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

[Zinoviev Letter]

Leaving the Hog & the Shack hanging out to dry would make sense if Paddy was looking for revenge. But JV looks pretty good on the "team scale" and he's been yanking the UCI's chain for quite awhile.

Plus, this list only makes the UCI look bad for NOT testing Popo.

So what's the game here?

Exactly.

There's no obvious benefit to the UCI top brass in deliberately leaking this as far as I can see. It hurts the image of the sport and the image of the UCI more than it hurts the team owners or anyone else the UCI might want to score points against.

 

[maltiv]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Michael Barry as a 0. I stopped reading the list 2 names into the 0's. Then I laughed my *** off when I read France teams had the lowest scores - no shiet sherlocks the riders siuk and have normal physiological capabilities. As for some good riders being very low scored those are testing frequencies and timing. So sad this information got into the public hands and is misinterpreted...

It is very obvious that you stopped reading indeed, because you clearly didn't notice that the list was based purely on recent blood values. Why on earth would you believe that Michael Barry still dopes?

 

[Granville57]

Today in here I learned that zero is a bigger number than 10.

Like an odometer. It maxes out then starts all over again.

 

[hrotha]

Exactly.

There's no obvious benefit to the UCI top brass in deliberately leaking this as far as I can see. It hurts the image of the sport and the image of the UCI more than it hurts the team owners or anyone else the UCI might want to score points against.

I agree.
Consider also Contador's positive being leaked, I doubt the UCI (as an institution) was behind that. I'd like to believe someone within the UCI is tired of the shenanigans.

 

[Granville57]

There's no obvious benefit to the UCI top brass in deliberately leaking this as far as I can see. It hurts the image of the sport and the image of the UCI more than it hurts the team owners or anyone else the UCI might want to score points against.

Unless the UCI was planning on releasing their OWN version of events--that would've suited their needs--but then someone else made a preemptive strike?

 

[Benotti69]

you realize that he doesn't actually have access to his test results, right? I'm not sure how he could publish them.

well according to myth and legend all the teams have their own testing and they could publish those results, but then we might figure out how they beat the anti doping.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

well according to myth and legend all the teams have their own testing and they could publish those results, but then we might figure out how they beat the anti doping.

You know that the riders don't have access to those results either, right?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Leaving the Hog & the Shack hanging out to dry would make sense if Paddy was looking for revenge. But JV looks pretty good on the "team scale" and he's been yanking the UCI's chain for quite awhile.

Plus, this list only makes the UCI look bad for NOT testing Popo.

So what's the game here?

I think the list is weighted according to the top-secret UCI popularity contest scale. Note, the list was prepared for doping officials that completely ignores previous positives. It's not the UCI's data sources.

If I'm running the UCI I would definitely lower the rank of riders who draw the most viewers before sending it over to an anti-doping agency. Why would I want to risk harm to what's left of a reputation?

Why Menchov is on the sh!t list might be some interesting politics.

 

[theswordsman]

I haven't followed the thread at all, so I don't know if this has come up or not. A friend on twitter was trying to play spot the leaker, and I recalled from page ten of the IO Report that one of the doctors had been sent home after a failed attempt to draw blood. The four doctors were supplied by either the AFLD or Italians. Disgruntled former employees always make fun suspects, but did the UCI leaders give the doctors a look at the list?

 

[Benotti69]

After checking the list, note the circumstances. The list is prepared for anti-doping officials by the UCI.
Note how the list is weighted. Riders with less impact to the franchise are consistently ranked lower. Menchov's ranking blows my theory, but he's the only exception.

My crackpot theory is there are other records internal to the UCI, populated with testing data that have very different ranking. Given the enormous contradictions in doping actions at the UCI, a second set of records is likely to exist.

and lets hope they get leaked too.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

If I'm running the UCI I would definitely lower the rank of riders who draw the most viewers before sending it over to an anti-doping agency.

The 0-1 category isn't exactly littered with the sport's biggest names.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I'd like to believe someone within the UCI is tired of the shenanigans.

That would be nice, in a sense anyway.

 

[Havetts]

The 0-1 category isn't exactly littered with the sport's biggest names.

Gesink is one of 'the' bigger names, together with F Schleck.

 

[pedaling squares]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Michael Barry as a 0. I stopped reading the list 2 names into the 0's...

I think the only 'evidence' against Barry is Landis' claim about their conversation from several years ago. I'll admit to being suspicious about his performance in Hamilton, but his domestique work in recent years hasn't raised my eyebrows.

Most reasonable people would conclude from your user name that you're an Astana fan. Especially when there's an option to turn off avatars.

Really really clever people like Astana1 and me can tell by your username that you hate Team Garmin.

 

[Granville57]

The List

Full list

http://www.flickr.com/photos/49195174@N00/5714862867/in/photostream

Just wanted to drop this in again since so many pages have passed since.

 

[therhodeo]

Gesink is one of 'the' bigger names, together with F Schleck.

Cancellara and Cavendish are 2 of the biggest in the sport right now.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I wonder why some many have problems with Cancellaras Zero. He is NOT a contender in the GT´s. And who´s most likely to get busted trou positives? Of course contenders, as history shows.

Roche? Why everybody has a problem with him. Coz of the manager? LOL. He comes from a "cleanish" team, he´s quiet, he´s consitent. No ups and downs like Menchov. Coz of his father? LOL. Is everybody guilty coz of a sour family?

Andy Schleck: I said yesterday: Since 2008 guys are afraid. Attacks are as late as possible in GT´s than ever before. It seems guys really try to save energy. That´s why we have so small time gaps in the GT´s for 3 years now.

The list makes perfectly sense with some small questions: Horner, Gerdemann, Martin. That´s JUST 3 out of 198!!!

 

[Hugh Januss]

Unless the UCI was planning on releasing their OWN version of events--that would've suited their needs--but then someone else made a preemptive strike?

What's to say that this isn't UCI's own version? This clearly shows that other than a "few bad apples" the pro peloton is "cleaner than ever" and that it is posible (ala Cancellara) to be a "great champion" without doping. I am sure that it will be pointed out that anyone up to about a 5 certainly as the leeway for natural explanation of the results.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Gesink is one of 'the' bigger names, together with F Schleck.

I didn't say that there were no big names in the 0-1 category, just that there's no disproportionate cluster of them. In fact the biggest names seem to be clustered around the middle tiers.

 

[mewmewmew13]

After checking the list, note the circumstances. The list is prepared for anti-doping officials by the UCI.
Note how the list is weighted. Riders with less impact to the franchise are consistently ranked lower. Menchov's ranking blows my theory, but he's the only exception.

My crackpot theory is there are other records internal to the UCI, populated with testing data that have very different ranking. Given the enormous contradictions in doping actions at the UCI, a second set of records is likely to exist.

I must be a crackpot too. See post #319....

'Motives and parties behind the leak speak more than the actual 'ratings' on paper maybe...
Maybe this was the 'leakable' copy and there exists another? you know, like accounting books??? '

 

[DirtyWorks]

The 0-1 category isn't exactly littered with the sport's biggest names.

I didn't mean put them on the bottom. The list needs to have the vaguest smell of validity, so a couple of points either way to protect the most valuable riders according to the UCI's top secret popularity contest is reasonable.

I realize Menchov's 9 cripples my crackpot theory. Other than him, it works.

 

[sniper]

Cancellara and Cavendish are 2 of the biggest in the sport right now.

Cavendish is not an interesting name here. He's unlikely to be a blooddoper. He aint no Zabel.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Andy Schleck: I said yesterday: Since 2008 guys are afraid. Attacks are as late as possible in GT´s than ever before. It seems guys really try to save energy. That´s why we have so small time gaps in the GT´s for 3 years now.

This is an excellent observation. The only really exception to that was the Contador and Kloden vs. the two Schlecks in 2009. That attack happened pretty early, but at that point, it was through necessity.

I think you're right. Other than instances where necessity calls for it, attacks are delayed until the last moment.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Cripples the 1% Theme

This list blows the "1% or 2% of riders dope" line that Pat and Hein refer to when needed.

The TdF is the deepest field of the stage racing calendar and according to the list, 7-10% are very likely doping.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

What's to say that this isn't UCI's own version? This clearly shows that other than a "few bad apples" the pro peloton is "cleaner than ever" and that it is posible (ala Cancellara) to be a "great champion" without doping.

It still seems unlikely that this was a deliberate leak by UCI top brass.

This casts aspersions against too many riders and too many big names for it to fit the UCI's desired story. There are too many riders with high numbers against their names for it to fit into a "bad apples" narrative.

It also makes the UCI look bad and cycling look bad. And that's bad for the UCI's business.