrano received a two-year sanction after being caught under the UCI's biological passport programme. Evidence against Serrano was based on an abnormal haematological profile and two laboratory reports indicating the detection of CERA in two of his blood samples.

Tadej Valjavec received a two-year sanction as a result of abnormalities detected in his biological passport

So what does that say about the system in general?

Ask these riders what they think in general!

If the system was of any real value, it would be catching guys left and right. Instead, they have only really been catching guys with random tests still that are foolishly using PEDs.

The passport system is pretty much a failure and worthless.

If you can cite the details of what makes the passport system worthy and valid, by all means, enlighten everybody here.

But the proof and facts remain, the Passport system has done nothing buy maybe...and that is a big maybe, deterred some guys, or at least have them now micro-dosing and not just outright slamming massive PEDs in their body. They have become more careful, smaller doses and upped their levels. Well, at least the smart ones have. The other fools who don't understand EPO and other PEDs, keep boosting their system ridiculously high and get cold stoned busted.

Are you criticising it becuase Armstrong has been caught by the passport system?

IMO the passport system was selected by UCI because it wasn't perfect science and therefore could be used against riders of their choice and also meant it was a system in place to keep teams reasonable happy with the knowledge they had a bench mark to which they could operate (re dope) too.

It hasn't worked fully because UCI are in charge of it. If it was monitored by an independent body then we might some real changes in the peloton.

 

[DirtyWorks]

These "suspicion values" are, unfortunately, not science. Not. At. All. They are much more like Olympic Figure Skating judging. Opinions from so-called experts as to the likelihood that the riders are clean. Opinions based on looking at blood/urine samples and then comparing the timing of large fluctuations to the riders' racing calendar.

As Ashenden pointed out recently, the scientists have to agree that the evidence is explainable outside their bubble so a case is viable once it leaves their organization. I read the suspicion list as the scientists pass this information onto non-techincal people who just ranked the technical mumbo-jumbo so it is easily digestible.


You started pretty reasonably and then turn it into a personal attack. Any chance you are Pat McQuaid?

To answer another question, the UCI appears to warn riders/teams outside the anti-doping enforcement protocol so nothing is public. Another sterling example of the theater that's called the biological passport.

 

[AntiGravityCycling]

Thanks for the posts...Pedro, my credentials are not the issue here. The issue is whether the BioPassport produces scientific evidence. It does not. Fact. It produces a unified opinion from a panel. If this is being used to target "highly likely cheats", whose samples are then scrutinized more carefully or more often, and then some successful sanctions are forthcoming as a result, then that is good. The program may be working better than I thought.

If riders are sanctioned SOLELY as a result of the BP panel's opinion, we should all have a BIG problem with that.

DW, I agree with your analysis about the BP panel...but who did you think I was attacking? Ashenden?? No personal attack is evident, nor was one intended. Ashenden describes the BP process, I read that, and then I concluded that it is sloppy to call it science based on his description of that process. I don't think that is a personal attack in the least. No scientist would fail to separate attacking the process from attacking the person. I do the first one, but not the second.

Science itself could well be described as a cycle of theories proposed, tested, attacked, refined, retested,...

See? Not McQuaid.

 

[maxmartin]

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?

That's based on 2010 Tour.

I really want to know where Porte, Rogere F and W stands on 2010 list??

 

[the big ring]

Ashenden?? No personal attack is evident, nor was one intended. Ashenden describes the BP process, I read that, and then I concluded that it is sloppy to call it science based on his description of that process. I don't think that is a personal attack in the least. No scientist would fail to separate attacking the process from attacking the person. I do the first one, but not the second.

Science itself could well be described as a cycle of theories proposed, tested, attacked, refined, retested,...

Tested, analysed, refined, retested. If you attack things in the lab you end up with burettes embedded in your eye.

Personal attack seemed in evidence:

* Opinions from so-called experts as to the likelihood that the riders are clean.

I AM a scientist, and when I read the Ashenden non-explanations, I was floored. This Bio-Passport "suspicion rating" is built on the opinions of the judges.

This tells us a couple of things. First, that the science is so poorly understood that facts are in short supply. So nouveau experts like Ashenden - probably a fine fellow, but on the panel for only a few years - sniff (what is he, a dog?) at the data and decide whether they like it or not. Turn over some rocks, and that is what you find.

Here's how I see it:

Ashenden was explaining the ABP as simply as he could for your layperson, not for scientists.
Ashenden was directly involved in developing the test for EPO.
Name anyone who has been involved with the ABP longer.
Ashenden "nouveau expert" is on a number of expert panels - so either the people employing him for such are clueless, or you are.

No personal attack intended of course.

 

[DirtyWorks]

DW, I agree with your analysis about the BP panel...but who did you think I was attacking? Ashenden?? No personal attack is evident, nor was one intended.

"..nouveau experts like Ashenden.." is not a personal attack? Really?

There can only be so much "purity" in the science on WADA's side of the process. This is best effort stuff because they have to deal with false positives, false negatives and more uncertainties against constantly moving targets. It's a good effort on WADA's side.

So we know for sure the UCI sends warnings with the explicit intention of avoiding any sort of established anti-doping procedure whenever they see fit. I wonder how many more letters there were in 2012...

 

[AntiGravityCycling]

Nice personal attack examples, gentlemen. What i said was that he was a nouveau member of the panel. Fact. I should have worded my statement better, no doubt. He is certainly a bona fide medical expert, but his tenure on the panel was not very long. The CR at your local crit may have been working local crits for 20-30 years. Compared to that minor responsibility, three years on the panel is brief. Then he throws up his hands in frustration and leaves so that he will be allowed to complain about the process publicly.

It sounds like he was still not "fitting in" even as he decided he was done with it. Still acting like the new guy. That was all I meant. As if, in three years, he was still trying to figure the system out. As if he had concluded that the whole system was not fixable. I say "as if", since I don't know.

How screwed up is the BP if a smart guy like Ashenden, a gen-yoo-wine expert, is still trying to nail them down after three years? That was what I meant. I was attacking the system, not the man.


By non-explanations, I meant that the interview goes on for quite a while and he sort of describes the process as the panel experts comparing the way they feel about the data. The way the panel members feel about the data. That is the BP.

And if that is the best it gets, Benotti's list makes it look like *something* is being made of it at least.

 

[the big ring]

Nice personal attack examples, gentlemen. What i said was that he was a nouveau member of the panel. Fact. I should have worded my statement better, no doubt. He is certainly a bona fide medical expert, but his tenure on the panel was not very long. The CR at your local crit may have been working local crits for 20-30 years. Compared to that minor responsibility, three years on the panel is brief..

You realise his brief 3 year tenure on the panel was from its inception until he left, right? ie it would be impossible to be on the panel for any longer.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Igor Astarloa received a two-year sanction as a result of abnormalities detected in his biological passport.

Pietro Caucchioli received a two-year sanction as a result of abnormalities detected in his biological passport.

Antonio Colom tested positive for EPO in an out-of-competition control in April 2009, after having been targeted under the biological passport programme. He received a two-year sanction.

Francesco De Bonis received a two-year sanction as a result of abnormalities detected in his biological passport.

Thomas Dekker tested positive for EPO in a retroactive test carried out on a urine sample taken in December 2007. Dekker's hematological profile led the UCI to review the EPO analyses for urine samples conducted since the introduction of the biological passport programme.

Franco Pellizotti received a two-year sanction as a result of abnormalities detected in his biological passport.

Ricardo Serrano received a two-year sanction after being caught under the UCI's biological passport programme. Evidence against Serrano was based on an abnormal haematological profile and two laboratory reports indicating the detection of CERA in two of his blood samples.

Tadej Valjavec received a two-year sanction as a result of abnormalities detected in his biological passport


Ask these riders what they think in general!



Are you criticising it becuase Armstrong has been caught by the passport system?

IMO the passport system was selected by UCI because it wasn't perfect science and therefore could be used against riders of their choice and also meant it was a system in place to keep teams reasonable happy with the knowledge they had a bench mark to which they could operate (re dope) too.

It hasn't worked fully because UCI are in charge of it. If it was monitored by an independent body then we might some real changes in the peloton.

Bingo! The UCI has spent their career making sure the spectacle happens, regardless of what the riders are doing.

The money comes in, and the money goes out.

Their pursuance of the larger international audience, while trying to say that they're actually trying to do anything to keep the sport clean is laughable.

They have an agenda that mandates an increased global presence, increased fan base, and a furthering of bike racing being a global marketing tool/vehicle.

 

[Cavalier]

We only know of Evans 1 visit to Ferarri. He may have hads lots more. Evans lives just inside the border of Swizterland across from Italy. He may not have been monitored by the Italians because he does not live in Italy. But his name may crop up if the Italians are preparing the case against Ferarri and take it to court.

I've heard of tenuous links before but "Switzerland is close to Italy" is stretching it a bit.

Evans may be/may have been doping, and it wouldn't surprise me if he had, but I just think it needs a bit more than a single visit and someone's location to draw a link. I mean, based on that, Cancellara could be a Ferrari client as well.

 

[ElChingon]

Barredo IS the one who isnt tested by the UCI for half a year after the "10". He really considered opening a lawsuit against the UCI because of damage to his reputation.

Those riders ranking high should sue the UCI for not banning them and letting them continue to put their health at risk knowing they were up to no good. This passport system was set up to aid in rider health, right?

 

[Franklin]

Those riders ranking high should sue the UCI for not banning them and letting them continue to put their health at risk knowing they were up to no good. This passport system was set up to aid in rider health, right?

In all fairness... if Barredo as nothing to hide, not testing him would keep him at 10. I can follow his logic no matter if he is clean or dirty.