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

[maltiv]

Surprises:

Cancellara (0): Seriously? Either he got the best ever medical team behind him or he is the most talented athlete in the history!

Geraint Thomas (6): Never thought of him as a doper, although he improved a lot in 2010. I hope he has an explanation.

Horner (0): WHAT?! The guy who had his best-ever year at 39, beating Valverde in Pais Vasco, is considered as not suspect at all? Wow.

Frank Schleck (2): No explanation needed.

Tony Martin (7): I wanted to believe in this guy, but this was a little high number...

Not surprising at all:

EBH (0): I know he was clean as a junior and his performance as a pro hasn't been particularly shady.

Voeckler (0): Of course he is clean.

I'm also very happy to see Nicolas Roche at 0, although it's not very surprising (of course, I take in consideration that the numbers aren't proof of anything)

 

[AussieGoddess]

Thomas or anyone else could have a high number because of one weird wayward statistic. Other guys could be low because they are meticulous. I guarantee people everywhere will reference these numbers in future discussions of who is doing what. Rider x could be pumping an extra liter in as we speak but he could have been a zero last July. This thing should have never seen the light of day.

And besides. This could all be about McQuaid retaliating and have nothing to do with trying to clean the sport.

+1

Correct. The rating systems is in place to assist the UCI and the testers to determine who to “target test”. The UCI has used the indices in reverse and avoided those who were most likely to test positive.

yep excactly. This is not a list of dopers. Just a list of which riders the UCI thought should be targeted (or in actual case ... avoided)

I suspect Cancellara doesn't load him self up during July.

Actually, I'm not surprised at Cancellara. Could be such a great talent that he doesn't need dope.

Im not surprised either. Remember this is a list of the suspicions for targetting DURING THE TOUR. Who would expect Cance to dope up for the tour? He isnt a contender for anything really ... why would he bother?

 

[roundabout]

So a 6 ridng for Sky should hopefully have an explanation while Martin who is 7 is beyond hope?

Or?

 

[cprior]

always talking about how having a good program is largely about being able to dope while still fooling the biological passport.

+1________

 

[maltiv]

So a 6 ridng for Sky should hopefully have an explanation while Martin who is 7 is beyond hope?

Or?

No no, I just read about Geraint Thomas missing spleen which I hoped was a valid explanation. Tony Martin could of course also have an explanation, but I can't think of any that I know of, that's all.

 

[Frosty]

Im not surprised either. Remember this is a list of the suspicions for targetting DURING THE TOUR. Who would expect Cance to dope up for the tour? He isnt a contender for anything really ... why would he bother?

Held the yellow jersey for the first week. Wanted to win the prologue, do well for the team and himself on the Roubaix stage. Try and help the Schlecks as much as possible later on, win the final TT. He had quite a few goals.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Scores of 2-4 shouldn't be taken as an indication of cleanliness.

only the scores of zero and one meant that the riders had a very clean record. Ratings from two to four were based on stable passports which nevertheless showed a rare abnormality at a precise time.

It probably just means that you're staying inside certain parameters. We've all seen Lance's -09 numbers so we now what a 4 looks like...

The german media will be all over Klöden and Martin.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

Surprises:

Cancellara (0): Seriously? Either he got the best ever medical team behind him or he is the most talented athlete in the history!

Geraint Thomas (6): Never thought of him as a doper, although he improved a lot in 2010. I hope he has an explanation.

Horner (0): WHAT?! The guy who had his best-ever year at 39, beating Valverde in Pais Vasco, is considered as not suspect at all? Wow.

Frank Schleck (2): No explanation needed.

Tony Martin (7): I wanted to believe in this guy, but this was a little high number...

Not surprising at all:

EBH (0): I know he was clean as a junior and his performance as a pro hasn't been particularly shady.

Voeckler (0): Of course he is clean.

I'm also very happy to see Nicolas Roche at 0, although it's not very surprising (of course, I take in consideration that the numbers aren't proof of anything)

Navarro - 2, Valls - 1. Very impressive Tours if they were clean(ish).

 

[hrotha]

So a 6 ridng for Sky should hopefully have an explanation while Martin who is 7 is beyond hope?

Or?

Don't let his name fool you. Martin is not actually a native English speaker.

 

[theswordsman]

I just woke up, and found that I guessed the document right in my original posts

Guys have had access to machines so they know how much to microdose & keep their values looking even. The UCI didn't understand that until Landis sat down with Catlin and Ashenden last year. They were shocked at the time of the timing of EPO usage, and that microdoses were used to make values look normal after blood transfusions and other substances were used. Even those Under 23 Lithuanian riders who got busted for possession were using a precise mix of things to avoid detection.

For me, the big part of the story now is in my second post from yesterday, where the Independent Observers questioned the testing, or lack of it, for guys rated high on suspicion. Someone should ask the UCI why they were avoided. Was it because they don't want positive tests?

The article on Landis, Catlin, Ashenden and intravenous EPO is well worth another read right now. Guys whose values fluctuate throughout the year due to training and racing efforts might be the ones who aren't manipulating the scores.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5222488

 

[nesocip]

I dont understand why are people calling this list bull**** because Canc or Horner have a 0 and Thomas a 6 or whatever.

It is a list based on blood profiles. Nothing less nothing more. No performance factor, no doping hearsay, no past bans. It is very clear in the article.

It means that either Canc is clean, or he has a great program. It means that either Popo and Barredo should fire their preparatores, or they are clean and suffer from some terrible bone marrow disease.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

5 and above is likely to be really bad.

 

[Frosty]

No no, I just read about Geraint Thomas missing spleen which I hoped was a valid explanation. Tony Martin could of course also have an explanation, but I can't think of any that I know of, that's all.

I posted earlier about Wegelius blaming a 50% + HCT in 2003 on a missing spleen. Then again turning it the other way round, Wegelius only scored a 3 on this so its not as if they both have a very high score. However, one person's reaction would not necessarily be the same as someone else's so im not sure what to make of it all - its not as if Wegelius has a 0.

Part of the problem with the data being published just as one figure. It can be a bigger picture than that.

 

[cocteau_ireland]

Apparently (a la spinal tap) theres a series of riders on eleven

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

I just woke up, and found that I guessed the document right in my original posts

Guys have had access to machines so they know how much to microdose & keep their values looking even. The UCI didn't understand that until Landis sat down with Catlin and Ashenden last year. They were shocked at the time of the timing of EPO usage, and that microdoses were used to make values look normal after blood transfusions and other substances were used. Even those Under 23 Lithuanian riders who got busted for possession were using a precise mix of things to avoid detection.

For me, the big part of the story now is in my second post from yesterday, where the Independent Observers questioned the testing, or lack of it, for guys rated high on suspicion. Someone should ask the UCI why they were avoided. Was it because they don't want positive tests?

The article on Landis, Catlin, Ashenden and intravenous EPO is well worth another read right now. Guys whose values fluctuate throughout the year due to training and racing efforts might be the ones who aren't manipulating the scores.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5222488

Yes, and the french teams are actually the dirtiest while Radioshack, Astana, BMC and HTC are the cleanest.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

I'm amused to see that the list by team corresponds quite closely with "conventional wisdom" about the teams.

The five teams with the least suspicious ratings are the four French outfits and Garmin. The teams with the most suspicious ratings are Radioshack and Astana. It's still circumstantial evidence, but it does tend to undermine the completely cynical position that everyone is as bad as everyone else.

If L'Equipe's explanation of the numbers is accurate, it means that not one single Garmin rider was in the moderately suspicious (5) or very suspicious (6 up) categories. And neither was anyone they've signed since.

FDJ and AG2R had extremely low scores across the board, with the exception of one rider each. If that rider was doping, that rather points towards them doing it without the knowledge of the team.

 

[maltiv]

Yes, and the french teams are actually the dirtiest while Radioshack, Astana, BMC and HTC are the cleanest.

I'm 100% sure that those who have made the list consider "incredibly stable" values as suspicious too, because that's just not natural.

 

[Astana1]

In other words this list changes nada. People will still believe what they want to. Millar guilty. Canc is still guilty. Horner must be guilty because he rides for Lance and he is 39.

When the evidence supports your belief its accurate, if not dismiss it completely.

The whole thing is totally nonsense.

 

[AussieGoddess]

Held the yellow jersey for the first week. Wanted to win the prologue, do well for the team and himself on the Roubaix stage. Try and help the Schlecks as much as possible later on, win the final TT. He had quite a few goals.

Yes - he had some goals. But realistically not something he would take risks for.

Before the spring classics - for sure, they should have been target testing him daily if necessary - but before the tour, its not surprising he wasnt a high risk.

But yes - I agree with those who are saying that some of those with lower risk profiles are definitely due to better and more precise prep work/science.

 

[theyoungest]

Maybe they thought "This guy survived Puerto, his passport is all over the place, and he's not even targeted for testing? This guy's indestructible".

TBH if there's a new Spanish signing for Rabo I'd have suspected, it wasn't Barredo.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Horner's 0 is really peculiar as The Shack is the dirtiest bunch out there. Kinda difficult to blame it on a superb medical team when his big name team mates are rated high.

 

[roundabout]

Rare abnormality at a precise time makes me feel queasy. It seems there are only about 25% (of course some people with zeros might be better in covering up their tracks and people with 1 and above might have a legitimate explanation) who are likely to be clean. I am really not sure what to think.

 

[Andy99]

From cyclingweakly..


"Please explain UCI. Begs the question, intentional, incompetence or corruption??" said Australian sprinter Robbie McEwen (Radioshack) via Twitter.

"I'm all for catching cheats but draw the line at this sort of thing which could be based on 1 single wayward statistic. And who leaked it?", he continued.

Britain's Mark Cavendish (HTC-Highroad) also gave his opinion on the list via Twitter: "So there's a leaked 1-10 'suspicion' scale for all 2010 Tour de France riders. So now EVERYONE'S suspicious, but just HOW suspicious?! BULL****"

Robbie Hunter (Radioshack) said: "Great job by UCI to have confidential details of riders leaked to the press.. In my eyes that's a major problem.. Get ur house in order!"

 

[hrotha]

In other words this list changes nada. People will still believe what they want to. Millar guilty. Canc is still guilty. Horner must be guilty because he rides for Lance and he is 39.

When the evidence supports your belief its accurate, if not dismiss it completely.

The whole thing is totally nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argume..._absence_of_evidence_from_evidence_of_absence
It's basically the same standard that applies to any doping test. Don't forget this is based on biological passport data.

 

[theswordsman]

Forgot to mention that some guys are tested so rarely that they could be having fluctuations that aren't noticed, while guys who win a lot have much more data, and therefore possibility of fluctuations.