UCI Donation

[intothe12]

I have been trying to get an anwer on this as it is something that baffles me, and perhaps someone here has the answer as the guys on bikeradar dont but it is a fairly simple question.
Why does the UCI need a sysmex testing machine?
Don't they outsource all their testing?

 

[Runitout]

I have been trying to get an anwer on this as it is something that baffles me, and perhaps someone here has the answer as the guys on bikeradar dont but it is a fairly simple question.
Why does the UCI need a sysmex testing machine?
Don't they outsource all their testing?

Would you prefer that the receipt said, 'Bribe received to cover up positive doping test'?

Edit - the UCI states on their website that they conduct tests. I don't have a clue whether or not that's true. How does one find out?

 

[intothe12]

you would think some enterprising young journo would ask this obvious question.

The fact that the head of the UCI can whip out pieces of paper from folders marked “confidential” is incidental to the question of – why do you have one of these machines?

 

[ergmonkey]

you would think some enterprising young journo would ask this obvious question.

The fact that the head of the UCI can whip out pieces of paper from folders marked “confidential” is incidental to the question of – why do you have one of these machines?

Yes. Another fairly obvious point is that Pat McQuaid's first effort at 'transparency' was to admit that Armstrong had made one donation to the UCI. At this point, McQuaid confidently stated that that was the whole story. Now, a couple of weeks later, 'transparency' means changing the first admission and noting that two donations were made.

Feels like I'm watching Soviet-era press releases: everything is 'that absolutely never happened'...right up until the moment when one plainly states 'yes, that is what happened'...

 

[BroDeal]

I wonder if the press will point out that McQuaid is saying that the first "donation" was made by check and Verbruggen is on record as saying it was made with cash. On top of the constantly changing amounts there are a lot of fishy inconsistencies. Now we know why Armstrong in his SCA deposition could not recall how many times he paid the UCI, how much he paid, and how the payments were made.

 

[Anonymous]

I wonder if the press will point out that McQuaid is saying that the first "donation" was made by check and Verbruggen is on record as saying it was made with cash. On top of the constantly changing amounts there is a lot of fishy inconsistencies. Now we know why Armstrong in his SCA deposition could not recall how many times he paid the UCI, how much he paid, and how the payments were made.

Good questions....

The UCI has at least some experience with backdating/creating/falsifying documents. Once HV and PM are on the same page I'd imagine the documentation will look however they want it to.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

A good thread with an interesting question - the UCI does conduct tests, that is, they collect samples and have them tested at accredited labs. Why would they need a sysmex machine? I imagine they could conduct their own informal tests, but these results wouldn't be definitive or sanctionable. Of course, it could be complete bullshyte they even bother to use it at all.

 

[fatandfast]

Also as commonly done in shady business. UCI buys an old machine for $5000-10000 and gets a rec for 100,000 and pockets the difference. The paperwork will show where the money "went" and usually keeps the accountants and tax collectors at an arms distance.

 

[pnwrider]

The sysmex is used for the morning vampire checks, not standard testing.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The sysmex is used for the morning vampire checks, not standard testing.

No - two different machines.

The one used in the mornings is the XT-2000i as it is transportable.
The one that the UCI purchased was an XE-2100 - which is set up at the anti doping lab in Lausanne.

 

[pnwrider]

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[intothe12]

For me I would be shocked if the UCI or any other sporting organisation did any testing of any sort themselves.

I have always (perhaps wrongly) seen these organisations as administrative bodies only who outsource the technical aspects of their mandate and purview. It is incredibly inefficient for any organisation to “tool-up” in every aspect of their operations, this is why organisations lease in cars or equipment, in order to defray the need for large up front capital costs as well as the need to provide ongoing maintenance for these assets .

This especially makes sense in the arena of medical testing. It is such a specialised arena that it makes no sense to incur the cost of setting up a world class lab internally, employ and train staff to use your expensive equipment and then pay for staff to keep up to date with the latest developments. The most efficient (and needless to say from a liability point of view) safer option in terms of recourse is to utilise a third party lab, of which there are many all over the world which can be used at a fraction of the cost of setting one up. (This is why BP with nearly unlimited financial clout use an organisation like Trans-Ocean to dig their wells – because of specialised expertise and cost efficiency).

So for me this Sysmex acquisition makes no sense. Who in the UCI is qualified to use this equipment? Where is it stored? Who calibrates it? Is it the only piece of advanced medical equipment they have? Without answering these questions, the machine is probably no more than a bloody paper weight.

For me this is a simple question but with answers that get very complicated.

 

[Anonymous]

Don't know anything really but...

I have been trying to get an anwer on this as it is something that baffles me, and perhaps someone here has the answer as the guys on bikeradar dont but it is a fairly simple question.
Why does the UCI need a sysmex testing machine?
Don't they outsource all their testing?

They do lots of things at the very posh UCI HQ in Switzerland. It includes some kind of training center so it is conceivable that, with trained staff, the UCI could test there...? (of course the most obvious answer is that they're just a bunch of corrupt non-governmental sports bureaucrats (sp) who really are not accountable to anyone except other shady organizations like the IOC. They all keep the trough full and feed at will)

 

[Black-Balled]

Perhaps it was purchased to assist in the evaluation of running its own testing program...?

Of course, feasability of said program has not yet been determined.