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.