UCI in a panic over document in Friday's L'Equipe

[theswordsman]

The UCI has been informed that the newspaper L'Equipe was published in its Friday edition a confidential document that contains the evaluations of individual riders in the Tour de France 2010 following the screening prior to departure , "said the international federation.

Regarding the content of the document, the UCI underlines its value is tied to a specific temporal context and follows a summary evaluation of the results of such tests. The spirit and purpose of the comments posted here was to avoid underestimation of the situation, the UCI for having major concern to fight against any possible doping thanks to its biological passport program , "concluded the international federation

http://www.rtbf.be/sport/cyclisme/detail_dopage-nouvelles-revelations-vendredi?id=6096973

 

[theswordsman]

That's just part of the UCI statement from the article. They have advance knowledge and seem to be trying to put out the fire before it's out in print.

I haven't cited the WADA Independent Observer Report from the 2010 Tour in a while. One document they had at the start of the race was, well, it's 51 pages so I guess I can copy and paste some bits that might end up having nothing to do with the article, but could be fun if they do.

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. It is clear that there are very few Anti-Doping Organisations that have such intelligence to hand and the UCI should be congratulated on the ABP programme and the benefits it brings to their programme and the world of anti-doping. Members of the IO Team were very grateful to receive this highly sensitive information. 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.

While recognising the high level of testing and a focus on targeting riders in the Pre-Tour period (i.e. April to June 2010) it was noted that there were a number of riders of significance who took part in the Tour who had either not been tested during the Pre-Tour period or who had only been tested once (with the majority of these for the ABP).

• During the Tour, a number of riders demonstrating suspicious profiles and/or showing significantly impressive performances at the Tour were tested on surprisingly few occasions and for three riders of interest did not provide a blood sample for the purposes of anti-doping in the whole Tour (instead each providing a single sample for the ABP). This was consistent with the IO Team’s view that at times more weight was given by the UCI to ABP samples than samples for the detection of the ‘presence’ of prohibited substances and/or methods.

• The IO Team was surprised to see that a random draw was conducted for Post-Finish testing on two stages. The IO Team did question the rationale of even conducting a random draw, and while recognising that the particular stage was a flat one (which usually finishes in a bunch sprint), it seemed a missed opportunity not to use the intelligence available to the UCI or even base the selections on the performance of the riders in the stage. This was considered by the UCI after the first random draw was conducted and the IO Team only observed one further random draw being conducted again on the Tour.

• A rider identified as having a priority index of eight (with ten being the highest and most at risk of doping) was tested only once (urine EPO) during the Pre-Tour period with no blood sample collected for the analysis of CERA, HBT, HBOC or other prohibited substances and/or methods. During the Tour recommendations from the Laboratory related to target testing for EPO did not seem to be conducted expediently or as appropriate (ie. the EPO test was conducted 6 days later while the blood sample was only analysed for hGH). Lastly, following a significant delay in providing an early morning sample and in conjunction with the intelligence already held on this rider, there seems no evidence of more intense target testing on this rider.

• For a rider identified as having a priority index of ten, no blood samples were collected following the Laboratory recommendations after interpretation of blood passport data from the first week of the Tour, with only urine being collected and no blood as recommended by the Laboratory. Further, a recommendation to target test the rider for EPO took seven days to be executed.

• A rider identified as having a priority index of ten was not tested for either urine or blood from 3 April to the start of the Tour. Recommendations made by the Laboratory following testing in the first three days of the Tour resulted in no further blood samples being collected but rather only urine and approximately ten days later. The IO Team became aware of the remarks made by the laboratory regarding the analysis of this rider’s specific sample that raised the suspicion of the use of proteases. No further information regarding any actions taken by the UCI for further analysis of that sample was made available.

• For a rider identified as having a priority index of eight, who was recommended to be target tested for EPO by the Laboratory, the UCI did not target test the rider and in addition a sample collected five days later was not analysed for EPO. Interestingly in this case collection of follow-up samples from this rider was initiated by the AFLD via the WADA Resolution.

• Given the challenges in organising and resourcing unannounced missions, the IO Team would have expected to observe multiple riders being targeted for morning and/or evening testing. However, it was observed that when a single rider was targeted there was no consideration to testing additional riders either from the same team as the targeted rider or from teams also residing in the same hotel.

Before any conclusions are made with respect the UCI’s testing strategy the IO Team would like to reiterate that the UCI’s ABP is an excellent programme and one the UCI should be proud. However, in the opinion of the IO Team, the UCI now needs to take the next step in designing and executing a testing strategy that is radically different to those executed in the past

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...endent-Observer/WADA_IO_Report_TDF2010_EN.pdf

 

[hrotha]

In an ideal world, I'd be against publishing this kind of leaked info since it's supposed to be confidential and chances are it'll be taken out of context by non-experts, but hey, this might be a good chance to see how much crap the UCI is hiding.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

My guess is some riders - Menchov, Dertie, etc may have some questions to answer at the sign in tomorrow

 

[Mambo95]

In an ideal world, I'd be against publishing this kind of leaked info since it's supposed to be confidential and chances are it'll be taken out of context by non-experts, but hey, this might be a good chance to see how much crap the UCI is hiding.

I think that's one thing that you can guarantee.

 

[roundabout]

I doubt that having a list of riders graded 1 to 10 for their passports can be interpreted in any other way than certain riders being more suspect than others.

 

[Race Radio]

Don't forget that 2 weeks ago McQuaid threatened the teams with the release of the BioPassport data if they did not stop hassling him

 

[bigloco]

In an ideal world, I'd be against publishing this kind of leaked info since it's supposed to be confidential and chances are it'll be taken out of context by non-experts, but hey, this might be a good chance to see how much crap the UCI is hiding.

I honestly think that if you really want a clean sport, then wikileaks style releases have to happen. I think the UCI is as dirty as the riders that dope and the only way its going to change is to have a huge dirty bomb of information dropped on the press.

The LA payoff and the obfuscation of Contador's positive were close...but if something out there showed that they actively shielded certain riders from tests that would hurt them, well...let it all come out and let the chips fall where they may!

 

[hrotha]

I doubt that having a list of riders graded 1 to 10 for their passports can be interpreted in any other way than certain riders being more suspect than others.

I'm hoping it's not just numbers but also a complete explanation of why every rider is that much (or that little) suspicious.

(Even though that wouldn't make sense, if my understanding of how the biopassport is managed and riders are flagged is correct)

It's just, wouldn't it be great if we got a ranking of riders most likely to be clean? Man, I can dream.

 

[thehog]

I released this information on the Armstrong thread 2 days ago.

They have some top information. This is just the first part..... The Floyd litigation was the prompt to publish it now.....


Protection.

 

[Granville57]

The AToC just became interesting...

 

[hrotha]

I released this information on the Armstrong thread 2 days ago.

They have some top information. This is just the first part..... The Floyd litigation was the prompt to publish it now.....


Protection.

Where exactly?

 

[Mambo95]

I doubt that having a list of riders graded 1 to 10 for their passports can be interpreted in any other way than certain riders being more suspect than others.

I'd say more suspected, rather than more suspect (a very subtle difference). There will be a few riders (not many) who have had dodgy values for a legitimate reason, but as they have not had to defend themselves, haven't presented this evidence.

By and large though, it will offer an interesting guideline.

However, if a favourite clinic bad boy is ranked lowly, will people say 'OK, he's probably clean', or will they say 'he's got a better doctor' or 'he's a UCI protected rider'. I suspect the latter.

 

[thehog]

Where exactly?

Post 1356#

------


Three letters.....


UCI. They won't last this one.

& some weird drugs deals. Bloody hell don't sell the good stuff to cyclists sell it to others sportspersons.

 

[thehog]

Where exactly?

No one is listening but the authorities in Europe are gunning for the UCI also. They facilitate the entire network. Not through selling or trafficking but enablement.

 

[hrotha]

Post 1356#

------


Three letters.....


UCI. They won't last this one.

& some weird drugs deals. Bloody hell don't sell the good stuff to cyclists sell it to others sportspersons.

That's awfully vague. Fortune-teller vague.

 

[thehog]

In English.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...ocId=CNG.4232f6ae19eb54c58c9d35b7f0b4995b.ec1

PARIS — The International Cycling Union (UCI) on Thursday criticised the decision by respected French sports daily L'Equipe to publish results from dope tests taken on the eve of the 2010 Tour de France.

"The UCI has been informed that the L'Equipe newspaper was going to publish in its edition on Friday a confidential document containing the riders' individual readings following tests carried out before the start of the 2010 Tour de France," said the UCI.

"First of all, the UCI deplores that this document has come into the possession of outsiders as it is a single tool on which the antidoping services organise their activity during the race.

"This document was reserved for the UCI and independent experts of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Such a weakness in the confidentiality is very serious and the UCI will open an inquiry to discover the origin of the leak."

 

[Granville57]

That's awfully vague. Fortune-teller vague.

 

[mewmewmew13]

The AToC just became interesting...

Wasn't there some rumbling about Paso Robles??

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That's awfully vague. Fortune-teller vague.

The full unedited post was more vague than that - and it was in relation to the AP report that the US had requested 'evidence' from the 'French'.

Three letters.....


UCI. They won't last this one.

& some weird drugs deals. Bloody hell don't sell the good stuff to cyclists sell it to others sportspersons.

& Tyler H. Thank-you. He's no Floyd but he he about to admit once he gets the clearance to do so. Then he'll go away again. To get much much better.

 

[thehog]

The full unedited post was more vague than that - and it was in relation to the AP report that the US had requested 'evidence' from the 'French'.

Yes because all rumors are just full of details. It is what is.... It wad a rumor. The UCI is going to get hit hard. There was never a claim that is was more than that.

Cool your jets Doc.

Don't chase me. I'm no the enemy. If you don't like it I won't print it. Period.

 

[roundabout]

I'd say more suspected, rather than more suspect (a very subtle difference). There will be a few riders (not many) who have had dodgy values for a legitimate reason, but as they have not had to defend themselves, haven't presented this evidence.

By and large though, it will offer an interesting guideline.

However, if a favourite clinic bad boy is ranked lowly, will people say 'OK, he's probably clean', or will they say 'he's got a better doctor' or 'he's a UCI protected rider'. I suspect the latter.

True, suspected would be a better word to use.

For me personally, a different ranking of "dirtiness" compared to one I have in my mind would be a reason for a rethink.

 

[hrotha]

Yes because all rumors are just full of details. It is what is.... It wad a rumor. The UCI is going to get hit hard. There was never a claim that is was more than that.

Cool your jets Doc.

Don't chase me. I'm no the enemy. If you don't like it I won't print it. Period.

Fair enough, just a rumour. But...

I released this information on the Armstrong thread 2 days ago.

Don't run around pinning fake medals on your chest, it's kind of sad.

 

[Lanark]

So are these ratings based on a single test done at the start of the Tour, or on their bio-passports untill the start of the Tour?

 

[M Sport]

My guess is some riders - Menchov, Dertie, etc may have some questions to answer at the sign in tomorrow

Hmmm I don't think Contador is one being taken aim at in this leak, we already know from the post tour reports that he was singled out for more intensive testing than anyone else. I would say it is another couple of riders, maybe one in the US and one in Luxembourg?