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

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 12, 2010
1,998
0
0
M Sport said:
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?

That's all the more reason to suspect he had a high number at the start of the Tour, because more intensive testing is exactly the reaction you would (or should) expect if someone shows suspicious numbers at the start of the Tour. (of course, we don't know if Contador was singled out, considering he was the favorite to win, it would make sence to test him a lot even without suspicious blood values).
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
i have no idea what will be published nor do i have any intent to protect the uci (anyone following my posting history should get an idea)...but, to put the quick sanity check in place:

the ROUTINE uci-sponsored (as opposed to afld) blood tests prior to the 2010 tour are NOT equal to

(i) legally valid doping tests
(ii) official (and quite effective) targeted ooc bio passport tests
(iii) trend-derived longitudinal bio-pass tests

to put it simply, the released information may be highly suggestive but hardly actionable.
 
We should have a forum game about this, trying to guess the values of particular riders or creating our own rankings of most suspicious TdF starters. It would exist in a limbo between the Clinic and the Games forum.
 
Jul 3, 2010
84
2
8,685
hrotha said:
We should have a forum game about this, trying to guess the values of particular riders or creating our own rankings of most suspicious TdF starters. It would exist in a limbo between the Clinic and the Games forum.

I'd play that one! My guess...A Schleck has the highest HCT of the non-Russians!
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
hrotha said:
We should have a forum game about this, trying to guess the values of particular riders or creating our own rankings of most suspicious TdF starters. It would exist in a limbo between the Clinic and the Games forum.

Contador's.
otdpqh.jpg
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
1
0
Seems both WADA and the UCI have access to this confidential data.
Do they both follow the same Confidentiality Spec?

It would seem a Confidentiality Spec is very important for an Organization such as WADA. If WADA Documents were leaked - seems to be a bad reflection on WADA. Following procedures is important I would think.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
M Sport said:
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?

Or more likely a couple of aussies!
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
1
0
D-Queued said:
Deflection?

Who knows. Could be the whole alphabet.

Let's start with the letter "A".

Dave.

Ok, I'll bite lol.

"A" is for Alberto
"B" is for Bradley
"C" is for Cadel

Of course, it is all just speculation.
Need more info leaked to fine tune the guessing.

Any chance WADA or the UCI leaked any names?
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Don´t know why you all think of Schleck. My guess it is because of his bro´s connection with Fuentes. My tipp is more going into the direction of Menchov, Wiggins and all those who have roller-coaster periods. Andy showed good results early in his career, which is always a sign of talent (even in the hi-tech Dope-Era).

BTW, i am not a fan of Andy. A real shock would be if something is wrong with Gerdemann.

But in the end: Nothing will be published. Period.
 
Polish said:
Ok, I'll bite lol.

"A" is for Alberto
"B" is for Bradley
"C" is for Cadel

Of course, it is all just speculation.
Need more info leaked to fine tune the guessing.

Any chance WADA or the UCI leaked any names?

I don't think you should move on to B or C until you finish with A. When you get there, 'C' is for Contador.

As for who leaked the names. My money is on the UCI. Any takers?

Dave.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Don´t know why you all think of Schleck. My guess it is because of his bro´s connection with Fuentes. My tipp is more going into the direction of Menchov, Wiggins and all those who have roller-coaster periods. Andy showed good results early in his career, which is always a sign of talent (even in the hi-tech Dope-Era).

BTW, i am not a fan of Andy. A real shock would be if something is wrong with Gerdemann.

But in the end: Nothing will be published. Period.

Well there are rumours from France(the old Cyanide board and a guy called Aquarius who would be a good addition here) where Andy rode for VC Roubaix that he was a "charger" even then.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Then i wonder why Andy and the others attack soo late nowadays (precisely since every GT 2008+), thus being the reasons for small time gaps.... I think some guys are real afraid, OTOH of course it´s possible that Andy was a charger early. Who wasn´t?

What i meant, don´t look for the biggest guys but those who look suspicious. Many of them were caught anyway like DiLuca (nowhere to be seen outside of Giro), Mosquera (same about Vuelta), Kohl (same about TdF), etc....

Menchov, Wiggins, VdV, etc. are "favourites"* if anything is published...

P.S.: * How can i forget?... And of course, Armstrong
 
Jul 27, 2009
749
0
0
flicker said:
Or more likely a couple of aussies!

I'm not ruling anyone out, I'm certainly not showing any bias because I live in Australia.

I was just saying in reply to another poster that given the broad (no names) post tour doping report on who did/didn’t get tested that Alberto likely isn’t one that likely got missed at any stage. Post or pre tour. In my opinion they were pointing the finger at riders who had one or two tests when they should have had more, we already know AC had 10+ tests so he didn't fit most if not all of the bullet points.

I would be amazed if one of the Schleck’s isn’t in the leaked document.

Again, just an opinion …. I’m happy enough to wait for the leaked document to surface.
 
May 25, 2010
149
0
0
One more piece

Along with this data if someone could get the blood work from stages after rest days, thats the stuff that would really show some "well prepared" riders.
 
Jul 27, 2009
680
0
0
M Sport said:
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?

I thought it was Lance Armstrong who was the most tested athlete on the planet. Surely that hasn't changed, has it? :D:D:D
 
roundabout said:
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.
The ranking might also involve the rider's related performances during the year. At least that's waht was said on this forum. That means that most GT contenders can not start with a low rating, as expected anyway. But to be honest, they are usually with the dodgy blood profiles IMHO.

Please somebody correct me if I am wrong.
 
Polish said:
Seems both WADA and the UCI have access to this confidential data.
Do they both follow the same Confidentiality Spec?

It would seem a Confidentiality Spec is very important for an Organization such as WADA. If WADA Documents were leaked - seems to be a bad reflection on WADA. Following procedures is important I would think.

Yeah you just keep thinking, that's what you are best at.
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
If I understand the various statements correctly, it is the "confidential document from the UCI to WADA that contained the riders' individual readings".

This might be a great development, but the data alone will only be the public release of a single, indicator on certain riders.

I am curious if the report also contains other things that get published alongside. As without that, it isn't quite what I would be hoping for, or is needed, to put the UCI on a spot it isn't already on, I think.

Sure, it might trigger some awkward questions for some riders. Some will get significant new data behind their name that will raise questions to them.

But it doesn't really add new awkward questions to the UCI, as we have something far more poignant already, the report by WADA on what the UCI id with this data.

We have the WADA Independent Observer Report that put big question marks not next to this data, which is cited as an example of what the UCI did right, but what the UCI did with it after that.

If all this does is narrow the pool of rider-X's, that might help the media to raise more poignant questions in a way that speaks better to the imagination of the public. Or put the spotlight again on something awkward for the UCI.

But technically, we already can, and have, done that, and the UCI certainly brushed that off without sustaining irrecoverable wounds.

To me, it only gets really interesting, from a "what it says about the UCI's attitude" angle, if the leaked report also contains the UCI's framing of the data, or if someone or something can tie the data to what the UCI ended up doing with the indicators during that Tour, for very specific riders. Or ended up not doing, to be more precise.

If they also had confidential UCI internal Tour testing policy consequence discussions or reports, now that would be something. [Hog suggests there is more, without saying what, but also suggests the "more" won't come out in this round].

If dots alone would bring the house down, the house would have crumbled long before. We already know about this dot and have a filled in line to dot #2: what happened as a consequence.

Making this dot bigger and more specific doesn't explain why so little was done. We need to know why so little was done with it.

It gets warm if it was through incompetence. It only gets hot if it was deliberate. We need specific examples that prove the UCI deliberately protects certain riders, if that is what they are doing. It sounds as if this really won't take us far along that route.

But I agree, it's an interesting development, and it will be plenty uncomfortable for several key actors, I am sure.

6am in Paris. We should soon know for whom.