UCI/AFLD anti-doping at Paris-Nice

[theswordsman]

It was announced the other day that the UCI & AFLD will make a joint statement before the start of Paris-Nice. El Pais claims to have some early details. I'm working from a Google Translation, but one thing that;s clear is that people at the Paris Lab will be able to decide which riders are tested, carry out the tests, and process the samples. The journo thinks it would be pretty easy for someone in the lab to know whose sample they're testing.

I was a big fan of the AFLD under Bordry. I hope the new regime is as enthusiastic for catching cheaters using a variety of means. I'm way more confident with them picking the riders than with UCI playing favorites, but I see controversy coming out of the process, especially with the possibility of nationalism if rider's identities are known, or even in the decision about who gets tested.

Could someone fluent in Spanish please clarify the quote for us? From the math it seems like they'll be doing seventy samples for the whole race?

al conceder a los técnicos del laboratorio antidopaje de París el poder tanto de organizar y llevar a cabo los controles, como el de designar los corredores que deberán someterse a los mismos (unos 70 controles: seis después de cada una de las siete etapas en línea, incluidos el líder y el ganador del día; entre ocho y 12 en la contrarreloj; y unos 20 por la mañana o por la noche en los hoteles) y, por supuesto, el de analizar unas muestras cuyo anonimato será más que dudoso.

to give anti-doping laboratory technicians in Paris the power both to organize and carry out checks designate as the runners who must undergo the same (about 70 controls: six after each of the seven stages online, including the leader and winner of the day, between eight and 12 in the trial, and about 20 per morning or evening in the hotel) and, of course, to analyze a sample whose anonymity is more than doubtful.

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/deportes/Todo/poder/quimicos/elpepudep/20110304elpepudep_14/Tes

 

[hrotha]

The article says this will put an end to the traditional separation of powers of antidoping: the Paris lab will organize the sample collecting, will decide which riders should be tested and of course will test the samples.

In practice I'm not sure what the big deal is. The Paris lab is not a hivemind, and the people actually analyzing the samples don't need to know who they belong to. Furthermore, somehow under the current system it's still possible for them to know and to leak the results to the media.

The quote says it'll be around 70 samples tested: six for each stage (including the winner and the leader), 8-12 for the time trial and some 20 at the hotels, either in the morning or in the evening/at night.

 

[DirtyWorks]

The article says this will put an end to the traditional separation of powers of antidoping: the Paris lab will organize the sample collecting, will decide which riders should be tested and of course will test the samples.

If this happens as you describe it, then it is a big deal. We don't know for sure. It's a needlessly complex process anyway. Only much later will we know what role Pat has.

The follow-on questions: did Pat disseminate this news early enough to warn the peloton and DS's. Is this the beginning of the end for this race as a UCI monument?

 

[D-Queued]

If this happens as you describe it, then it is a big deal. We don't know for sure. It's a needlessly complex process anyway. Only much later will we know what role Pat has.

The follow-on questions: did Pat disseminate this news early enough to warn the peloton and DS's. Is this the beginning of the end for this race as a UCI monument?

Yes, this is (apparently) a step forward. Let's hope it sticks.

Very concerning, though, that this is only in-competition testing. For a big step, it is the OOC testing that is critical.

It is well established that most doping occurs before the big event(s). Either we have the foolish doper (likely not a jersey candidate), or we have transfusions. If the plasticizer test is utilized and holds up, then maybe a chance at catching something.

Otherwise, thanks to various schedules we have now (e.g. OP, Tyler, Floyd), the UCI should know when the doping is happening. There needs to be more than one OOC test per Tour participant to actually catch someone.

The UCI has performed < 100 OOC tests/year. USADA has done much better, but even then the number is pretty small when you look at the high risk riders (and those who have been caught):

USPS affiliated riders with at least one positive and/or sanction & no. of USADA tests:

2009 Tyler Hamilton 3
2008 Tyler Hamilton 5
2007 Tyler Hamilton 2
2006 Tyler Hamilton 4
2004 Tyler Hamilton 2
2003 Tyler Hamilton 4
2001 Tyler Hamilton 1
Total: 21

2009 Floyd Landis 7
2006 Floyd Landis 4
2005 Floyd Landis 3
2003 Floyd Landis 1
2002 Floyd Landis 1
Total: 16

2008 Kirk O'bee 3
2007 Kirk O'bee 3
2006 Kirk O'bee 2
2004 Kirk O'bee 1
2003 Kirk O'bee 1
2002 Kirk O'bee 2
2001 Kirk O'bee 5
Total: 17

2010 Levi Leipheimer 5
2009 Levi Leipheimer 1
2008 Levi Leipheimer 5
2007 Levi Leipheimer 7
2006 Levi Leipheimer 5
2005 Levi Leipheimer 1
2004 Levi Leipheimer 2
2003 Levi Leipheimer 3
2002 Levi Leipheimer 1
2000 Levi Leipheimer 1
Total: 26

2000+ Frankie Andreu 0
(admitted EPO use)
Total: 0


2010 Lance Armstrong 6
2009 Lance Armstrong 6
2008 Lance Armstrong 3
2005 Lance Armstrong 3
2004 Lance Armstrong 5
2003 Lance Armstrong 1
2002 Lance Armstrong 1
2001 Lance Armstrong 2
(tested positive for corticoids during the 1999 Tour de France)
Total: 27

Other notables

2003 Adham Sbeih 2
2002 Adham Sbeih 2
2001 Adham Sbeih 1
(First American to test positive for EPO)
Total: 5

2006 Dave Fuentes 1
2005 Dave Fuentes 1
2004 Dave Fuentes 1
(Positive for an anabolic steroid, raced while suspended and won)
Total: 3

2006 Joseph D'antoni 2
2005 Joseph D'antoni 1
2004 Joseph D'antoni 1
2003 Joseph D'antoni 2
(Positive for EPO)
Total: 6

2008 Joseph Papp 2
(Testosterone, admitted EPO use)
Total: 2

2007 Stephen Alfred 1
2006 Stephen Alfred 5
2005 Stephen Alfred 3
2004 Stephen Alfred 1
2003 Stephen Alfred 7
(Positive for HCg, Testosterone imbalance, 8 yr suspension)
Total: 20

2007 Kayle LeoGrande 3
2006 Kayle LeoGrande 1
Total: 4

Cyclists with more than 27 USADA tests between 2000 and 2010:

53 Amber Neben
45 Jeremy Horgan
41 Heather Irmiger
39 Sarah Hammer
36 Colby Pearce
36 Jennie Reed
36 Laura Van Gilder
35 Mike Creed
34 Chris Horner
33 Todd Wells
30 Kirstin Armstrong
30 Rebecca Quin
30 Willow Koerber
29 Fred Rodriguez
29 George Hincapie
29 Jeremiah Bishop
28 Michael Blatchford
28 Sarah Uhl

Dave.

 

[Polish]

It is nice to see the AFLD and the UCI working together.

Remember back in 2008 when the ASO put the AFLD in charge of testing at Paris-Nice? Big brew-haha betwen the AFLD and the UCI. ASO had to eventually reduce the role of the AFLD at both Paris-Nice and the Tour de France.

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/aso-appoints-french-anti-doping-agency-for-paris-nice-14686

Maybe the AFLD can play nice this time around.
No more Bordry in the picture....

 

[luckyboy]

This is good news. Hope they get the Tour too.

 

[hrotha]

If this happens as you describe it, then it is a big deal. We don't know for sure. It's a needlessly complex process anyway. Only much later will we know what role Pat has.

The follow-on questions: did Pat disseminate this news early enough to warn the peloton and DS's. Is this the beginning of the end for this race as a UCI monument?

I meant not a big deal the way the journalist fears. He's suggesting this will lead to a lack of confidentiality and, potentially, to corruption.

 

[Polish]

News from ESPN today.....

"I can see nothing but a very good possibility of collaboration between our two organizations on events in the future," McQuaid said at a news conference.

The organizations have been at odds in recent years after Pierre Bordry, a former president of the agency, criticized the UCI's anti-doping program. That resulted in the AFLD being cut out of testing at last year's Tour.

"We had some difficult times with the AFLD in the past, but I would have to say that from our discussions so far this year with Mr. Genevois, I think that is something which will be in the past," McQuaid said.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=6184233

 

[Fausto's Schnauzer]

Yes, this is (apparently) a step forward. Let's hope it sticks...

But where oh where are Lance's "thousands" of tests?!

 

[Polish]

But where oh where are Lance's "thousands" of tests?!

Guys, this thread is about the cooperation between the UCI and AFLD.
Good for the Sport.

No Lance stuff please.

 

[D-Queued]

But where oh where are Lance's "thousands" of tests?!

Which is the evidence of the larger point. (and nice to have the data that underlies the decades of BS - Armstrong has continually denied using illegal performance-enhancing drugs and has described himself as "the most tested athlete in the world".). Did we ever hear the UCI deny that when they had access to the real data? They were along for the ride.

And, that is the point (this is not a thread diversion).

Every time McQuaid suggests that he is doing more for doping, the UCI's record must be taken into account. Is it real, or is it smokscreen? We have had far too much smokescreen?

The UCI working together with AFLD is great. Is the intention sincere?

If this cooperation is on a select number of races basis, then there is a very good case about reserving judgement on the UCI's real intent. The big, bad boys will never get caught.

It could help create a two-speed peloton, but it won't solve the real problem.

If they start cooperating on OOC tests. Then we can start to have real hope.

What has been announced for Paris-Nice are only in-competition tests.

And, if there were some sort of test for extractions (e.g. after other warm-up races like the Dauphine, and a good time for a Clenbuterol test as well) that would really be exciting.

Since we know what the facts on the 'victim' nonsense about being tested all the time are, can we begin to hold the UCI to account for a real commitment?

On March 9th we get the CAS decision on Pellizotti. If he wins, the UCI needs to finally do more than lip service.

That cooperating with the AFLD would be considered big news is very telling. Wouldn't that be the expected case?

Dave.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Good thread and some good posts. Keep it going guys and don't let it turn into another LA thread. The man is retired. This is about the UCI/AFLD and P-N this coming week.

 

[Kodiak]

Glad to see this finally happening. Pat's probably more open to joint control of the testing at the french races with AFLD now that he no longer has to compete with Bordry for the Grumpy Ol' Coot in Racing position.

 

[mtb Dad]

Thanks for the test count D-queued. Numbers look stark. I wonder if we'll ever see a summary of all tests, what kind, and when, done on each rider. Maybe then the 'thousands' will pop up.

 

[D-Queued]

Thanks for the test count D-queued. Numbers look stark. I wonder if we'll ever see a summary of all tests, what kind, and when, done on each rider. Maybe then the 'thousands' will pop up.

And maybe not.

Prior to 2004, the UCI's OOC tests were scheduled quarterly (as recounted in Michael Barry's book 'Inside the Postal Bus').

p. 88 "Four times a year the UCI, cycling's governing body, demands that all riders on the top 50 teams ranked by points accumulated throughout the season's races, have their blood tested (i.e. no EPO test*)... The tests establish whether we are all healthy to race..."

(*Let's see how many urine tests AFLD conducts at Paris Nice)

We all know (I hope we all know) that WADA was created because of the inherent conflict for sport governing bodies to police their athletes. The 'scheduled' health tests removed any possibility of surprise.

More recently we have experienced showergate when someone other than the UCI tries to pursue a test.

The sport will be 'healthier' (the quarterly tests were 'health' tests) when organizations like the AFLD are provided with the latitude to structure a full testing program.

With the USADA data - and the relative absence of OOC UCI tests - we can guage how the top riders do/do not get tested. For jurisdictional reasons, the cyclist's national ADA has had to coordinate with other ADA's to perform OOC testing.

If the athlete is non-resident, even with whereabouts notice, it is obviously more difficult to coordinate OOC testing with other organizations on foreign shores.

In the data posted earlier in the thread, it is very interesting to see the test data for elite women versus elite men. Is this because the elite women do more domestic racing and are more accessible to the national ADA?

When will the UCI endorse AFLD and others to do what they are designed to?

(Also, does anyone have access to similar data from other ADA's? Or, can you provide a link and I will try and summarize this as well?)

Bottom line: How many riders were caught at the Tour when the AFLD ran the tests? How many when the UCI was in charge?

This is still the tip of the iceberg as since at least the introduction of anabolic steroids and blood vector toping ALL the sophisticated doping happens before the Tour.

Dave.

P.S. For further situational (sport-to-sport and athlete-to-athlete comparison), here is a view of the most tested US track athletes over the past decade:

Half a peloton's worth of US Track Athletes with > 27 USADA tests over the past decade:

57 Shawn Crawford
56 Terrence Trammell
54 Torri Edwards
52 Allyson Felix
49 Adam Nelson
48 Mebrahtom Keflezighi
47 Bershawn Jackson
46 Deena Kastor
45 Walter Davis
45 Sanya Richards
45 Christian Cantwell
44 Dwight Phillips
43 John Godina
43 Kathryn McGregor
42 Muna Lee
41 Amy Acuff
41 James Carter
40 Anthony Famiglietti
40 Monique Henderson
39 Jennifer Rhines
39 Elva Dryer
39 Angela Williams
38 Grace Upshaw
37 Timothy Mack
37 Stacy Dragila
37 Damu Cherry
37 Timothy Seaman
37 Melisa Barber
36 Dathan Ritzenhein
36 Darold Williamson
36 Angelo Taylor
36 Joanne Dow
36 Michael Hoffa
36 Darvis Patton
35 Lashinda Demus
35 Dehashia Trotter
34 Allen Johnson
34 Derrick Brew
34 Lori Jones
34 Toby Stevenson
34 Miguel Pate
34 Sandra Glover
34 Jeremy Wariner
33 Debbie Dunn
33 Alan Culpepper
33 Monique Hennagan
32 Brad Walker
32 LaShawn Merritt
32 Shalane Flanagan
32 Amber Campbell
32 Teresa Vaill
32 Bernard Lagat
32 Jennifer Adams
32 Jorge Torres
31 Erin Gilreath
31 Alfred Kruger Iii
31 Joanna Hayes
31 Breaux Greer
31 Abdihakim Abdirahman
31 Suzanne Powell
31 Coby Miller
31 David Neville, iii
30 Amy Rudolph
30 Michelle Perry
30 Tyson Gay
30 Khadevis Robinson
30 Sheena Tosta
30 Chryste Gaines
29 Kenwood (Kenta) Bell
29 John Capel
29 Tora Harris
29 Bryan Clay
29 Shalonda Solomon
29 Nicole Teter
29 Rebecca Breisch
29 Justin Gatlin
28 Jarred Rome
28 Dominique Arnold
28 Lauryn Williams
28 Chaunte Howard
28 Tiffany Williams
28 Crystal Cox
28 John Nunn
28 Danielle Carruthers
28 David Krummenacker
28 Hazel Clark

 

[Polish]

Bottom line: How many riders were caught at the Tour when the AFLD ran the tests? How many when the UCI was in charge?

How many were caught with the USADA doing the testing?
Probably zero.

The UCI and the AFLD will together be performing well over 100 tests during this years edition of Paris-Nice alone.

Between the two of them, they have performed thousands and thousands and thousands of tests over the years on Pro Cyclists alone.

If one wants to have the "Distinction" of most tested athlete, being an International Pro Cyclist is the path to take lol.

 

[jimmypop]

If one wants to have the "Distinction" of most tested athlete, being an International Pro Cyclist is the path to take lol.

The real "lol" is your lack of math aptitude. All in support of the cause, right?

 

[Polish]

The real "lol" is your lack of math aptitude. All in support of the cause, right?

maybe my numbers were a bit on the low side....

We see in other sports they either never test for foreign substances, or they test for only a few substances, so you don't see the whole picture there. Many people miss the whole picture there. The statistics for doping in cycling are probably the lowest in sports. They do about 10,000 tests per year and we only see only 4 or 5 cases per year. So we're talking .04-.05%.

http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/inigo-san-millan

 

[D-Queued]

maybe my numbers were a bit on the low side....

http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/inigo-san-millan

Your source is not only suspect by the company he keeps, the fact that he was a 'physiologist' ...

Inigo San Millan was formerly a physiologist for teams such as Vitalicio Seguros, ONCE, Saunier Duval, and Astana. For better or worse

(err, looks like 'worst' given what we know about the known doping, advance warnings, etc.)

... and also by his gross distortion of the actual record:

WADA 2009 Out-of-Competition Testing Statistics

Urine Tests
102 Wrestling
99 Skiiing
92 Rowing
91 Bobsleigh/Toboggan
91 Cycling

EPO Tests
90 Rowing
85 Cycling

Blood Tests
32 Canoe
30 Rowing
24 Biathlon
23 Skiing
21 Aquatics
20 Cycling

hGH Analysis
27 Canoe
21 Aquatics
19 Cycling

Yup, looks like your math sucks almost as much as the lack of interest from the UCI.

Not even in first place in testing for the cycling drug of choice, EPO.

That is pathetic.

Dave.

 

[Roubaix]

Well….Let’s do some numbers:
-There are 20 Pro Tour teams x 28 riders/team = 560 riders at the Pro Tour level (Aprox)

-There are 23 Pro Continental (I believe) x 18 riders/team = 414 riders at the Pro Continental Level (Aprox)

So, Total of Pro Tour + Pro Continental riders = 974 (Aprox).

-Both Pro Tour and Pro Continental teams are subject to the biological passport as well as the quarterly UCI complete blood and urine analysis which are built into the biological passport.

-Also, as part of the biological passport, which BTW, it has just been validated by the TAS (Plliziotti case) each rider gets several tests per year. Some just 3 tests and others maybe 10 or even more. Let’s say an average of 5 tests per rider per season.

-The sum of stage races plus 1 day races is at least 400 races per season where both Pro Tour and Pro Continental compete. Most Grand Tours and Pro Tour races test 5 riders per stage/race and normally the rest of races outside the Pro Tour where Pro Tour and Pro Conti race they usually do 3 tests per race (Winner and 2 others). Let’s say that all the 400 races where Pro Tour and Pro Continental compete do 3 tests per race/stage.

-Out of competition (OOC) tests done by WADA, UCI, USADA, AADA, French, Italian, Spanish…all the federations and Olympic committees. Let’s say that each of the total 974 rider gets tested 3 times per year. We know that some will be tested 20 times and other just 2?...But let’s say an average of 3 tests per rider per year by all these organizations.

Now let’s breakdown the numbers:

-Quarterly tests: 974 riders x 4 mandatory blood and urine tests/ season = 3,896 Tests

-Biological Passport Tests: 974 riders x 5 (assumed average) tests/season = 4,870 Tests
-Tests done at races: 400 races/year x 3 tests per race (assumed average) = 1,200 Tests

-OOC tests by WADA/UCI/USADA/French…etc 974 rider x 3 tests/rider (assumed average) = 2,922 Tests

GRAND TOTAL OF ANTIDOPING TESTS PER SEASON IN CYCLING (APROX) = 12,888.


Now, let’s assume that every year among Pro Tour and Pro Continental riders there are 20 positives per year. The % would be 0.15%. Let’s even assume that there are 100 positives per year (way, way more than the real number). The % of positives would be 0.77% which would be still extremely low.
The question now is: Does WADA have any biological passport implemented in other sports?. How many OOC tests are done by WADA in FIFA (soccer), NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL…as well as in other sports compared to cycling?. How many tests are done at NBA, NFL, NHL,MLB, FIFA games compared to cycling races?. Is WADA controlling the testing in these sports compared to what they do with UCI?. How much more money do NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, FIFA players make compared to cyclists?. Are we really so naïve to believe that cycling with all these thousands of tests done and antidoping efforts and with a lot less money than several professional sports (NFL, FIFA, NBA, NHL, MLB…) is the only sport with doping problems?...I can be naïve in many other things, but sorry…not here…


I was looking at the WADA 2009 Out-of-competition statistics that someone presented here. Besides the thousands of testing per year that the UCI does through the biological passport, testing at all the races, etc…cycling is still not only the most tested sport by WADA with 215 tests (from those statistics showed), but also the ONLY sport that is present in all the groups from those statistics …Again, as pointed out above, I don’t see soccer, basketball (NBA and Europe), NFL, NHL, MLB, Tennis…However, I see that the WADA is very persistent and quite worried and concerned with Bobsleigh/Toboggan, Canoe, Biathlon as well as aquatics….. I heard that for this year they have a very ambitious plan to go after chess, curling, golf and cricket…..LMAO...

 

[D-Queued]

...

GRAND TOTAL OF ANTIDOPING TESTS PER SEASON IN CYCLING (APROX) = <bullsh!t math>
...

Sorry, but actual numbers beat out arm-waving theory every time.

If you want to explain a point, explain why cycling does not have as many out of competition tests as the sports listed.

If you really want to explain a point, explain why the tests for EPO are less than for rowing.

Beaten by Guys that win by sitting down and going backwards.

Dave.

 

[Roubaix]

Sorry, but actual numbers beat out arm-waving theory every time.

If you want to explain a point, explain why cycling does not have as many out of competition tests as the sports listed.

If you really want to explain a point, explain why the tests for EPO are less than for rowing.

Beaten by Guys that win by sitting down and going backwards.

Dave.

It is more than proven, recognized and imitated worldwide by all sports governing bodies that cycling is the sport that performs the most antidoping tests as well as performs testing for all the possible substances that are detectable today. While I am not saying that the system is perfect as it needs to improve for sure, cycling is the sport that is doing the most against doping and leading the way for not only the rest of sports governing bodies but in some occasions even for WADA and IOC...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It is more than proven, recognized and imitated worldwide by all sports governing bodies that cycling is the sport that performs the most antidoping tests as well as performs testing for all the possible substances that are detectable today. While I am not saying that the system is perfect as it needs to improve for sure, cycling is the sport that is doing the most against doping and leading the way for not only the rest of sports governing bodies but in some occasions even for WADA and IOC...

Certainly cycling is leading the way....... because of the Festina Affairis is why WADA was set up in the first instance.

Also - your anti-doping figures are wrong, they are more tests than the numbers you gave. But it isn't the number of tests performed but the quality and timing of them - as was shown when the AFLD did the tests at the Tour.

 

[D-Queued]

Not worthy to explain....I think you just make a fool out of yourself in front of everybody....

It is more than proven, recognized and imitated worldwide by all sports governing bodies that cycling is the sport that performs the most antidoping tests as well as performs testing for all the possible substances that are detectable today. While I am not saying that the system is perfect as it needs to improve for sure, cycling is the sport that is doing the most against doping and leading the way for not only the rest of sports governing bodies but in some occasions even for WADA and IOC...

Although I couldn't care less about your apprehension against cycling and obsession with doping and denial of cycling's efforts, I must admit that it is bit of a strange behavior the one you have...

Attack the message, not the messenger.

I offered *many* researched facts. Where are yours? Please back up your assertions with references.

If you want to have an intelligent debate on this, please let us know.

Dave.

 

[DirtyWorks]

...cycling is the sport that is doing the most against doping and leading the way ....

I've been around long enough to hear this line starting in the early, deadly days of EPO followed by serial disclosures of big, organized doping systems. There's just a teeny bit of truth in it such that it is plausible to the casual cycling observer. But it's all still complicated theater whose primary purpose is to keep the show going, and far below that, not kill riders. See Pharmador's getting off, Li Fu Yu, Armstrong, Rassmussen.(sp?) On and on..

Maybe you came to that false conclusion because you are relatively new to the sport?