• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

No testing for bio passport

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 19, 2009
819
0
0
Damiano Machiavelli said:
How can this be? Krebs has expressed outrage that people question the bio passport's effectiveness and equated such skepticism as an attack on the integrity of his colleagues. Vroomen should prepare to face Kreb's righteous indignation.
I never said any such thing. I linked to a peer reviewed paper which shows that the incidence of abnormal blood profiles has decreased in the past 2-3yrs. You are the one who expressed outrage that this couldn't possibly be true because the authors are on the UCI medical board.

Get a grip on reality troll.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Krebs cycle said:
I never said any such thing. I linked to a peer reviewed paper which shows that the incidence of abnormal blood profiles has decreased in the past 2-3yrs. You are the one who expressed outrage that this couldn't possibly be true because the authors are on the UCI medical board.

Get a grip on reality troll.
incorrect. as he says in his post, DM (and I for that matter) just called for caution, noting that at least two of the guys discussing the bloodpassport data in that article are UCI-affiliated and may thus be biased. And please read what it says there: words like "caution" and "may be" are quite different from words like "couldn't possibly be true", which you're so eager to put into our mouths.

Anyway, what does "the past 2-3 years" mean if there hasn't been any testing over the past year?
 
Jul 19, 2009
819
0
0
sniper said:
incorrect. as he says in his post, DM (and I for that matter) just called for caution, noting that at least two of the guys discussing the bloodpassport data in that article are UCI-affiliated and may thus be biased. And please read what it says there: words like "caution" and "may be" are quite different from words like "couldn't possibly be true", which you're so eager to put into our mouths.

Anyway, what does "the past 2-3 years" mean if there hasn't been any testing over the past year?
Whatever dude, both you and DM are obviously trolling. I'm not going to waste my time with people who hate the idea of fairness in sport.
 
Mar 19, 2009
2,235
0
0
Aren't just all test results to be considered part fo the passport? No tests should everr be excluded, you might say. You never know if a rider is clean or dirty at the time tested, as a test itself won't tell in passport cases, just value variance over time.
 
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails.asp?id=NzUxOA

General statistics for Blood Passport Tests only (excluding urine tests and Tour de France 2010) from July 1st 2010 until April 30th 2011 (period referred to by Mr Vroomen)

2010: 1074
2011: 1577
This includes out-of-competition controls, pre-competition and in-competition controls on all major events during this period and team training camps.

Teams:

CERVELO
01.07.2010 - 31.12.2010: 45

GARMIN(-CERVELO)
01.07.2010 - 30.04.2011: 68
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
These public statements by the UCI in response to criticism (of whatever kind) are really beyond me.
Somebody there is particularly agitated. The aggressive discourse speaks volumes.

"The UCI considers Mr Vroomen’s comments particularly unacceptable given the years of research and investments in this area. The result of UCI’s anti-doping work has been unanimously recognized by international experts and its program has become a worldwide reference in the fight against doping."http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vroomen-and-ashenden-criticise-lack-of-biological-passport-testing
These guys at the UCI seem extremely allergic to criticism. Extremely quickly offended, and always responding with personal attacks.
Instead of welcoming criticism and dealing with it maturely, they continue to bash the messenger.

"The UCI highlights the exceptional quality of competition at the recent Tour de France 2011, a Tour which also reflected a cleaner era in cycling. Mr Vroomen appears exceptionally poorly informed as he would seem not to have been aware of the tests carried out on the two teams he has been involved with. A simple phone call could have clarified the situation for Mr Vrooman should his concerns have been genuine, but he chose not to do this."http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vroomen-and-ashenden-criticise-lack-of-biological-passport-testing
Very bad choice of words, IMO.
Such discourse merely shows their unwillingness to be transparent.

Does anybody know how directly Pat is involved in setting up these public statements?
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
veganrob said:
For the UCI to respond to criticism like that is indeed odd. But it is UCI.

However I love the comment directed toward Vroomen. Remember, it is Vroomen.
True, but check this out:
"A simple phone call could have clarified the situation for Mr Vrooman should his concerns have been genuine, but he chose not to do this". http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vroomen-and-ashenden-criticise-lack-of-biological-passport-testing
Couldn't the UCI (as a mature governing body) have made one simple phone call to Mr. Vroomen to clarify the situation with him instead of bashing him publicly?

This discourse is beyond me. But it's not really unexpected either. The UCI is showing this type of childish revenge-based discourse for over years now. It's just funny that e.g. the cyclingnews editors keep buying it.
 
sniper said:
True, but check this out:


Couldn't the UCI have made one simple phone call to Mr. Vroomen to clarify the situation with him instead of bashing him publicly?

We're talking about a supposedly mature governing body here, vs. one single individual.
Yes, you are certainly correct. But we are talking about children here.
 
Jun 3, 2010
61
0
0
That all tests, unexpected and race tests, if applicable also participates in the passport seems natural to me, so think the Vroomen blog was a bit weird and understand why the UCI is ****ed. They can handle it better as always ofc.

But this is funny I think:

"The UCI highlights the exceptional quality of competition at the recent Tour de France 2011, a Tour which also reflected a cleaner era in cycling."

Doesn't the UCI say this every year and have said it for the past 13 years..? Does this mean that last year was dirtier and part of a dirtier era? They always say that no +ve means clean at the same time they say that it doesn't since cycling is generally dirty as recent as last year.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Ingenerius said:
That all tests, unexpected and race tests, if applicable also participates in the passport seems natural to me, so think the Vroomen blog was a bit weird and understand why the UCI is ****ed. They can handle it better as always ofc.

But this is funny I think:

"The UCI highlights the exceptional quality of competition at the recent Tour de France 2011, a Tour which also reflected a cleaner era in cycling."

Doesn't the UCI say this every year and have said it for the past 13 years..? Does this mean that last year was dirtier and part of a dirtier era? They always say that no +ve means clean at the same time they say that it doesn't since cycling is generally dirty as recent as last year.
Such a statement once more shows what a joke it is that the UCI polices themselves.
THe UCI simply cannot afford that, after such sweeping statements, anybody from the top 10 of Tour will still be tested positive. They'd do everything to cover it up or simply to avoid such a positive test from happening in the first place.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
python said:
this particular thread is an example of why the clinic ( and the cn forums in general) appear to have been declining in clicks and, for that matter, the content quality as well

no one particular rider or a ds can know for sure how many blood passport tests were/are conducted on the entire field of about 900 riders. it's common sense, unless, of course, the rider or a ds is/are working for the uci medical staff.

an informed individual rider CAN figure out if HIS blood sample was a blood passport sample. But I doubt, the 'informed" ones are the majority.

given the fact that a highest pedigree wada-certified blood passport test is 10 times cheaper than a regular anti doping tes,t i wonder if the quoted article has much merit ?

besides, didn't wada critisize the uci (in 2010 tdf independent observer report) for too many blood passport tests


the thing is, once you have obtained the "natural" picture on a particular rider's haematological parameters, there is little advantage to testing that rider more and more if hs profile was benign.

otoh some reports from the tdf'11 indicate a podum rider from lux was tested 3X in 24 hours.

despite being the uci total skeptic, i don't have ANY concerns about the blood passport testing frequency so far...of course, i could be wrong.
Sorry Python, I find it odd that you criticize the forum for lack of "content quality" and then fail to offer anything of significance to this issue.

I would have expected you to correct or clarify my issue as to who is liable for costs for an appeal to CAS.

Also the 2010 TdF IO report did not suggest that there were too many Bio Passport samples collected, but that there was a need to target and increase anti-doping tests:
Recommendation 18: With the amount and high quality of intelligence available to the UCI, it is
critical that in the future a more varied, targeted and aggressive approach to catching cheating riders
be a priority for the UCI. This should include, but not be limited to, increasing the number of antidoping tests (rather than ABP), testing in less acceptable hours with a greater chance of detecting
substances and/or methods with short detection windows and significantly limiting the use of a
random draw so that all testing is based on intelligence and/or performance during the race (or at
least test history prior to making random selections).
 
May 12, 2010
1,728
0
0
sniper said:
True, but check this out:


Couldn't the UCI (as a mature governing body) have made one simple phone call to Mr. Vroomen to clarify the situation with him instead of bashing him publicly?

This discourse is beyond me. But it's not really unexpected either. The UCI is showing this type of childish revenge-based discourse for over years now. It's just funny that e.g. the cyclingnews editors keep buying it.
No, they couldn't. Vroomen unleashed some rumours that were potentially extremely damaging to the reputation of the UCI, cycling and the biological passport (lolz, the reputation of the UCI), the only way to respond to that is in a strong public statement, othwise those rumours just continue to be brought up.

I really like Vroomen, he is among the 'in-crowd' one of the most outspoken anti-doping critics, but it seems that in this case he was just really poorly informed, and he really should have tried to check his information before he made a blog-post/twitter about it.
 
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
i am sorry doc you're dissatisfied with my post but the events that followed proved my hunch about vroomans post being shallow and premature (and the big deal thread about it) being correct.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
sniper said:
True, but check this out:


Couldn't the UCI (as a mature governing body) have made one simple phone call to Mr. Vroomen to clarify the situation with him instead of bashing him publicly?

This discourse is beyond me. But it's not really unexpected either. The UCI is showing this type of childish revenge-based discourse for over years now. It's just funny that e.g. the cyclingnews editors keep buying it.
Why do you think the CN editors are "buying it"?
It is clear that the UCI has favorites that they will leak information to and others that they blacklist. You cannot buy something if it hasn't been offered to you in the first place.

On that note - from Daniel Bensons twitter feed:
Just in case anyone had difficulty understanding the UCI statement - what they really meant is in Red.
"The UCI has decided to provide the following statement in order to protect the public image of cycling and in particular with due respect to the commitment of those working on daily basis in the fight against doping," the statement reads.
The UCI had no intention of ever making this information public - but this shaggin do-gooder has highlighted once again our poor public image. If he hadn't written it publically in his blog we would have hit him with a "cease & desist" but as he made it public we have been forced to make this hizzy fit public.

"The allegation that no tests were carried out under the biological passport testing program between the end of the Tour de France 2010 and April 2011 is absolutely incorrect, as the statistics clearly demonstrate."We will ignore that at no point did this do-gooder - who wears funny jumpers - suggest that "no tests were carried out", we hope the cycling community is as ignorant as we believe they are and will not notice.

"The UCI considers Mr Vroomen’s comments particularly unacceptable given the years of research and investments in this area. The result of UCI’s anti-doping work has been unanimously recognized by international experts and its program has become a worldwide reference in the fight against doping."The Biological Passport is wonderful -we cannot say why, how or who these experts are just do not knock it.

"The UCI highlights the exceptional quality of competition at the recent Tour de France 2011, a Tour which also reflected a cleaner era in cycling.Obviously we are ignoring the positive of Mr. Kolobnev and that we haven't had time to check the data from the Tour - but c'mon, it looked cleaner.
Mr Vroomen appears exceptionally poorly informed as he would seem not to have been aware of the tests carried out on the two teams he has been involved with. A simple phone call could have clarified the situation for Mr Vrooman should his concerns have been genuine, but he chose not to do this."Of course if he had called we would have told him what we would love to tell him now Foff.
He and his team better have their saddles level.


"Further the UCI refutes any suggestion that anti-doping funds have been used to fund legal bills for fighting legal cases.The UCI therefore suggests that Mr Vroomen, and the media, ensure that facts are correct before making public statements about UCI’s activities."Basically - get your facts straight, or shut up.
As we will not be sharing facts with Vroomen and/or the media - it means shut up.
 
Jul 28, 2009
769
0
0
So all this boils down to is Vroomen is mistaken, the UCI hires 12 year olds to write its' press releases, DM and sniper get a chance to bash up on Krebs since they are still smarting from their last little tiff, python gets to pontificate and Dr M seems to have got rather snarky of late. All in all a fine day in the Clinic.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
Why do you think the CN editors are "buying it"?
It is clear that the UCI has favorites that they will leak information to and others that they blacklist. You cannot buy something if it hasn't been offered to you in the first place.

On that note - from Daniel Bensons twitter feed:


Just in case anyone had difficulty understanding the UCI statement - what they really meant is in Red.
Doc, you are being very critical of the UCI and while its often warranted its not in this case. Vroomen floated a premise on passport testing and he was wrong. He didn't even have good information about a team he has a connection with in Garmin-Cervelo.

The UCI press release was poorly worded but Vroomen was wrong on a very sensitive issue and they responded. I don't think they owed him any special courtesies, in fact they would have been wise to ignore him completely.
 
rata de sentina said:
So all this boils down to is Vroomen is mistaken, the UCI hires 12 year olds to write its' press releases, DM and sniper get a chance to bash up on Krebs since they are still smarting from their last little tiff, python gets to pontificate and Dr M seems to have got rather snarky of late. All in all a fine day in the Clinic.
+1 Perfect summation lolz
 
Bag_O_Wallet said:
Okay, this is hurting my head. What percentage of the 68 for Gamin was between 01.07.2010 and 31.12.210? And are they including any of the 45 for Cervelo in that 68?
I made the assumption that you are seeing the total of both teams. 45 being the total from July 1 to its cessation of business or December 31 for Cervelo. 68 is the total for Garmin from the same July 1 starting point to included the combined team after December 31. This means we don't know the testing split between the two teams prior to the merge.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
python said:
i am sorry doc you're dissatisfied with my post but the events that followed proved my hunch about vroomans post being shallow and premature (and the big deal thread about it) being correct.
How can Vroomens comments be viewed as either shallow or premature?
He mentioned the teams that he was involved in and didn't for example point fingers at others and when should he ask such a question?

Do you believe that if he called the UCI they would be forthcoming with information??

Also what about the numbers?
In today's UCI press release they say:
General statistics for Blood Passport Tests only (excluding urine tests and Tour de France 2010) from July 1st 2010 until April 30th 2011 (period referred to by Mr Vroomen)

2010: 1074
2011: 1577
This includes out-of-competition controls, pre-competition and in-competition controls on all major events during this period and team training camps.
How do they match up to their other statements.
This is the 2010 UCI Biological Passport numbers - leaving aside the urine tests as the UCI have in their new numbers for 2010 (1074 blood tests from July, excluding TdF).
The total blood tests for 2010 was 5003 - but from the IO report we know that there 993 BP samples taken before the Tour, 198 BP samples as per the Pre Tour medical and a further 124 during the Tour exclusively for the BP.

993 + 198 + 124 = 1315, add in the new info from UCI of 1074 = 2389.
That leaves a substantial difference of 2614 blood samples for 2010 - are the UCI saying these tests were all done from Jan to July 2010.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,169
0
0
rata de sentina said:
So all this boils down to is Vroomen is mistaken, the UCI hires 12 year olds to write its' press releases, DM and sniper get a chance to bash up on Krebs since they are still smarting from their last little tiff, python gets to pontificate and Dr M seems to have got rather snarky of late. All in all a fine day in the Clinic.
Agree. :D
Wah wah wah wah....oh wait....uhmm.......UCI sucks anyway...but wait....we all have no clue anyway...

Snake steps in....everyone frozen and quiet by his highness' pure presence.
What would the clinic do without the great snake having the overview and owning the absolute thruth, which is of course, too detailed, too complicated and too demanding for all the mortals around here, who just pollute the clinic and it's awareness ?

snake and dottore now checking and comparing their complicated data - a new penis comparison and greatness competition just around the corner.
dottore already calculating again. If those results are wrong, its the numbers, not the calculation of course.
Its all about quality.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
rata de sentina said:
So all this boils down to is Vroomen is mistaken, the UCI hires 12 year olds to write its' press releases, DM and sniper get a chance to bash up on Krebs since they are still smarting from their last little tiff, python gets to pontificate and Dr M seems to have got rather snarky of late. All in all a fine day in the Clinic.
What - only lately?

JRTinMA said:
Doc, you are being very critical of the UCI and while its often warranted its not in this case. Vroomen floated a premise on passport testing and he was wrong. He didn't even have good information about a team he has a connection with in Garmin-Cervelo.

The UCI press release was poorly worded but Vroomen was wrong on a very sensitive issue and they responded. I don't think they owed him any special courtesies, in fact they would have been wise to ignore him completely.
This is where I disagree - he should be able to get pretty accurate information from the ADAMS system that is released to the riders. On that it is (perhaps was) updated how many controls were for use of the BP.

As I pointed out earlier there appears to be an alarming reduction in testing from pre July to after July in 2010 with only 1074 of the 5003 blood samples being done after July.
 
Aug 19, 2009
588
0
0
JRTinMA said:
I made the assumption that you are seeing the total of both teams. 45 being the total from July 1 to its cessation of business or December 31 for Cervelo. 68 is the total for Garmin from the same July 1 starting point to included the combined team after December 31. This means we don't know the testing split between the two teams prior to the merge.
They've done a lovely little dance around the area of concern (01.01.2011 to 01.04.2011) - while making it appear that they've attempted to be transparent.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS