Media amnesia and reactions

[sniper]

No, let's not pretend.
I believe HV hid positives & McQ backs him in that and other corrupt actions.
But the ability to "hide positives" since WADA in 04 is almost impossible.

But more to the point YOU mentioned Sky, why only them?


I am not interested in what you think, you said Ashenden "dismissed the bio passport as not working".
I am asking where he said that.

you should at least hold your own posts up to the same standards, doc.
Ive lost count of the times u wrongly put words into peoples mouths.

as for ashenden, he,s gone on the record explaining how the passport failed to flag armstrong. do ur homework. Obviiusly "the passport" here (and in benottis post) stands for the whole system responsibl for the passport.. Pars pro toto or somethihg. Look it up.

 

[Benotti69]

No, let's not pretend.
I believe HV hid positives & McQ backs him in that and other corrupt actions.
But the ability to "hide positives" since WADA in 04 is almost impossible.

But more to the point YOU mentioned Sky, why only them?

Why not?

As for hiding positives. Did you forget Contador's?

I am not interested in what you think, you said Ashenden "dismissed the bio passport as not working".
I am asking where he said that.

Michael Ashenden explains this:

“It won’t catch every single rider who had doped. A large part of this is due to the margins of tolerance we must allow to ensure that riders are not wrongly accused of doping – which means that there are riders who we suspect are doping after we’ve reviewed their profile, but these riders are not sanctioned via the Passport because we must allow a large margin of tolerance. They are however closely targeted, which increases the likelihood that they will be caught in the future.”

To the 1st bold bit, that to me means not working.

2nd bold bit. Well the dopers will generally get caught by retroactive testing, if samples are kept.

But McQuaid controls anti doping so how can it work.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Because I think the holes in the biopassport system are a massively important issue for clean cycling, I'll post a couple articles here.

Source

Source

Source

Source

edit-
To be fair, Ashenden has said some positive things about the passport. It's not that it is useless. But it's also hardly the silver bullet the UCI likes us to think it is. The system could be improved.

A nice Ashenden piece on how the biopassport system works is here

Which was Benottis point when Benotti said Ashenden "dismissed the bio passport as not working".

The Passport works well and your post shows that Ashenden wants more and better testing with it. Don't confuse the role of the UCI/McQ/HV with how the passport works.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

you should at least hold your own posts up to the same standards, doc.
Ive lost count of the times u wrongly put words into peoples mouths.

I didn't -but whatever count you came up with is less than the number of times you failed to explain what you meant Kittel having 'Anglos-saxon bias' - you can take it up on the appropriate thread if you wish to finally clarify it.

as for ashenden, he,s gone on the record explaining how the passport failed to flag armstrong. do ur homework. Obviiusly "the passport" here (and in benottis post) stands for the whole system responsibl for the passport.. Pars pro toto or somethihg. Look it up.

This would be the same Passport that USADA said shows there was a million to one chance that LA did not dope?

The Passport works fine, Ashenden has no problem with it and never dismissed it as not working - it is because it works that they were not given the full set of data. Keep up.

 

[Beech Mtn]

As long as we're talking about the problems within the biopassport system, as administered by the UCI, here's this (old) article:

David Howman, WADA's director general, said that in the last three weeks, the organization has taken steps to allow its staff to begin monitoring the blood and urine profiles of the sport's elite riders that are collected through the sport's Biological Passport program—and to push for sanctions when necessary.

"Our job is to make sure the system isn't being sidestepped," Mr. Howman said. "We have the right of intervening if we think cases aren't being prosecuted appropriately."

The move reflects a growing concern in the antidoping community that the International Cycling Union, or UCI, the governing body of the sport which is charged with administering the Passport program, has not been following procedures correctly and is not doing a satisfactory job of cracking down on cheating.

If drug testers see anything that suggests a rider's blood has been manipulated, the rider's data, which is identified by a code to ensure anonymity, is sent to members of the independent panel, whose members include some of the top names in the antidoping community.

If the panelists agree the sample shows signs of doping, the data is sent back to the UCI, which is supposed to inform the cyclist, who is given a chance to explain the irregularities. If the panel still unanimously agrees that there is no other possible explanation for the results, the UCI can begin the sanctioning process. The ultimate decision on what to do with the results rests with the UCI. The panel has no control over, or knowledge of, what the UCI does with its recommendations.

Source

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Why not?

As for hiding positives. Did you forget Contador's?

Contador? He is not on Sky.

Nor technically did they hide his positive - WADA had been informed, but what was attempted was to give AC and his legal team to quash the clenbuterol positive before it went public.

Michael Ashenden explains this:

“It won’t catch every single rider who had doped. A large part of this is due to the margins of tolerance we must allow to ensure that riders are not wrongly accused of doping – which means that there are riders who we suspect are doping after we’ve reviewed their profile, but these riders are not sanctioned via the Passport because we must allow a large margin of tolerance. They are however closely targeted, which increases the likelihood that they will be caught in the future.”

To the 1st bold bit, that to me means not working.

2nd bold bit. Well the dopers will generally get caught by retroactive testing, if samples are kept.

But McQuaid controls anti doping so how can it work.

Again I am not interested in your interpretation - so, nowhere has Ashenden "dismissed the Biopassport as not working". Thanks

 

[sniper]

Obviiusly "the passport" here (and in benottis post) stands for the whole system responsibl for the passport..

. Keep up.

Beech mtn has no trouble understanding it

As long as we're talking about the problems within the biopassport system, as administered by the UCI,

Thanks for (re)posting these bits n pieces by the way, +1.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Beech mtn has no trouble understanding it

Thanks for (re)posting these bits n pieces by the way, +1.

So, now you are telling the forum exactly what Benotti means?
Were you not having a moan about people putting words in their mouths upthread?



Indeed Beech Mtn has no problem understanding the distinction between the UCI and the Passport - 2 different things (and not remotely to do with Bennottis claim re Ashenden)

Beetch Mtn:

To be fair, Ashenden has said some positive things about the passport. It's not that it is useless.

 

[Benotti69]

Contador? He is not on Sky.

so.

Again I am not interested in your interpretation - so, nowhere has Ashenden "dismissed the Biopassport as not working". Thanks

Then FO.

 

[sniper]

So, now you are telling the forum exactly what Benotti means?

more like showing the forum your incapacity to recognize a pars pro toto.

it's a bit odd (watch out: euphemism) that you're on benotti's back for the fact that he can't show a fragment where ashenden literally says "the passport is not working".
got shocking news for you:
benotti wasn't citing him. he was paraphrasing him.

so in your ideal forum we don't paraphrase and don't use some of the world's most common figures of speech. cool.

 

[red_flanders]

OK, I think that horse has been beaten to death. Please move on. Thanks.

 

[Benotti69]

Which was Benottis point when Benotti said Ashenden "dismissed the bio passport as not working".

The Passport works well and your post shows that Ashenden wants more and better testing with it. Don't confuse the role of the UCI/McQ/HV with how the passport works.

Bollix it does. Watch last years Vuelta, TdF's '12 and '13 and no one popped for what were obvious doped performances.

The passport might work, IF, tests were done regularly and it was done by an independent body. Until then, bollix.

 

[Benotti69]

OK, I think that horse has been beaten to death. Please move on. Thanks.

Noted.

10chara

 

[red_flanders]

Noted.

10chara

Thx, no worries.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

OK, I think that horse has been beaten to death. Please move on. Thanks.

Why?
If there is a rule (or even in forum spirit) I will do so happily.
But the posts I am responding to are fair and within rules.

more like showing the forum your incapacity to recognize a pars pro toto.

it's a bit odd (watch out: euphemism) that you're on benotti's back for the fact that he can't show a fragment where ashenden literally says "the passport is not working".
got shocking news for you:
benotti wasn't citing him. he was paraphrasing him.

so in your ideal forum we don't paraphrase and don't use some of the world's most common figures of speech. cool.

People can use any figures of speech they wish - but they cannot then attribute that to someone else.
Benotti is entitled to think the BP is not working (broadly I would agree) but nowhere does Ashenden say that.

Benotti did not have to "paraphrase" him.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Bollix it does. Watch last years Vuelta, TdF's '12 and '13 and no one popped for what were obvious doped performances.

The passport might work, IF, tests were done regularly and it was done by an independent body. Until then, bollix.

That means it works - which is not what you attributed to Ashenden.
The Passport works fine - but anything that the UCI has a hand in will not.
2 very different things.

As for Contador - you said "McQuaid dida deal with Sky".
Contador is not with Sky - I even asked before, what deal has McQ done with Sky? And why only Sky?

 

[sittingbison]

When Ashendon conducted his EPO micro dosing trial the guinea pigs were not flagged by the passport software. He concluded it needed to be upgraded.

He also observed the biopassport failed if the results were withheld from the expert panel (Armstrong) by the administering body.

Paraphrasing is perfectly legitimate.

On this note it's prudent to observe a polite warning from a mod (red flanders) to move on from this topic. Being pedantic on THIS issue is will not end well

Cheers
Bison

 

[Dr. Maserati]

When Ashendon conducted his EPO micro dosing trial the guinea pigs were not flagged by the passport software. He concluded it needed to be upgraded.

He also observed the biopassport failed if the results were withheld from the expert panel (Armstrong) by the administering body.

Paraphrasing is perfectly legitimate.

Thats your view that Benotti was paraphrasing.

If they were, why not just admit so when I asked where Ashenden had said this? Instead Benott has attempted to show that Ashenden said it.

On this note it's prudent to observe a polite warning from a mod (red flanders) to move on from this topic. Being pedantic on THIS issue is will not end well

Cheers
Bison

I observed it, and even queried it.

I don't want to break any rule - point out what I have to avoid to adhere to the rules.

I believe Benottis post was on topic - therefore I see no reason not to respond to it. I trust that the mods are not now deciding what posts people can respond to.

 

[red_flanders]

Why?
If there is a rule (or even in forum spirit) I will do so happily.
But the posts I am responding to are fair and within rules.

Not up to you. You're derailing another thread. Stop or you'll be on vacation since we've had this conversation already this week. Thanks.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Not up to you. You're derailing another thread. Stop or you'll be on vacation since we've had this conversation already this week. Thanks.

Mod thread, now.

 

[red_flanders]

Not playing the game. You heard the simple instructions from 2 mods. That's all you'll get from me on the topic. Please move on.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Why?
If there is a rule (or even in forum spirit) I will do so happily.
But the posts I am responding to are fair and within rules.

Not up to you. You're derailing another thread. Stop or you'll be on vacation since we've had this conversation already this week. Thanks.

What rule am I meant to be breaking?

Also - I sure as hell never said it was "up to me" - in fact I have said I am only too happy to abide by the rules. And that is meant to be what they are - rules, and they are not up to you to make up, only to enforce.

If you see fit to allow a post remain that i find questionable, you have no right to decide later that I cannot respond.
And the reason it 'derailed' is because the person I asked to clarify made did not say they were paraphrasing. They kept on that Ashenden had said it.

 

[TheBean]

The job of the sporting media is to report on sport.

Holding the media accountable for uncovering stories about doping is pointless. They are announcers, not investigative journalists.

If anyone wants to hold the media accountable for investigative journalism about cheating, conspiracies, or any other information about the underbelly of cycling, they have the right to go after those stories themselves. There is an opportunity for publication present. Go for it!

 

[sittingbison]

The job of the sporting media is to report on sport.

Holding the media accountable for uncovering stories about doping is pointless. They are announcers, not investigative journalists....

Yup but there is also the concept of "dumb insolence" (borrowed from WW2 Marines ) to consider, whereby if they know something but say nothing they should be held accountable.

 

[martinvickers]

Yup but there is also the concept of "dumb insolence" (borrowed from WW2 Marines ) to consider, whereby if they know something but say nothing they should be held accountable.

True to a point, but it puts announcers/commentators in a rather more central position on the entire production than they actually possess. It's a parasitical profession in that sense.