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

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

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.

You must have loved Santambroggio's progress overwinter then, it was less of an improvement than Froome's or JTL [the topic at hand here] though. And as said, overwinter, not within a month. Yet he got busted for good ol' Edgar.

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.

I understand that. Lets just say we, or shall I say I, dont have enough information on the period JTL is subject of.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

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.

It's also very hypocritical for somebody who aggressively opposes the Clinic's oft-used "guilty until presumed innocent" approach. So people who were successful from youth are signs of doping, and people who turn from rags to riches are not to be questioned.

 

[pmcg76]

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?

Clearly that is not what I said, Benotti said doping pays and listed a number of guys who have nice positions/lifestyles. Yes those guys doped and were successful, thus the nice rewards but they were also loads of dopers who didn't get results and are not rich of famous but ended up on the scrapheap. Thus doping does not always pay.

Doping also screwed up people's lives as well, Gaumont, Vandenbroucke, Pantani but it could be argued these guys suffered from psychological issues that went deeper than doping.

 

[martinvickers]

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.

Froome was top 35 in his second GT, first Giro. What's your point?

 

[BroDeal]

Froome was top 35 in his second GT, first Giro. What's your point?

What is the difference between thirty-fifth and sixtieth? Who rides hard so he can get thirty-fifth instead of thirty-sixth? No one. Well, Froome evidently did while surrounded by riders who were dogging climbs after doing their job as domestiques.

 

[sniper]

Clearly that is not what I said, Benotti said doping pays and listed a number of guys who have nice positions/lifestyles. Yes those guys doped and were successful, thus the nice rewards but they were also loads of dopers who didn't get results and are not rich of famous but ended up on the scrapheap. Thus doping does not always pay.

Doping also screwed up people's lives as well, Gaumont, Vandenbroucke, Pantani but it could be argued these guys suffered from psychological issues that went deeper than doping.

obviously not all dopers hit the jackpot.
but the athletes that do hit the jackpot are almost always dopers.

you may think i'm exaggerating, but i think many proathletes see doping as a sine qua non. if you dope, you give yourself chances to make a living with your sport. get rich or die trying.
a large number would be without a job if they weren't pro-athletes, and they wouldn't be very good pro-athletes if they weren't doping.
therefore, to most proathletes, any moral/fairplay considerations will play only the smallest of roles in their decision to dope or not.

and inquiries confirm this, like the one discussed in that other thread which shows how many would dope to win a gold medal even if it meant a shorter life.

i think the (the attraction/temptation to dope) is much deeper rooted in prosport than most are willing to acknowledge.

 

[Benotti69]

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.

So Adam Yates = Doper. 2nd this years Tour L'avenir.

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.

we are talking about cycling you dont appear to understand that.

Not all riders are grupetto fodder in the beginning. Plenty of evidence in the history pre epo that the cream and talent rose to the top from a young age.

If you are bored with the clinic....why bother trying to defend the indefensible. As for repeated arguements, it is becuase of the tired old defence of riders and teams who have questions that they fail to answer because they are cheating and doping.

 

[Benotti69]

Clearly that is not what I said, Benotti said doping pays and listed a number of guys who have nice positions/lifestyles. Yes those guys doped and were successful, thus the nice rewards but they were also loads of dopers who didn't get results and are not rich of famous but ended up on the scrapheap. Thus doping does not always pay.

Doping also screwed up people's lives as well, Gaumont, Vandenbroucke, Pantani but it could be argued these guys suffered from psychological issues that went deeper than doping.

Pantani made a lot of money from the sport.

Doping did pay those who didn't get results as most got contracts.

The sport only ever 'enriched' a few until relatively recently. Most 'stars' opened bike shops or bars or bought a hotel. Some started bike companies but not many were successful at that. That riders ended up on scrapheaps had nothing to do with the dope but do with their bad choices.

 

[martinvickers]

What is the difference between thirty-fifth and sixtieth? Who rides hard so he can get thirty-fifth instead of thirty-sixth? No one. Well, Froome evidently did while surrounded by riders who were dogging climbs after doing their job as domestiques.

I'm sure you have a point. When you ever feel like making it in plain english, let me know.

 

[BroDeal]

I'm sure you have a point. When you ever feel like making it in plain english, let me know.

I do not think you could understand it since you are intent on using a placing beyond which any rider cares about to prove GT talent.

 

[MarkvW]

What is the difference between thirty-fifth and sixtieth? Who rides hard so he can get thirty-fifth instead of thirty-sixth? No one. Well, Froome evidently did while surrounded by riders who were dogging climbs after doing their job as domestiques.

(1) 25
(2) A rider who is using the race to train (as opposed to race).

I really don't see your point, either.

 

[thehog]

Surely there's easier ways to manage a rider out of a team without releasing rumours that potentially damage the team too.

Personally I think it's someone looking to embarrass BC, Cookson and Sky, esp given the timing. Cookson gets the presidency, a British rider has to explain his blood values the day after.

Possible. But if we are to believe the JTL leak was deliberately made by the UCI then the same could be done to protect riders.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Since I was already reading WADA's Operating Guidelines, it documents how JTL was contacted and why it's probably a positive. The ADO in this case is the UCI, not WADA.

The review at this stage is anonymous, however it is accepted that in some
cases some specific information provided may allow one to identify the
Athlete. This shall not affect the validity of the process.
The ADO will then be responsible for:

a) Advising the Athlete and WADA that the Anti-Doping Organization is
considering the assertion of an anti-doping rule violation against
the Athlete;
b) Providing the Athlete and WADA the Athlete Biological Passport
Documentation Package; and
c) Inviting the Athlete to provide his/her own explanation, in a timely
manner, of the data provided to the ADO.

 

[EnacheV]

any real news on this

was 2-3 weeks to explain, already almost passed

 

[Race Radio]

any real news on this

was 2-3 weeks to explain, already almost passed

Here are a few things

It can be said this is a Biopassport case. The abnormal numbers were last year but it took them multiple tests to solidify their position.

I do not have the exact numbers but I understand that 40 of these "Come in and explain" letters have been sent out over the years. They are not an official violation, but a request for more information. Few result in a sanction, I think only 4 have.

Sky has hired the big dogs to analysis the numbers and participate in the case.

I think he walks without a sanction. While if JTL doped or not will be discussed endlessly I think the bigger question is the complete lack of due diligence SKY performed when hiring a rider that many in the sport were questioning.

 

[sniper]

I think he walks without a sanction. While if JTL doped or not will be discussed endlessly I think the bigger question is the complete lack of due diligence SKY performed when hiring a rider that many in the sport were questioning.

can we be sure there was a lack of due diligence or could they just be saying that?
lack of due diligence still looks better than having to admit they tested him thoroughly and still hired him in spite of dodgy blood values.

 

[Race Radio]

can we be sure there was a lack of due diligence or could they just be saying that?
lack of due diligence still looks better than having to admit they tested him thoroughly and still hired him in spite of dodgy blood values.

I have not heard of anything that would lead credence to that theory, but if is the case it would be very significant. For now a quote by Napoleon comes to mind

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

 

[sniper]

I have not heard of anything that would lead credence to that theory, but if is the case it would be very significant. For now a quote by Napoleon comes to mind

Cheers to that.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I think he walks without a sanction. While if JTL doped or not will be discussed endlessly I think the bigger question is the complete lack of due diligence SKY performed when hiring a rider that many in the sport were questioning.

You don't understand Sky's decision making paradigm. It's so scientific sharing it with mere mortals like you only ends in misery. Or, it's perfectly normal. Whatever fits best.

A positive would be bad for business.

 

[Freddythefrog]

You don't understand Sky's decision making paradigm. It's so scientific sharing it with mere mortals like you only ends in misery. Or, it's perfectly normal. Whatever fits best.

A positive would be bad for business.

Lovin' it !

RR You need to have witnessed Brailsford and Sutton in action close up for a few years to understand that all this bleating about JTL is just the same wheel on another rotation, just like Leinders, Yates etc. were. "I wuz shocked" - Brailsford last year.

The rule is - do what you want but don't implicate the project, we will provide the medical back up to give you the best service in analysing exactly where you are, in relation to the limits, at any given time. Don't go over them on any event we have to make public, otherwise you are bust. A convenient account is that JTL had to scale down his program this year to keep within the limits. That might or might not be true but Walsh ran the story after speaking to Brailsford. It suited them both so much.

OK here is another one for you all. My hypotheses is that Cookson elects to be naive to what is going on (exactly in the same way he sat on his hands for so many years as UCI rep when he could have been proactive asking for the accounts re the LA donation or stopping the action against Kimmage) . He is a shrewd politician elsewhere but he chooses to believe what Brailsford tells him, that everyone, as far as he knows, is clean and they do all they can to hire clean riders and keep them clean. Odd bad apple etc. That way Cookson can hold tight onto the idea that Sky/BC are clean The odd guy like Hayles trips the limit.

 

[Race Radio]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...ine-to-explain-blood-readings-approaches.html

JTL given an extension

 

[JRanton]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...ine-to-explain-blood-readings-approaches.html

JTL given an extension

Well that's handy.

 

[martinvickers]

Well that's handy.

He's not racing so he can't really 'do any more damage', even if he is a doper. I understand such extensions are easily enough gained if you can find any prima facie evidence that you might have an explanation; JTL's people seem to have some sort of 'virus' hypothesis, so no harm really giving them time to sink or swim...

one can be TOO cycnical, you know..

 

[vedrafjord]

Here are a few things

It can be said this is a Biopassport case. The abnormal numbers were last year but it took them multiple tests to solidify their position.

I do not have the exact numbers but I understand that 40 of these "Come in and explain" letters have been sent out over the years. They are not an official violation, but a request for more information. Few result in a sanction, I think only 4 have.

Sky has hired the big dogs to analysis the numbers and participate in the case.

I think he walks without a sanction. While if JTL doped or not will be discussed endlessly I think the bigger question is the complete lack of due diligence SKY performed when hiring a rider that many in the sport were questioning.

I think the bigger question is: considering how strict the criteria are for starting a passport case in the first place (3 experts separately agree it looks like doping, then they get background info, then they have to unanimously agree again), how is it that only 4 of the 40 that were flagged have been sanctioned? And how many of them are winners of big events?

 

[sniper]

I think the bigger question is: considering how strict the criteria are for starting a passport case in the first place (3 experts separately agree it looks like doping, then they get background info, then they have to unanimously agree again), how is it that only 4 of the 40 that were flagged have been sanctioned? And how many of them are winners of big events?

Bingo
Urgent questions right here.