General Doping Thread.

[Armchair Cyclist]

Was watching a bit of a nationally broadcast Yankees game (American baseball) the other night. When Judd came up to the plate ...

ed. Sorry - Judge not Judd

You know that you could have used the edit to change Judd to Judge before anyone noticed, rather than to publicise your mistake?

 

[pastronef]

Flueckiger's antidoping errors here

Mathias Flückiger Says There Were 'Massive Errors' in the Handling of His Anti-Doping Case - Pinkbike

The Swiss racer says he's not surprised that Swiss Sport Integrity has chosen not to appeal the lifting of his provisional ban.

www.pinkbike.com

 

[Sciatic]

You know that you could have used the edit to change Judd to Judge before anyone noticed, rather than to publicise your mistake?

Yes, I considered that, but didn’t know if some folks had read it. I would rather appear straightforwardly stupid than stupid with a coverup 😜

 

[Tim Cahill]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1826299577558773882

View: https://x.com/WielerFlits/status/1826299577558773882


Michel Hessmann's ban extended to March 2025

 

[yaco]

Gotta say how silly is Lizzy Banks. UKAD accepted her arguments and waived her anti-doping violation. Instead of remaining silent for a period of time ( which is the period WADA have to appeal ), she launched into a media campaign about how useless the Anti-doping code is. Then surprise, surprise, WADA has appealed UKAD's decision.

 

[QueenStagiaire]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1826299577558773882

View: https://x.com/WielerFlits/status/1826299577558773882


Michel Hessmann's ban extended to March 2025

That‘s gonna be the end of his career I think. Had he been allowed back in before next season, Bahrain might have signed him, but now they won‘t want to sign someone currently banned for doping.

 

[Tim Cahill]

That‘s gonna be the end of his career I think. Had he been allowed back in before next season, Bahrain might have signed him, but now they won‘t want to sign someone currently banned for doping.

Apparently he's still training, but yeah I can maybe see Bahrain maybe having a go, he's obviously very talented and they can get him on the cheap.

 

[yaco]

I don't see why hessman will not find a team. Many racers don't start their season until March anyway.

 

[AttaqueDeRolland]

So, what should we think about what we've just seen Ben O'Connor do today? Pulled basically all day and just dropped one rider after another while putting more than six minutes into the peloton. Rarely have I seen something like that. Honestly, this is a very, very suspicious performance.

 

[Bolder]

So, what should we think about what we've just seen Ben O'Connor do today? Pulled basically all day and just dropped one rider after another while putting more than six minutes into the peloton. Rarely have I seen something like that. Honestly, this is a very, very suspicious performance.

We all know what happened last time we saw this. Let’s hope there’s no repeat.

 

[solo80k]

We all know what happened last time we saw this. Let’s hope there’s no repeat.

Go hard or go home. 2006 Landis comes to my mind... 😁

 

[42x16ss]

That‘s gonna be the end of his career I think. Had he been allowed back in before next season, Bahrain might have signed him, but now they won‘t want to sign someone currently banned for doping.

They signed Stannard

 

[QueenStagiaire]

They signed Stannard

Which was exactly my point because he‘s not currently banned so they don‘t have to wait for his ban to end.

 

[Tim Cahill]

He's going to Movistar

 

[Invicituz]

So, what should we think about what we've just seen Ben O'Connor do today? Pulled basically all day and just dropped one rider after another while putting more than six minutes into the peloton. Rarely have I seen something like that. Honestly, this is a very, very suspicious performance.

In fairness to O'Connor, if the chasing group of main GC contenders hadn't been content to allow the leader's gap to grow to the extent it did, then the time gaps would have been much less.

 

[Nomad]

So, what should we think about what we've just seen Ben O'Connor do today? Pulled basically all day and just dropped one rider after another while putting more than six minutes into the peloton. Rarely have I seen something like that. Honestly, this is a very, very suspicious performance.

Motor?

 

[Ruklaw]

My primary takeaway was that Roglic must be suffering - his team hadn't been chasing because he was struggling.

But even given that, Ben was crazy strong - I mean if that had been Wout, or MVDP or Pog then we'd have heard the commentators bringing out all those cliches "that is just superb... we are privileged to get the chance to witness one of the greatest riders ever in their pomp bla bla bla"

Odd again that UAE didn't seem visible in the chase where they have been so strong all year.

 

[Rob5091]

Go hard or go home. 2006 Landis comes to my mind... 😁

Yes, I did get a "do a Landis" feeling, but it's a shame we did not get the first 80 km on the telly as it was very fast and furious and we did not see the crashes as well (UAE did n't want to pull as they were waiting for Yates etc)

 

[BiomechanicsProfessor]

They signed Stannard

Okay, now that the UCI decided to publish some creative fiction in CyclingNews, I feel compelled to respond. I was one of the scientists on Stannard's defense team, so I can tell you more about the charges and lack of evidence that went into the decision. There is a good reasona why Bahrain looked at the data and concluded there was no evidence of doping; any competent scientist would come to the same conclusion. There will be a lot more coming out, but here is what happened.

Stannard was penalized for sample 2 (Hb and OFF) and sample 6 (reticulocyte% and OFF). What they don't tell you is that sample 2 was taken after 5 weeks of altitude training, and sample 6 was within both the biological passport limits and the normal population range. When adjusted for either age or altitude exposure, sample 2 was within the biological passport limits. No justification was given for overriding the passport on sample 6.

The "expert" panel (3 mediocre at best scientists) used some very creative statistics. They agreed that both age and altitude exposure would increase Hb and OFF, and if correct statistical procedures were used with the adjustments suggested by the panel, there was no positive test. The experts on the other hand, decided not to include any variability in their analysis, which meant that any sample would be deemed positive. The only justification for sample 6 being positive was that if an inconvenient data point were removed, the OFF score for sample 6 would be positive. But that isn't allowed.

We asked on multiple occasions for an independent review of the arguments, but the expert panel declined. For the tribunal, the judge selected and paid by the UCI decided no independent review was need because the expert panel would decide: in effect they were prosecution and jury. It was a kangaroo court.

Also note: 1) the WADA and UCI regulations specify that a case must be brought within seven days. This was ignored. 2) if procedures were followed, this expert panel would not have been the first to review the data. There would have been at least two others that looked at the same data and decided there was no proof of doping. The UCI claims to not keep records of previous analyses (if you have ever worked at a lab, you would be skeptical of that) and refused to release the results of the urine tests taken at the same time.
3) The biological passport is junk science. The current algorithm is hidden from the public and not made available to the defense. In fact, the expert panel didn't even know what was in the algorithm. The original paper was published in 2006, but after it was questioned in academic journals it was hidden, but it is apparent that something similar is used with lower variability. In any case, the UCI does not allow the biological passport to be questioned at the tribunal.

In the end, the tribunal made a very cynical decision in backdating the ban. If the ban had started when the procedures started, Stannard would have his career over and would have no reason not to go to CAS. But, because he was immediately eligible, he had to choose between appealing to CAS and being suspended until a decision was reached (probably in several years) or to resume his career.

I think it is fair to say that the current version of anti-doping is a joke. At some point it will go to a real court, and the UCI and WADA will lose badly.

 

[Rob5091]

It's nice to know that people, actually involved in doping cases, take the time to post on this little ol' talking shop at CN.

There will be a lot more coming out, but here is what happened.

Will Stannard really want to carry on with this now he's got a contract?

Otherwise, I think you're preaching to the choir here and until one of the big names gets busted, things will carry on as before.

 

[BiomechanicsProfessor]

It's nice to know that people, actually involved in doping cases, take the time to post on this little ol' talking shop at CN.

Will Stannard really want to carry on with this now he's got a contract?

Otherwise, I think you're preaching to the choir here and until one of the big names gets busted, things will carry on as before.

If he had appealed to the CAS, he wouldn't be able to ride, so he made the difficult decision to carry on his career rather than appeal. It takes a lot of time and money to carry everything through to the CAS (which is another reason the process is so biased against the rider), and he had to choose his career over his reputation. Officially, his case is over, but we want to make it clear just how bad the process is. There is literally no protection for a clean rider, but they only go after the small fish, so nobody cares.

Right now we are just making the facts public so they he gets some of his reputation back. CyclingNews has showed no interest in telling his side of the story, but we are looking for other avenues- I can't give details right now.

I will also say that the same scientists in the "expert" panel have been very busy bringing similar cases in the last year or so, and with the same problems. At some point it will go to a real court and they will be toast.

 

[Rob5091]

We did have the Salas case earlier this year in Spain (https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ib...mpensation-claim-against-spanish-anti-doping/) but there the poor guy is now a decorator as his career is over.
The UCI know that no sportsmen or women wants to give up their career to fight for justification for themselves and a change in the current anti-doping regulations. That is something the riders association, National anti-doping authorities etc should be doing.

I will also say that the same scientists in the "expert" panel have been very busy bringing similar cases in the last year or so, and with the same problems. At some point it will go to a real court and they will be toast.

Scientists saying things that people pay them to say? How far shall we go back to prove this has happened over and over again? Tobacco is a "good" one, or let's go way back to the first Chinese emperor who was told he was sick because he was n't taking enough mercury.
As you write it needs to go to a real court, as these decisions ruin people's lives, but the UCI hide behind WADA "guidelines" so there are the people to go after. Don't waste your time with CN!

 

[search]

Scientists saying things that people pay them to say?

please keep an mind that this statement comes from someone who is likely paid to defend Stannard instead. We obviously can't expect a neutral opinion on an ABP finding from anyone who thinks "The biological passport is junk science" either.

Thanks for posting some insights, though.

 

[Pozzovivo]

I truly believed in cycling the last 10 years. Maybe it will be known as the clean decade or something bc the performances now are just on another planet. Torres today? Really? 6.04 wkg for 60? It seems very unlikely to me that something strange is not happening now. Plateu de Beille was incredible. Literally.

Can people who understand more sport science than me explain how all riders can improve enourmously in just a year or two?

Don't give me more carbs. It helps, but don't get us where we are today. Sure the bikes are faster. But watts are watts even when they are estimated. For climbs with long duration and steep gradient - the watts are basically correct within a few %. Riders even confirm this.

I honestly hope that someone can help me understand bc I'm rattled.

 

[Rob5091]

please keep an mind that this statement comes from someone who is likely paid to defend Stannard instead. We obviously can't expect a neutral opinion on an ABP finding from anyone who thinks "The biological passport is junk science" either.

Thanks for posting some insights, though.

Of course, it could just be some Bahrain PR guy trolling or even a machine for all we know, but taking the points brought up, the system is the problem and whinging about it here or complaining CN won't let him/her respond aint gonna solve anything. If the poster really is some trusted scientist then contact WADA, UCI etc and point out the facts.