Effects of coronavirus on professional races

[Cookster15]

Shared buffets (if that was the case) is as much a team management failure as a race management failure. Maybe more so. Why are you letting your riders do that ? Why are you (as the hotel customer) not insisting on separated dining ?

The race management should be setting and monitoring what teams can do, just as was done at the TdF. I think serious questions need to be asked of the Giro organizers. From what I am reading today I'd say what "bubble" ? The Tour just provided the blueprint but it seems the Giro didn't monitor the Tour and learn.

 

[search]

The race management should be setting and monitoring what teams can do, just as was done at the TdF. I think serious questions need to be asked of the Giro organizers. From what I am reading today I'd say what "bubble" ? The Tour just provided the blueprint but it seems the Giro didn't monitor the Tour and learn.

also the UCI rules are fairly clear about that, as they require "grouping [of] each team on a single floor (or a wing of the hotel) and a reserved and independent dining room, whenever possible." And it's not like there are only two hotels in Palermo

 

[yaco]

Well even at the TDF teams were not always alone in their hotels - Yes, not at the Giro level of guests at hotels BUT ultimately who can book a whole hotel for a group of 28 or 30 for one night - No team has claimed they used the buffet but observed there was a buffet.

 

[King Boonen]

no, it's just maths. False positives do happen of course, but the chance to have two (antigen+PCR) of them succeeding each other is something like 1-10000, while there is around a 1-50 chance that the single antigen test was wrong

Where did you read that Sunweb used an antigen test? The cycling weekly article implies it was a PCR test sunweb did. And where are you getting those statistics for specificity for the antigen test? Because most diagnostic tests are biased towards specificity while sacrificing sensitivity if they are going to be followed up with a more sensitive test.

 

[PeterB]

Reading about separate dining trucks of some of the teams and riders complaining about having to share hotels with other people makes me think that Richie Porte's motorhome experiment few years back was way ahead of time!
At that time UCI might have disapproved but nowadays they would welcome camper vans for riders with open arms, methinks.

 

[search]

Where did you read that Sunweb used an antigen test? The cycling weekly article implies it was a PCR test sunweb did. And where are you getting those statistics for specificity for the antigen test? Because most diagnostic tests are biased towards specificity while sacrificing sensitivity if they are going to be followed up with a more sensitive test.

it said so in the Wielerflits article, which was the only one available at that time. And obviously I don't know the exact sensitivity of the tests used, so I just took the usual approximate numbers of those test types.

You are right though that I should have checked the specificity as well though, which seems to be higher. But nonetheless, a double false positive is still more unlikely than a single false negative.

 

[King Boonen]

it said so in the Wielerflits article, which was the only one available at that time. And obviously I don't know the exact sensitivity of the tests used, so I just took the usual approximate numbers of those test types.

You are right though that I should have checked the specificity as well though, which seems to be higher. But nonetheless, a double false positive is still more unlikely than a single false negative.

The information I'm finding is very conflicting. Yates had an antigen test and then a PCR follow up. I can only find reference to one test for Matthews (and everyone else) from RCS, but that seems to imply that all the tests were PCR. So I'm unsure if they're using only PCR in mandatory testing but antigen testing for requested testing which is then followed up with a PCR test. What I read in Cycling Weekly implies Sunweb did a PCR test, but that's also really not clear, as the reference to another PCR test might be including the RCS PCR test.

If he tested positive on a PCR test from RCS, then that makes it even more unlikely that he would produce a false negative on a rapid antigen test (if that's what Sunweb did) as they are no doubt biased towards high specificity. If he tested negative on a second PCR test, there is a chance he did have COVID but it was gone/below the limit of detection in the second test, or one of them was a false result.

 

[search]

The information I'm finding is very conflicting. Yates had an antigen test and then a PCR follow up. I can only find reference to one test for Matthews (and everyone else) from RCS

in yesterday's Cycling Podcast, Jumbo DS Engels said that they were informed about the Kruijswijk positive during the night, and that a 2nd test was done in the morning. He didn't specify what kind of test those were, but RCS definitely did two of them. So I would assume that they handled it in the same way as for Yates?

 

[Anybody_but..]

mathews retest being negative shows again how potentially damning this all is... but there is no other way

Great news! - for him of course, but for Kelderman as well.

 

[King Boonen]

in yesterday's Cycling Podcast, Jumbo DS Engels said that they were informed about the Kruijswijk positive during the night, and that a 2nd test was done in the morning. He didn't specify what kind of test those were, but RCS definitely did two of them. So I would assume that they handled it in the same way as for Yates?

I'm not sure they are following the same procedure as for Yates, although the Kruijswijk second test confuses the issue. In this article, https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/si...talia-after-testing-positive-for-coronavirus/ , the procedure is described as a rapid test and then a PCR for Yates, but I think this might only be for people who present with symptoms during spot checks (temperature testing etc.) or who develop symptoms and request a test.

"Following the team's RACESAFE COVID-19 policy, he was isolated in his room and we immediately requested a rapid test using the services offering by the RCS [Giro organisation], which has returned positive."

The team reported that "a second, RT-PCR, test was later taken, which has confirmed the positive result"

In this article, https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mi...o-ditalia-after-four-positive-covid-19-cases/ , discusses the mandatory testing and only mentions a PCR test, no rapid testing.

Race organiser RCS Sport carried out a total of 571 tests on the riders and team staff at the Giro d’Italia. The testing was split across Sunday evening and Monday morning, with all the RT-PCR swab tests then sent to Milan for testing in a private laboratory. Further tests are due to be done on race staff on Wednesday.

My assumption would be that RCS protocols are rapid test when someone presents, followed up by PCR testing, and only PCR testing for the mandatory tests. This would make more sense, as the rapid tests are very likely to be biased towards specificity, so they're going to be more likely to return a false positive, and therefore need to be followed up with a PCR, but they do allow for fast results. PCR tests will need to be sent to a lab, so using these for those presenting may cause difficulties as you may not have any result back before the start of the next stage. If this is correct, it does mean there's a higher chance of someone being excluded from the race because their rapid test is positive and the PCR test hasn't come back yet, when they may actually be negative. I guess that's something they have to accept in this situation.

If this is the case, it only really follows that Sunweb carried out an additional PCR on Matthews, it would be ridiculous to use a less sensitive test when a more sensitive one has already returned a positive. Not all PCRs are equal, so there's a chance either one is wrong, and without knowing the specifics it's just guess work which is, or there's a chance he has been asymptomatic for a while and the first test picked it up but by the time of the second test the viral load was too low to measure. This second scenario could also explain two positive tests and the subsequent negative one.


Essentially we don't have enough information to make a hard conclusion, but the case does highlight some of the issues around testing, it's fallibility, and the risk riders are being asked to take. Many are no doubt assuming that testing is 100% accurate, or at least one form of testing is, with extremely low limits of detection, when this isn't the case. There's still a good chance riders and staff who tested negative are positive, either through inaccurate testing, or limit of detection depending where they are on the viral load curve.

 

[Jagartrott]

Giro-bubble freestyle:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1316646652715970561

 

[SafeBet]

And they wonder why most Italian jokes are on police forces.

 

[Wvv]

Maybe not the right topic, but since that forum part seems to be inactive:

No 6 Days in Gent ('t Kuipke) due to Covid-19. Most track races this winter will be cancelled I fear.

 

[King Boonen]

Maybe not the right topic, but since that forum part seems to be inactive:

No 6 Days in Gent ('t Kuipke) due to Covid-19. Most track races this winter will be cancelled I fear.

I wouldn't be surprised. Racing cancelled for track league in Glasgow and currently no training due to local lockdown measures. At best I think it'll be off and on over the period.

 

[will-10]

Unfortunately this Giro is starting to feel like Paris-Nice did: a pleasant surprise every day they start, but surely the show can only go on for so long... such a shame as it's shaping up to be a hell of a 3rd week.

 

[Climbing]

They just have to pass next monday, someway, and that's it...

 

[wheresmybrakes]

I think the only way the Giro will get cancelled is if the teams decide to abandon.

 

[tobydawq]

I think the only way the Giro will get cancelled is if the teams decide to abandon.

All teams won't decide to do that.

Teams like Lotto where all riders are tired or out of form and EF who have already won what they could, sure, but not all.

 

[Red Rick]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1316759478059044864

View: https://twitter.com/TourDeJose/status/1316759478059044864


Seriously the teams can just go home if they want

 

[tobydawq]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1316759478059044864

View: https://twitter.com/TourDeJose/status/1316759478059044864


Seriously the teams can just go home if they want

Are we actually so sure about that?

Edit: My stance is clear that they are being ridiculous in wanting to go home, but I'm not sure they're actually just allowed to leave.

 

[Red Rick]

Are we actually so sure about that?

Edit: My stance is clear that they are being ridiculous in wanting to go home, but I'm not sure they're actually just allowed to leave.

Jumbo did didn't they?

 

[Valv.Piti]

"We have won a couple of stages and cant really do more in this race, lets all go home now, its safest"

KEKW, *** EF.

 

[RedheadDane]

Jumbo did didn't they?

I guess they used the "We have a positive in our team, and we're doing it for everyone's safety" argument.

 

[tobydawq]

Jumbo did didn't they?

Yeah after a positive. I don't know if that changes things but I'd suggest it might.

 

[search]

Are we actually so sure about that?

Edit: My stance is clear that they are being ridiculous in wanting to go home, but I'm not sure they're actually just allowed to leave.

by UCI rules, they are not.

In the event of unjustified absence, withdrawal or giving up, the UCI WorldTeam shall be liable to a fine of between CHF 10,000 and 20,000. For stage races, this fine shall be multiplied by the number of days' racing remaining on the day of absence, withdrawal or giving up.

The UCI may decide not to refer a case of absence, withdrawal or giving up of a UCI WorldTeam to the Disciplinary Commission, in case the two cumulative conditions below are fulfilled:

• The UCI WorldTeam beforehand submitted to the UCI a formal motivated request for absence, withdrawal or giving up following an abnormal situation pertaining to doping;
• The organiser of the UCI WorldTour event has agreed in writing to the absence, withdrawal or giving up of the UCI WorldTeam.

so they would be facing up to a 180.000 CHF fine if they abandon the race now (up to 240.000 CHF for Jumbo, btw. Mitchelton's DNS was agreed on by the organizer)