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

[sniper]

Where are they doing that exactly? And how do we know they didn't? He was having regular blood tests at the end of 2012 season, and it's the disparity between those and the ones this season that has caused the UCI to write and ask him to explain them. I don't know how Sky or Garmin are supposed to be able to pick up the same suspicious values from ambiguous testing either did in April and May last year.

this is what walsh says:

Tiernan-Locke went for a week’s training with the Sky team in Tenerife and on March 26 last year he had blood and physiological testing with the Garmin operation.

no mention of sky testing him, yet that is what JTL claims.
seems it could be JTL's word against brailsford's.

 

[argyllflyer]

this is what walsh says:

no mention of sky testing him, yet that is what JTL claims.
seems it could be JTL's word against brailsford's.

But again, what would they compare it against? It has taken a year to get a record of what is considered 'normal' for JTL - it's the inconsistency of his 2012 figures to 2013 that is being picked up. If JTL juiced to win ToB, that's highly unlikely to be at DB's suggestion "c'mon Jon - a bit of the magic Sky juice and we'll give you a contract".

 

[DirtyWorks]

JTL's adverse finding triggering the possible PB violation is by comparing his baseline values from this season against the ones taken at the end of last season.
...
To me the fact his baseline values this year are lower ...

What is your source for the bolded allegation? I might have missed the source.

 

[DirtyWorks]

But again, what would they compare it against? It has taken a year to get a record of what is considered 'normal' for JTL - it's the inconsistency of his 2012 figures to 2013 that is being picked up. If JTL juiced to win ToB, that's highly unlikely to be at DB's suggestion "c'mon Jon - a bit of the magic Sky juice and we'll give you a contract".

I don't think anyone but yourself is making the claim Brailsford was urging him to dope. What it is is another fact that debunks the legend of Sky's thoroughness and scientific basis for every decision B.S.

 

[sniper]

But again, what would they compare it against? It has taken a year to get a record of what is considered 'normal' for JTL - it's the inconsistency of his 2012 figures to 2013 that is being picked up. If JTL juiced to win ToB, that's highly unlikely to be at DB's suggestion "c'mon Jon - a bit of the magic Sky juice and we'll give you a contract".

i don't disagree.
the question is why sky, or why walsh, doesn't mention sky testing him before hiring him. rather the story is sky depended on garmin's testing.

 

[sniper]

...What it is is another fact that debunks the legend of Sky's thoroughness and scientific basis for every decision B.S.

this at any rate.

 

[argyllflyer]

I don't think anyone but yourself is making the claim Brailsford was urging him to dope. What it is is another fact that debunks the legend of Sky's thoroughness and scientific basis for every decision B.S.

Of course, but what can they do? With no historic BP, any data they collected, provided it was within normal limits would be just that - data within normal limits. It seems that the data the UCI have collected shows his natural level is not what he was in 2012. Again, I don't see what else Sky could have done apart from make the decision to never sign a rider who wasn't subject to the BP, which would close off the u23s as an avenue of talent I think and Dombrowski/Boswell/Edmondson haven't tripped any wires.

 

[King Boonen]

Maybe it is. It's also a well known term for ... er.. physiological tests. Such as an ECG, stepping on a set of scales or taking a temperature. Why not be specific ?

Because then pendants wouldn't have something to try and de-rail threads with.

Serious answer, probably because the list is too ling and boring to trot out all the time.

 

[sniper]

Of course, but what can they do? With no historic BP, any data they collected, provided it was within normal limits would be just that - data within normal limits. It seems that the data the UCI have collected shows his natural level is not what he was in 2012. Again, I don't see what else Sky could have done apart from make the decision to never sign a rider who wasn't subject to the BP, which would close off the u23s as an avenue of talent I think and Dombrowski/Boswell/Edmondson haven't tripped any wires.

they could have tested him.
according to walsh they didn't.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Of course, but what can they do? With no historic BP, any data they collected, provided it was within normal limits would be just that - data within normal limits. It seems that the data the UCI have collected shows his natural level is not what he was in 2012. Again, I don't see what else Sky could have done apart from make the decision to never sign a rider who wasn't subject to the BP, which would close off the u23s as an avenue of talent I think and Dombrowski/Boswell/Edmondson haven't tripped any wires.

While I agree with what you are saying, if JV1973's posts are believable, then he claims some insight into the cleanliness of riders is based on limited specific testing. The story suggests JV is not the only DS one that operates in this manner.

Circling back to the BC/Sky super-science-creates-super-field-destroying-cyclists myth, maybe Brailsford "looked him in the eyes" and saw a champion??

It will be interesting if Sky goes to the trouble of assembling a story and what that story might be.

 

[The Cobra]

this is what walsh says:

Tiernan-Locke went for a week’s training with the Sky team in Tenerife and on March 26 last year he had blood and physiological testing with the Garmin operation.

no mention of sky testing him, yet that is what JTL claims.
seems it could be JTL's word against brailsford's.

That doesn't say that Sky didn't test him at the camp though does it? I read it as he went to the Sky camp where they checked him out, in addition to that Garmin also did some tests on him. Quite different from what you're claiming.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

Because then pendants wouldn't have something to try and de-rail threads with.

Serious answer, probably because the list is too ling and boring to trot out all the time.

Not trying to be pedantic or derail the thread

Endura have put out a press release to basically say they are a clean team and wouldn't tolerate doping . They are trying to add weight to this by saying that JTL underwent some form of testing by Sky and / or Garmin and therefore if those teams were prepared to sign him they must be seeing the similar data to what Endura were seeing.

If they want people to believe their account they should, in my opinion, be specific. Assuming we are talking about dope tests - state sample dates, and what was tested (blood ? urine ? hair ?). Furthermore, their argument basically depends on these details. If it turned out these other teams tested, say, just one blood sample that would render Endura's point pretty meaningless - a single data point and just another dope test passed. If on the other hand Sky / Garmin conducted many blood and urine tests over a period of time then they would have a better argument.

 

[DirtyWorks]

They are trying to add weight to this by saying that JTL underwent some form of testing by Sky and / or Garmin and therefore if those teams were prepared to sign him they must be seeing the similar data to what Endura were seeing.

Testing by itself means nothing though. Teams must test lots of new guys few of which ever make it to the World Tour for 1000 different reasons.

It seems to me the references to Sky and Garmin are trying to somehow legitimize the guy when there's no good way to do it in a situation terribly short on facts and a federation that has no clear pattern of behaviour regarding suspicious or even positive results.

 

[King Boonen]

Not trying to be pedantic or derail the thread

Endura have put out a press release to basically say they are a clean team and wouldn't tolerate doping . They are trying to add weight to this by saying that JTL underwent some form of testing by Sky and / or Garmin and therefore if those teams were prepared to sign him they must be seeing the similar data to what Endura were seeing.

If they want people to believe their account they should, in my opinion, be specific. Assuming we are talking about dope tests - state sample dates, and what was tested (blood ? urine ? hair ?). Furthermore, their argument basically depends on these details. If it turned out these other teams tested, say, just one blood sample that would render Endura's point pretty meaningless - a single data point and just another dope test passed. If on the other hand Sky / Garmin conducted many blood and urine tests over a period of time then they would have a better argument.

It'll become a reductive argument though. If they say blood then what blood tests. How often? How many samples. Each press release would read like monthly lab report.

Physiological tests is broad and encompassing, but with a sport like cycling it's pretty safe to assume dope testing, of many different varieties, was done.

 

[rata de sentina]

While I agree with what you are saying, if JV1973's posts are believable, then he claims some insight into the cleanliness of riders is based on limited specific testing. The story suggests JV is not the only DS one that operates in this manner.

This is not at all inconsistent with what we know of the biopassport. The level of evidence that a diligent team manager intent on recruiting 'clean' riders is looking for is altogether less than what is required to launch a biopassport case or even a "please explain". We know for a fact that biopassport threshold is set very conservatively and somewhat subjective. Team management can afford to use different criteria.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Not defending SKY or Garmin here but I tend to agree with this. A one-off test surely doesn't really tell anyone anything unless a rider has a high ht or something. Surely a series of test's is needed to draw any conclusions and I am sure that guys like Brian Smith would know that. If a series of test's were indeed conducted then yes, the team's doing the testing would have more responsibility, in this case SKY/Garming though it seem's like SKY had far more contact with JTL.

And yet JV posts this very thing: 1 day's worth of testing via a ramp test, with blood tests either side, and noone bats an eye lid.

JV's prelude to the account of this testing was, "here's how you tell someone is the real deal".

Wouldn't surprise me at all if he did the same with JTL and declared him "legit'.

 

[Cycle Chic]

He was target tested at and after the Tour of Britain. I do not see any mention of a Biopassport violation, maybe it is his Offscore?

They can also use his tests from 2012, in combination with BP tests from 2013, and show a pattern of manipulation

just re-reading the thread..and I cant believe the UCI, from what we know about their lax testing, would go to the trouble of the above post by RR.

And if they,ve done it for JTL surely Froome would be far more suspicious.

More likely they are worried that JTL was one of many who went under the radar and they are now making him 'an example'.

 

[sniper]

there can be little doubt that there is politics involved here.
quite intriguing.

JTL said he'd do everything to find out who leaked this.
Hope he drops us a line when he finds out.

 

[horsinabout]

No. A thousand times no. It's not expensive. It's risky, but not expensive. The days of steroids and expensive EPO are probably gone. HGH has been mostly replaced with cheap and mostly legit elitropins or riptropins. (check the spelling on those)

The risk is in messing with your body's normal parameters and bloodwork.
http://www.healthtestingcenters.com/hgh.aspx $79 USD for an HGH ratio test. Look further down that page. Dozens of tests used to check you don't cross WADA thresholds.
Try saveonlabs.com or privatemdlabs.com too.

The tests themselves are cheap with plenty of totally legal public services to run them. Perhaps another risk is if the lab's process isn't WADA compliant.

Note, I said compliant, not certified. WADA's standards are public documents. A lab could set up to run tests just like a WADA lab. It's going to be a little more expensive, but the tests themselves are commercial products anyway. So everything an athlete and lab needs to never test positive is available. Just don't fail the rudimentary IQ test.

Come to the clinic on cyclingnews forum for all your doping advice, where to buy, what to take, correct doses, how to avoid detection and cheat the system.
See Dirty Works, the resident consultant who can guide you in the right direct for up to the minute doping products at affordable prices, all links shown above. With a modicum of natural talant you can take on the world, however causion!!
It is a dirty business, as your advisers name implies, a dirty piece of works....

 

[WillemS]

And if they,ve done it for JTL surely Froome would be far more suspicious.

Froome's variance might be more suspicious, I don't know. However, even if we assume that Froome's values are more suspicious than JTL's and the JTL accusations are politically motivated, it should not be a surprise that it's JTL who got a letter and not Froome. Accusing Froome would be the worst possible move, from a political and financial point of view, for the UCI, as it would basically destroy the last bit of credibility cycling has in the eyes of the general public. Bye-bye multinationals investing in cycling teams, bye-bye media exposure, bye-bye professional cycling. In the eyes of the public, things are getting better.

I know the thought has occurred earlier in the thread, but it might be that the UCI is singling out a more or less unknown rider, from the perspective of the casual and general public, to make a statement to teams/riders that things are changing, that will not penetrate the general public that much. Singling out a former Tour de France winner would make headlines all over Europe and quite probably the United States of America; JTL will not reach that many people, thus they avoid the risk of frighting off the last remaining big sponsors.

 

[Cycle Chic]

Froome's variance might be more suspicious, I don't know. However, even if we assume that Froome's values are more suspicious than JTL's and the JTL accusations are politically motivated, it should not be a surprise that it's JTL who got a letter and not Froome. Accusing Froome would be the worst possible move, from a political and financial point of view, for the UCI, as it would basically destroy the last bit of credibility cycling has in the eyes of the general public. Bye-bye multinationals investing in cycling teams, bye-bye media exposure, bye-bye professional cycling. In the eyes of the public, things are getting better.

I know the thought has occurred earlier in the thread, but it might be that the UCI is singling out a more or less unknown rider, from the perspective of the casual and general public, to make a statement to teams/riders that things are changing, that will not penetrate the general public that much. Singling out a former Tour de France winner would make headlines all over Europe and quite probably the United States of America; JTL will not reach that many people, thus they avoid the risk of frighting off the last remaining big sponsors.

good points

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I know the thought has occurred earlier in the thread, but it might be that the UCI is singling out a more or less unknown rider, from the perspective of the casual and general public, to make a statement to teams/riders that things are changing, that will not penetrate the general public that much. Singling out a former Tour de France winner would make headlines all over Europe and quite probably the United States of America; JTL will not reach that many people, thus they avoid the risk of frighting off the last remaining big sponsors.

I wrote something very similar under the most recent "article":

This is a choice move. The link between McQuaid's brother and JTL is well known. JTL was having the best or dodgiest year of his career, out of the blue, last year, and landed the big gig with Sky.

As a new UCI president having to confront the established hierarchies and players (team managers, agents, riders, doctors, etc), I call this a master stroke.

As pointed out, there are lots of other Andrew McQuaid cyclists, but JTL is bottom of the ladder in terms of results. So if they have a go at JTL they

1. appear independent because it's a Sky rider though with plausible deniability for Brailsford
2. give Andrew McQuaid, et al, notice that the new guy is no push over and you need to be on your best behaviour
3. provide an example to the riders, of the sort of tough stance on doping or potential doping you are prepared to take (see also the George's appeal)
4. don't really upset the apple cart in terms of legitimate pro-tour level cyclists (imagine the fallout if Porte was under the same scrutiny) as JTL is a small fish and not on anyone's radar

It's just a theory, but the pieces do seem quite fortuitous for the new UCI Pres. It's WIN-WIN-WIN.

 

[del1962]

I wrote something very similar under the most recent "article":

This is a choice move. The link between McQuaid's brother and JTL is well known. JTL was having the best or dodgiest year of his career, out of the blue, last year, and landed the big gig with Sky.

As a new UCI president having to confront the established hierarchies and players (team managers, agents, riders, doctors, etc), I call this a master stroke.

As pointed out, there are lots of other Andrew McQuaid cyclists, but JTL is bottom of the ladder in terms of results. So if they have a go at JTL they

1. appear independent because it's a Sky rider though with plausible deniability for Brailsford
2. give Andrew McQuaid, et al, notice that the new guy is no push over and you need to be on your best behaviour
3. provide an example to the riders, of the sort of tough stance on doping or potential doping you are prepared to take (see also the George's appeal)
4. don't really upset the apple cart in terms of legitimate pro-tour level cyclists (imagine the fallout if Porte was under the same scrutiny) as JTL is a small fish and not on anyone's radar

It's just a theory, but the pieces do seem quite fortuitous for the new UCI Pres. It's WIN-WIN-WIN.

The big flaw in this theory is the request to JTL came while PMcQ was still president.

The problem is that this has been leaked when it should not have been failing to give the rider the confidentiality he deserves while giving his explanation, there are three possible sources of this, his agent, someone within the team and someone at the UCI.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The problem is that this has been leaked when it should not have been failing to give the rider the confidentiality he deserves while giving his explanation, there are three possible sources of this, his agent, someone within the team and someone at the UCI.

Zorzoli leaked Armstrong's 1999 test results.

Things like this get leaked all the time, it's almost SOP. Pretty sad, really.

 

[sniper]

I wrote something very similar under the most recent "article":

This is a choice move. The link between McQuaid's brother and JTL is well known. JTL was having the best or dodgiest year of his career, out of the blue, last year, and landed the big gig with Sky.

As a new UCI president having to confront the established hierarchies and players (team managers, agents, riders, doctors, etc), I call this a master stroke.

As pointed out, there are lots of other Andrew McQuaid cyclists, but JTL is bottom of the ladder in terms of results. So if they have a go at JTL they

1. appear independent because it's a Sky rider though with plausible deniability for Brailsford
2. give Andrew McQuaid, et al, notice that the new guy is no push over and you need to be on your best behaviour
3. provide an example to the riders, of the sort of tough stance on doping or potential doping you are prepared to take (see also the George's appeal)
4. don't really upset the apple cart in terms of legitimate pro-tour level cyclists (imagine the fallout if Porte was under the same scrutiny) as JTL is a small fish and not on anyone's radar

It's just a theory, but the pieces do seem quite fortuitous for the new UCI Pres. It's WIN-WIN-WIN.

good thinking as always.
but does the chronology of events support this?
Like del1962 also seems to wonder, could the letter to JTL carry cookson's signature if he wasn't president yet?