Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[JRanton]

Looks to be expensive. Only used by “high budget” teams and riders. Hence why only Wiggins and Froome look unnaturally thin without loss of power.

Interesting reference to AICAR treatment in a Vienna lab.

Our friend Geert Leinders had connections to Vienna labs from his Rabo days...

 

[MatParker117]

Sutton now "performance advisor", "stepping back from a day-to-day role within the team"...

http://www.teamsky.com/profile/0,27291,17543_8384263,00.html

They've just hired that Triathlon guy and Sutton is also heavily involved with the GB track team. Would not surprise me if he replaced Dan Hunt at British Cycling.

 

[MatParker117]

Sorry that list has Thomas at 6 and Lance 4. That just makes the whole thing null in my eyes.

Wouldn't the lack of a spleen screw up your blood profile? (In the case of GT)

 

[Ferminal]

I don't know how Siutsou and Rogers were so high riding for the clean Highroad outfit, must be an error.

 

[MatParker117]

I don't know how Siutsou and Rogers were so high riding for the clean Highroad outfit, must be an error.

Apparently the number went up if you had a good day.

 

[thehog]

Interesting reference to AICAR treatment in a Vienna lab.

Our friend Geert Leinders had connections to Vienna labs from his Rabo days...

So many dots to connect. Leinders was good for something seeing he never turned up to races.

Connections!

 

[peloton]

I don't know how Siutsou and Rogers were so high riding for the clean Highroad outfit, must be an error.

Popo was a 10 and he's still racing... Lucky dude.
Clearly the list was working and the UCI tested them more often... wait..

 

[will10]

I agree there are some names on that list that are clearly ill-placed, such as Horner (0) and Lance (4), but that doesn't make the entire list worthless. It's not like they just made it up...People who are high rated most likely have unstable blood values, but of course some of them might have plausible, non-doping related explanations.

Is it really that surprising that Bruyneel's guys are lower than we might expect? Little wonder to me that just as having the best doctors pre-passport helped you not test positive better than the rest; having the best doctors now would help you beat the passport better than the rest.

 

[bobbins]

They've just hired that Triathlon guy and Sutton is also heavily involved with the GB track team. Would not surprise me if he replaced Dan Hunt at British Cycling.

He's Dan Hunts boss.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Wouldn't the lack of a spleen screw up your blood profile? (In the case of GT)

It would certainly make it more erratic than if you still had your spleen.

 

[richtea]

Is it really that surprising that Bruyneel's guys are lower than we might expect? Little wonder to me that just as having the best doctors pre-passport helped you not test positive better than the rest; having the best doctors now would help you beat the passport better than the rest.

That is a plausible explanation. Although now we know LAs actual blood test parameters from 2009, which were arguably highly suspect, it doesnt make sense to me that he didn't get a higher score (if it is an objective tool based on good analysis). I suppose we don't know what period they took into account, or the values from anyone else scoring higher, so difficult to comment on this.

 

[Tom375]

That is a plausible explanation. Although now we know LAs actual blood test parameters from 2009, which were arguably highly suspect, it doesnt make sense to me that he didn't get a higher score (if it is an objective tool based on good analysis). I suppose we don't know what period they took into account, or the values from anyone else scoring higher, so difficult to comment on this.

Bolded part - I don't think anyone really knows what UCI suspicion index is based on - i've so far heard Blood passport (fine) , results in races & not being tested as reasons to raise you higher or lower in the suspicion index. i.e LA might have been tested lots of times on his return but suprise suprise was negative - this according to others theories might have lowered his suspicion index rating.

However as far as i can tell this is all speculation there has never been any official release of how the UCI Suspicion Index was compiled. With regards to time period i think it was 2009 TDF (don't quote me on that its from memory - but sure you can find article on CN News or in USADA report?) Reason for method not being published would seem to be L'Equipe got hold of it without consent (know where that goes to..) and published this is why we only have the Suspicion Index for 1 particular race.

From what i've seen and read (again don't quote me as this is on memory) this was supposed to be used as guide for testing in TDF 2009 or 2010. Dunno someone more informed should be able to fill you in or look up online.

 

[richtea]

It was for the 2010 TDF I believe.

 

[Tom375]

It was for the 2010 TDF I believe.

Ok - Can't be arsed to look it up at the moment. The specific TDF reference comes from an earlier post asking why Monocutie wasn't on the list to which a poster replied that he wasn't racing the TDF that year. Not sure if it was on this thread or another.

Anyway my main point was that the suspicion index by itself is pretty useless without the reference points of how it was compiled as there are too many contradictories there. It maybe useful however as corrobotary evidence. UCI should publish how this was compiled that would stop this cr&p, and let us understand it. Maybe there was political bias in the way in which it was compiled that mean explaining it would be too embarressing. - I don't know!

 

[martinvickers]

Ok - Can't be arsed to look it up at the moment. The specific TDF reference comes from an earlier post asking why Monocutie wasn't on the list to which a poster replied that he wasn't racing the TDF that year. Not sure if it was on this thread or another.

Anyway my main point was that the suspicion index by itself is pretty useless without the reference points of how it was compiled as there are too many contradictories there. It maybe useful however as corrobotary evidence. UCI should publish how this was compiled that would stop this cr&p, and let us understand it. Maybe there was political bias in the way in which it was compiled that mean explaining it would be too embarressing. - I don't know!

Did the UCI produce this list for WADA or ASO?

 

[Tom375]

Did the UCI produce this list for WADA or ASO?

Sorry don't know for definite (welcome back by the way). Just looked it up on the CN news search, as Rich Tea says it was for 2010 TDF and seems to be based on Blood passport according to article i read. Although as i've said various posts on CN forum have claimed different, i haven't seen any supporting links though to verify.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-defend-the-creation-of-an-index-of-suspicion

 

[Tom375]

Did the UCI produce this list for WADA or ASO?

Forgot to say I'm guessing reading between the lines that this list was for UCI only to test 2010 TDF. Hadn't they again taken sole responsiblity for testing at 2010 TDF? Also the article refers to UCI refering the breach (to L'Equipe) to WADA which would infer that WADA weren't in on it (providing CN Sources are correct.. dum dumdum

 

[martinvickers]

Titbit from British SWimmer Fran Halsall

Noticed this in a Times article on Fran Halsall, swimmer.

Didn't start a new thread with it because didn't want to give anyone an excuse to fly off the handle again, but I thought it was interesting and on topic, and gives some insight into supplement practice at British cycling - it dates from mid december :

Halsall and other Olympic team members will meet David Sparkes, the chief executive of British Swimming, in January to thrash out their concerns after an intervention from Rebecca Adlington. “I have a big list ready,” said Halsall. It includes the use of supplements.

A leaked document from the review into London 2012 performances notes that “many countries explore the edge of support, whether it be altitude training or supplement related” but in Britain, for fear of a positive test, there was no sharing of “knowledge in an institutional way”.

Fear of unintentional positive tests because of contamination of supplements with banned substances is a factor. However, Halsall said that she trusts the products made by her sponsor, Multipower, and believes that such help should be rolled out to the whole squad in the way that such things are on the United States team.

British cyclists take the same approach.

BTW, If I disappear for another week, you'll know what happened.

 

[MatParker117]

Noticed this in a Times article on Fran Halsall, swimmer.

Didn't start a new thread with it because didn't want to give anyone an excuse to fly off the handle again, but I thought it was interesting and on topic, and gives some insight into supplement practice at British cycling - it dates from mid december :



BTW, If I disappear for another week, you'll know what happened.

CNP is listed as a sponsor on the British Cycling and Team Sky websites.

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/about/article/bc20120312-about-bc-static-Official-Supplier---CNP-0

http://www.teamsky.com/article/0,27290,17618_5792278,00.html

 

[neineinei]

Did the UCI produce this list for WADA or ASO?

WADA: REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT OBSERVERS
Tour de France 2010

For the Tour ABP samples are sent to the Lausanne Laboratory in anonymous format, the results of which are then statistically analysed by the Athlete Passport Management Unit (APMU) and sent to the UCI and the experts if necessary.

During the major Tours the AMPU in turn provides a commentary to the UCI regarding all of the riders’ profile identifying whether the profile was suspicious (using a 10 point scale with 10 representing the highest priority for testing and 1 the least) as well as recommendations as to the type of test to target the rider. The data that the UCI holds on each rider is hugely valuable in informing an intelligent testing programme.

(p.15)

For the Tour, the UCI collected 198 ABP samples immediately prior to the Tour in Rotterdam with the aim to establish the most recent blood profile of each rider. Throughout the Tour an additional 124 ABP samples were collected across seven different days providing the UCI with the current profile on certain riders. The time taken from the collection of the ABP sample until the results from the APMU was noted in some situations to be up to ten days, although initial information used to target test was generally provided within 2-4 days post collection. The IO Team was provided with a copy of the communication between the laboratory and the UCI with the Laboratory’s commentary on three occasions during the period of the Tour.

(p. 16)

 

[martinvickers]

WADA: REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT OBSERVERS
Tour de France 2010

(p.15)

(p. 16)

Thank you very much.

If we can accept that the list was created by UCI for WADA, the question arises did they write it to 'help' WADA, or to 'put them off the scent'? How many of the 6+ have pinged in the 'targeted' testing since then?

 

[Tom375]

WADA: REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT OBSERVERS
Tour de France 2010

(p.15)

(p. 16)

Thanks - provides a whole new angle on how the UCI suspicion list was used. I see the whole of what you've quoted hasn't come out, so what you're saying is that the UCI Suspicion index was what was passed to WADA in order to determine testing type and priority? Right? (Quoted from WADA). In this case it puts the suspicion index back into the realms of the political rather than the purely Blood Passport domain (if you accept that the UCI may have had an agenda).

 

[Tom375]

Noticed this in a Times article on Fran Halsall, swimmer.

Didn't start a new thread with it because didn't want to give anyone an excuse to fly off the handle again, but I thought it was interesting and on topic, and gives some insight into supplement practice at British cycling - it dates from mid december :



BTW, If I disappear for another week, you'll know what happened.

Don't think you'll disappear on this .. Anyway think it's healthy to have both sides of debate in here.
Anyway please supply a link for the above article. Interesting stuff from what you've quoted and shows there's always been a thin line between legit and doping. Part of the problem i guess but doesn't let off anyone that blatently took/takes EPO/Blood Bags/AICAR and those that don't.

Also gives creedance to those that say 'marginal gains' Where's the margin drawn?
i.e Certain drugs have been undetectable at time a la EPO & ATM AICAR
Is there really any peace in this cycle?

 

[martinvickers]

Don't think you'll disappear on this .. Anyway think it's healthy to have both sides of debate in here.
Anyway please supply a link for the above article. Interesting stuff from what you've quoted and shows there's always been a thin line between legit and doping. Part of the problem i guess but doesn't let off anyone that blatently took/takes EPO/Blood Bags/AICAR and those that don't.

Also gives creedance to those that say 'marginal gains' Where's the margin drawn?
i.e Certain drugs have been undetectable at time a la EPO & ATM AICAR
Is there really any peace in this cycle?

http://www.swimnews.com/News/view/9969

Afraid the Times is Firewalled.

 

[Cycle Chic]

Forgot to say I'm guessing reading between the lines that this list was for UCI only to test 2010 TDF. Hadn't they again taken sole responsiblity for testing at 2010 TDF? Also the article refers to UCI refering the breach (to L'Equipe) to WADA which would infer that WADA weren't in on it (providing CN Sources are correct.. dum dumdum

From Tom375

Background - honestly cycling isn't my 1st sport by a long shot however i have maintained an interest in it over the years and watched various stages of the tdf I think i 1st...

Considering the above, you have an awful lot of cycling knowledge. Joined 2 months ago, posting 1 liners to raise his posts, asking questions to gain Clinic posters knowledge, particularly on Shane Sutton thread ...yawn. Sky just keep on throwing them in here.