Can Pat McQuaid back up an increase of 1500 to 9000 - 2007 compared 2009

[tubularglue]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/editions/first-edition-cycling-news-thursday-june-10-2010

"I can reveal that the numbers tell another story. In 2007 we did 1500 out of competition tests: 1000 urine and 500 blood. In 2009 we did 9000: 2500 urine tests and 6500 blood tests. That's 25 a day. The AFLD did just 389 out of competition blood tests across all sports disciplines in France in the whole of 2009."



I cannot believe the % increase. It seems impossible ?


this link says 15,699 anti-doping tests

RAPPORT ANNUEL UCI 2009 UCI ANNUAL REPORT (google) view as html

page 55 and 56

1. TESTS
15,699 anti-doping tests were carried out in 2009, amount-
ing to an increase of 19% compared to 2008.
The increase in the volume and percentage of out-of-
competition controls is significant and is the result of the increase of testing capacity on site and the wish to increase
out-of-competition tests.

The 9,031 out-of-competition tests
carried out in 2009 amount to 60% of the total number of
tests. More than 80% of out-of-competition urine tests
were carried out to detect EPO as well as other substances
appearing on the List of banned substances in 2009.

9031 / 20% = 1806 out of competition tests not tested for epo or other banned substances on the list


In-competition tests were carried out at more than 350
races, in all disciplines.
The number of tests, compared to previous years, is shown
in the table below. This table includes the tests carried out
for the biological passport

why 80% who had the luxury of being in the 20% (1806 tests)

what percentage of total is Bio passport?



out of 15,699 tests

The UCI noted 63 potential violations of the anti-doping
rules in 2009 (ADrV). These cases involved the following

Anabolic agents
12
Stimulants
10
Glucocorticosteroids
1
Hormones (all EPO)
27
Masking agents and diuretics
2
Biological Passport
6
Cannabis
2
Observation fault (missed test)
1
Total
63

out of 15,699 tests only 63 potential violations .004%

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Assuming 253 days/year operation of one test lab (52 weeks/year, 5 days/week, less 7 closure days for holidays), 9000 tests translates to about 36 tests completed per day. I used to work in a chemical lab that employed about 7 to 8 chemists. Some of the experiments were timed over 2 to 4 hours, and some were relatively short duration procedures. I can tell you I did more than 36 different assays/day. Multiply that by the number of chemists we had and you get the idea. However, that was a chem lab, not a medical lab testing blood and urine for multiple drugs, agents, etc. I'd be interested to know what someone with medical testing experience has to say.

 

[theswordsman]

Wasn't it the start of 2008 when the Biological Passport finally got up and running, and teams had to pay for the privilege? I seem to recall it was a pretty good chunk of change. Extra money available for tests and the idea of doing them more often not expecting positives but to be able to spot trends would account for a larger number. Was there a reason to test before after Lombardia and before the next season? That would add three months or more. If it wasn't for the Passport, Contador wouldn't need a test for seven months after the Tour.

Edit: just reread the title. I don't believe anything the guy says.

 

[Darryl Webster]

It reads to me like Pat Mc Quack is refering not to the number of samples taken but to the the number of tests carried out on samples.

Anyone else read it that way?

If thats indead what he`s done its blantently bit of missinformation.

Suprise, suprise

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I do believe with the whole LA thing going on (and perhaps with their complicity), they may be trying to flood the dummies with numbers that look like they're actually doing something in their favour.

The UCI does not want to bust people, that's why it takes extraordinary cases for them to do anything. Remember when Samaranch was the head of the IOC? He wanted to take doping control out of the Olympics because it was bad for business. No one likes seeing their hero turn out to be a cheating douchebag. That's bad for CocaCola's marketing.

 

[JPM London]

It reads to me like Pat Mc Quack is refering not to the number of samples taken but to the the number of tests carried out on samples.

Anyone else read it that way?

If thats indead what he`s done its blantently bit of missinformation.

Suprise, suprise

Maybe he is actually mentioning the number of tests - 63

 

[Darryl Webster]

Maybe he is actually mentioning the number of tests - 63

Thats a bit cynical!

The figure that we realy want to know is how many riders actualy gave samples over the periods and how many times the individiuals were tested if more than once.
I find the logistics ( no of test teams) of collecting 9031 out of compettion impossible to believe.
Hence im pretty much convinced that the actual number of samples taken is much smaller and Pat Mc Flurry is refering to the numbers of tests made on the samples of a undisclosed no of athletes.
Blatently trying to paint a very differant picture to the reality.

If anyone knows he`s defo refering to the number of samples I`d be glad to be corrected.

 

[JPM London]

Thats a bit cynical!

The figure that we realy want to know is how many riders actualy gave samples over the periods and how many times the individiuals were tested if more than once.
I find the logistics ( no of test teams) of collecting 9031 out of compettion impossible to believe.
Hence im pretty much convinced that the actual number of samples taken is much smaller and Pat Mc Flurry is refering to the numbers of tests made on the samples of a undisclosed no of athletes.
Blatently trying to paint a very differant picture to the reality.

If anyone knows he`s defo refering to the number of samples I`d be glad to be corrected.

Sometimes cynical is fun - But, yeah, I don't believe all test would come back positive - although I think the ratio of 63/9k sounds low.

I'd agree with the previous poster who mentioned the possibility that the teams have paid for a huge portion of the tests and I guess it also fits with the overall passport concept that testing would be high initially and then toned down.

From the very low ratio of positive it's tempting to draw the conclusion that many of the samples haven't been tested at all. and maybe most of the samples have just been taken so there is something to test at a later date if a profile looks suspicious at some point. That would make sense too, wouldn't it?

 

[Darryl Webster]

Sometimes cynical is fun - But, yeah, I don't believe all test would come back positive - although I think the ratio of 63/9k sounds low.

I'd agree with the previous poster who mentioned the possibility that the teams have paid for a huge portion of the tests and I guess it also fits with the overall passport concept that testing would be high initially and then toned down.

From the very low ratio of positive it's tempting to draw the conclusion that many of the samples haven't been tested at all. and maybe most of the samples have just been taken so there is something to test at a later date if a profile looks suspicious at some point. That would make sense too, wouldn't it?

My point JM in case I`ve worded it confusingly is that I reckon what Pat Mc Cash is saying is the number of differing tests in total carried on the samples, ie some tests are for one substance and others for another substance..in this context the number of actual samples taken becomes much smaller...so 3 or 4 tests could be on one sample alone.
Testing isnt one method finds all substances.
Thats why I think Mc Ballony is being deliberatly missinforming.

 

[JPM London]

...so 3 or 4 tests could be on one sample alone.
Testing isnt one method finds all substances.

That as well I guess...

 

[Muriel]

Didn't someone else point out (in a different thread) that not all samples taken are actually tested. Maybe McQuaid is referring to samples rather than tests??