Jonathan Tiernan-Locke written to by UCI, asked to explain blood values

[sniper]

Wow, 983 people thats a lot.
You must be right so that its like shooting fish in a barrell.

Although I did g=find this website called dopeology, its really good and it has statistics showing a decline in doping over the years.
Anyway, let is know the one you have so we can compare. Thanks

nice bit of spinning.

 

[the sceptic]

Well, claiming everyone dopes and then trying to claim some sort of amazing insight when someone is popped is not exactly anything to crow about.

Is a bit like saying 'everybody in a relationship cheats' and then saying 'oh look I was right' everytime someone is found to be cheating. Doesn't require any particular insight nor does it prove anything other than some people cheat. It's not hard to figure out.

That is true, but I dont think the clinic consensus (if such a thing exists) is that everyone is doping.

I agree that its silly to brag about spotting JTL as a doper, no matter what you think about the general level of doping in the peloton.

 

[Benotti69]

Wow, 983 people thats a lot.
You must be right so that its like shooting fish in a barrell.

Although I did g=find this website called dopeology, its really good and it has statistics showing a decline in doping over the years.
Anyway, let is know the one you have so we can compare. Thanks

A so called 'decline in doping' is due to the testing being ***.

Wonder how many other sports are up there in the 900s.

 

[The Hitch]

I don't think "the clinic" whatever that is can neccesarily spot dopers, but it has often been the case that certain points raised in the clinic, by certain posters have turned out to be very accurate.

For example, some people questioned here a year or 2 ago how many ooc doping tests were being conducted on sprinters in Jamaica. A few months ago it turned ou they were spot on and this even got some media coverage.

Another example would be Froome's Bilharzia. A few people questioned a year ago why there were discrepancies between what was said depending on the interview and interviewee. I was one of the ones who dismissed that thinking it was far fetched. But while the media hasn't picked up on it, what was posted here 3 months ago from supposed tropical disease experts from other parts on the internet, and what was said by the verified tropical disease expert on German Radio when asked about it, shows this story, first brought up here, has far more legs.

Aside from that, anyone with 2 braincells can see that some of the posts made on the football thread in the clinic have more journalistic merit in a single sentence than all the articles about doping or corruption ever produced by the multi billion dollar industry that is "football journalism".

 

[Dr. Maserati]

A so called 'decline in doping' is due to the testing being ***.

So, by that rationale the testing was better in previous times.
How good was as an xample the EPO test in 1996, or in 2001 and after 2006.
The same, better?

Wonder how many other sports are up there in the 900s.

Since the early 80's, good question - let us know what you find out.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

nice bit of spinning.

Thanks - from you that's a compliment, but I wasn't really happy with it because the source was not quoted.

But I suppose it was good how they used the site without linking and left out how long back the 983 number comes from and then how I used a different statistic from the very same website and they want to dismiss that.

 

[sniper]

Thanks - from you that's a compliment, but I wasn't really happy with it because the source was not quoted.

But I suppose it was good how they used the site without linking and left out how long back the 983 number comes from and then how I used a different statistic from the very same website and they want to dismiss that.

the way u interpreted those dopeology data, jv would ve been proud

 

[the sceptic]

I guess JV personally made sure that the testing would become worse, so that his speeds are down mantra would become true

(just kidding)

 

[Benotti69]

So, by that rationale the testing was better in previous times.
How good was as an xample the EPO test in 1996, or in 2001 and after 2006.
The same, better?

Where did i say a decline in the testing quality.

I said the testing.

 

[pmcg76]

Where did i say a decline in the testing quality.

I said the testing.

Care to hazard a guess of what % those 983 links to doping represent of the overall number of pro riders there have been in the same time frame. Pure guessing I would say 20%.

 

[Benotti69]

Care to hazard a guess of what % those 983 links to doping represent of the overall number of pro riders there have been in the same time frame. Pure guessing I would say 20%.

Imagine the % if the testing was any good, the testers competent and the federation was truly anti doping. It might then have been less than 5% because doping wouldn't pay. But doping does pay. Look at JV, Riis, Hincapie, Zabel, Bettini, Cipollini, etc

 

[pmcg76]

Imagine the % if the testing was any good, the testers competent and the federation was truly anti doping. It might then have been less than 5% because doping wouldn't pay. But doping does pay. Look at JV, Riis, Hincapie, Zabel, Bettini, Cipollini, etc

There are a loads of people who doped to the gills who don't have the profile of those guys so saying doping pays is a fallacy to start.

If as many guys dope as you always harp on about, there are a lot of dopers who had very short career's and made very little money out of it. Anyone care to remember Erwann Mentheour, Farederic Pontier, Alain Vandenbosche, Graziano Gasparre etc, etc.

Doping pays if you make it big which would still be the case even if there were no doping. There are also people who didn't dope who went on to make successful careers in other lines of work and whilst they might not have the profile they would have had if they remained in cycling, they done pretty well for themselves. Isn't Scott Mercier pretty successful in his line of work for example.

 

[neineinei]

Wow, 983 people thats a lot.
You must be right so that its like shooting fish in a barrell.

Although I did g=find this website called dopeology, its really good and it has statistics showing a decline in doping over the years.
Anyway, let is know the one you have so we can compare. Thanks

Ignoring any and all sarcasm and irony I'd like to point out that while 1998 was looking like a very bad year one year ago too, it still looks worse now. The French Senate report revealed a lot of new cases. Before that there were the USADA reasoned decision which revealed a lot of old doping, and so on. If there seems to be a decline in doping cases now it might just be that the bad stuff hasn't been revealed yet. If anything, cycling has taught us that something looking better now might look bad in a decade or so, and that revealing doping in cycling is a slow process.

 

[sniper]

snipped for brevity

In cycling the dopers have made and continue go make most money, by far, compared to the nondopers. I hope ur not trying to deny this?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I have always wondered how an illness would impact on the BP especially if it was a blood related disorder.

Very true of course.

But, JTL had Epstein Barr in the past, with my basic understanding of medicine this also [like some other riders tropic disease] effects the white bloodcells, the immune system. I am not sure that would be tested by the vultures of the UCI, or if it has effect on the red blood/hemoglobine etc etc.

And, I think when a rider gets a relapse of Epstein Barr I dont think he could or would be training slash racing, he did have more race days this year in comparison to last years.

On the other hand, how can a reliable BP be set up for a rider who got in the testing pool in september 2012? And, according to the articles, his values of the last four months of last season are suspect? What are those four months? Pre - september? When he wasnt in the BP pool? Or september till december when he supposedly was under the wings of team sky according to Smith?

 

[Almeisan]

It would be very easy to also test the blood for leukocytes and use those values to partially explain (or leave unexplained) erythrocyte fluctuations.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

On the other hand, how can a reliable BP be set up for a rider who got in the testing pool in september 2012? And, according to the articles, his values of the last four months of last season are suspect? What are those four months? Pre - september? When he wasnt in the BP pool? Or september till december when he supposedly was under the wings of team sky according to Smith?

While it isn't clear, it's obvious that it has taken best part of a year for them to obtain enough testing on him to establish what they feel is a usable baseline, and that some of his 2012 test results are highly incongruous with that. After all, biopassport violations does not mean that everything is about what has happened since he was on the biopassport, since surely the test results prior to the entry into the biopassport have to be kept on record somewhere. Once an established baseline is set under the biopassport they can then look at those previous tests, which may have shown absolutely nothing at the time, to see if there are any suspicious fluctuations in values (or not fluctuations, but if there are significant differences between those figures and the figures on the biopassport). After all, to pick some random numbers, if a guy is averaging 40% HCT for a whole year with a variance of around 2%, then if they look back at tests from pre-biopass days to find him averaging 46%, those figures then look suspicious, whereas a small number of isolated tests where he's averaging 46% can be explained away.

That could also explain why it's taken so long to get to this point, like with Amorim or Ribeiro, who don't do that much racing, and so establishing a credible baseline then searching for anomalies has taken more time.

 

[Benotti69]

How do BP establish an 'honest' stable baseline for a rider that is doping?

So many riders are on inhalers, so many had HcTs claimed to be normal 48/49%.

Why would BP be any different in that riders will try to maximise their figures to gain maximum advantage?

That JTL's BP has been flagged and Froome's, Wigans or Horner's hasn't is a tad strange.

 

[EnacheV]

That JTL's BP has been flagged and Froome's, Wigans or Horner's hasn't is a tad strange.

That's because JTL is either a doper or has some health problems, while the other 3 are not dopers and also not having health issues that could affect BP numbers.

Pretty simple.

What i find strange is your chosen names to make the strange list.

 

[Benotti69]

That's because JTL is either a doper or has some health problems, while the other 3 are not dopers and also not having health issues that could affect BP numbers.

Pretty simple.

Only thing simple in the cesspit is that nothing is what it seems.

What i find strange is your chosen names to make the strange list.

2 Grupetto riders to the podium of the TdF and old man Horner winning a GT. Nothing strange there!

 

[EnacheV]

2 Grupetto riders to the podium of the TdF and old man Horner winning a GT. Nothing strange there!

All riders are grupetto at first. Stop playing the same old tired song. I'm already bored to tears about the same 1-2 empty subjective theories that are repeated over 1000's of posts. They might be doping but your theory "signals" are worthless.

 

[maltiv]

All riders are grupetto at first. Stop playing the same old tired song. I'm already bored to tears about the same 1-2 empty subjective theories that are repeated over 1000's of posts. They might be doping but your theory "signals" are worthless.

That's not true at all. Lots of (natural?) talents go straight from amateurs to being in the front groups of professional racing. Sagan won 2 stages in P-N after being pro for just a couple of months, EBH won the first professional ITT he ever started in C-I, Henao was 9th in the Giro in his first professional season, Nibali was top 20 in his first GT, etc etc.

It's just in the last couple of years that going from being in the grupetto at 25 or whatever to being a GT contender has started to seem like the norm. But it's not.

 

[EnacheV]

That's not true at all. Lots of (natural?) talents go straight from amateurs to being in the front groups of professional racing. Sagan won 2 stages in P-N after being pro for just a couple of months, EBH won the first professional ITT he ever started in C-I, Henao was 9th in the Giro in his first professional season, Nibali was top 20 in his first GT, etc etc.

It's just in the last couple of years that going from being in the grupetto at 25 or whatever to being a GT contender has started to seem like the norm. But it's not.

Winning your first race is more of a sign of youth doping. I rather trust a slow evolution rather than youth wonders crushing opposition immediately after they stop using pampers.

You see, i can turn it around just fine.

The idea is that i'm bored to hear 1000's times the same subjective opinion presented as fact and doping clue.

 

[hrotha]

Well nothing about Wiggins or Froome's evolutions was "slow".

And by dismissing young talents as simply early dopers you're going against the whole history of the sport before the 90s.

 

[maltiv]

Winning your first race is more of a sign of youth doping. I rather trust a slow evolution rather than youth wonders crushing opposition immediately after they stop using pampers.

You see, i can turn it around just fine.

The idea is that i'm bored to hear 1000's times the same subjective opinion presented as fact and doping clue.

If that were the case, then guys like Merckx, Hinault, Lemond etc (who might have doped, but nothing major) would develop "slowly", no? I'm not saying that the guys I mentioned went straight into dominating, but they were always good. Since then they have developed slowly. Nibali went gradually from a guy who was always top 20 in GTs, to top 10, to top 3.

Also, you kind of screwed up your own argument by admitting that you think "slow evolution" is the most plausible, as guys like Froome haven't had slow evolution at all (more like the most dramatic increase in performance the sport has ever seen)