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

[roundabout]

Not even 5, but 10-15th should be easily manageable....

5 on the 0-10 UCI scale.

Edit: disregard that, I see your point.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Hmmm, Museeuw?
edit: I actually missed the TT reference, but still, it sort of counts because Cancellara is also a classics guy.

Like Armstrong.... now i am just kidding. I have a good laugh now that i think about Mr.-4-Pts.

 

[hrotha]

Was he completly dominating the TT´s? ... Cancellara dominates like Armstrong (or Ulle), only that Mr-4-Points has 7 more TdF wins

Yeah, I missed that and I edited my original post accordingly, but still, different people have different objectives, and the GT guys are not the only ones who dope is what I meant.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

5 on the 0-10 UCI scale.

Edit: disregard that, I see your point.

Just wanted to write you that. My post makes sense even if i had understood your post correct

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Yeah, I missed that and I edited my original post accordingly, but still, different people have different objectives, and the GT guys are not the only ones who dope is what I meant.

I know that. That´s why i don´t trust any riders. I just wanted to make it clear, that Cancellara´s 0 points make sense.

Say we have 30 true GT-Contenders, around 10 were positiv the last few years (Mosquera, Kohl, DiLuca, Contador, etc.). Of the other 1.500 riders may 150 were positiv. That´s a big discrepancy. And i just didn´t count the covered up guys like Mr.-4-Pts...

 

[DirtyWorks]

Good comment from l'equipe (the tabloid);
… it reveals a reality far detached from the belief that ‘all doped’ and twists the neck of the idea of organized doping within teams.”

There is no discussion to be had with an 'all doped' argument. It's always false. It makes Pat and Hein's '1 to 2% dope' look like an unflattering view. That said, perhaps the paper was being charitable by providing a context in which the rider list could be considered by the public.

What says more was the threat from McQuaid about publishing rider passport data in order to keep the teams in line.

 

[thehog]

Like Armstrong.... now i am just kidding. I have a good laugh now that i think about Mr.-4-Pts.

"never tested 5 or above"

 

[luckyboy]

Don't know if someone has said this but CN's wording is pretty funny in their article "RadioShack positive about leaked list"

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

"never tested 5 or above"

Hahaha.... that´s funny. delicious

 

[B_Ugli]

Whatever way you analyse this list and whatever conspiracy theory people put on it the fact remains.

They are all still on it

Having followed cycling for years most of my club mates (including I) believe that most of the peleton is still on the juice. Close followers of cycling the world over believe the same.

 

[Escarabajo]

Whatever way you analyse this list and whatever conspiracy theory people put on it the fact remains.

They are all still on it

Having followed cycling for years most of my club mates (including I) believe that most of the peleton is still on the juice. Close followers of cycling the world over believe the same.

Remember that the list is more related to O2 vectors rather than recuperation med. So your point is still applicable anyway. Not that I agree with it.

 

[Benotti69]

Good comment from l'equipe (the tabloid);


That was a point echoed by the newspaper, too. L’Equipe‘s editorial column that accompanied the list praises cycling and the UCI for the fight against doping. Under the headline “Cycling shows the way” editor Gilles Simon writes (in part): “What you have in front of your eyes is not a lists of culprits. The inventory prepared by the UCI doctors is a working document for the attention of the anti-doping inspectors. Its a unique document, without precedent in other sports, the fruit of a long-term work and observation, which constitutes a sharp instrument in the anti-doping politics led by the UCI. … it reveals a reality far detached from the belief that ‘all doped’ and twists the neck of the idea of organized doping within teams.”


http://velonews.competitor.com/2011...ng-suspicions-from-2010-tour-de-france_172784

At the end of the day, the list proves nothing the clinic hasn't already discussed before. Without any proof of positives, no one can say who is doping. We could probably compile a better list with our dot joining. What needs to come out next is whether the UCI abided by the list and targeted those on it as advised. And if so that should mean Popo and Menchov got tested nearly everyday!

 

[Granville57]

At the end of the day, the list proves nothing the clinic hasn't already discussed before.

49 pages and 485 posts in...and NOW you tell me?!?!?

 

[Benotti69]

49 pages and 485 posts in...and NOW you tell me?!?!?

ah well some people gotta be told a few times before it sinks in, bit like a transfusion

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

"never tested 5 or above"

LOL. That's money.

 

[Granville57]

ah well some people gotta be told a few times before it sinks in, bit like a transfusion

Knowledge transfusions. That's what happens in The Clinic.

 

[Granville57]

"never tested 5 or above"

 

[theswordsman]

At the end of the day, the list proves nothing the clinic hasn't already discussed before. Without any proof of positives, no one can say who is doping. We could probably compile a better list with our dot joining. What needs to come out next is whether the UCI abided by the list and targeted those on it as advised. And if so that should mean Popo and Menchov got tested nearly everyday!

Go back to the very first page of the thread in my second post - anticipating that it would be this list, I posted bits from the Independent Observer Report. Cheers

 

[hrotha]

From AIGCP's response:

2. Levels of targeting occur due to performances, not just blood values. The UCI informed the teams of this in Geneva. So, a rider may have a higher index simply because they are riding unusually well, and not because of any hematological parameter. So, being “targeted” is not necessarily indicative of doping.

Some have said L'Equipe mentioned performance being taken into account, others have said it didn't. So, what's the truth about this particular point?

If performance is an important factor in determining these scores, you'd expect Cancellara and all GC contenders to have a high priority, but that's not the case with the Schlecks, Gesink, Purito or Samu (although the latter might be a case of everybody but Hitch forgetting about him).

 

[Arnout]

This thread is really funny.

If a rider a certain member thought to be doping is high on the list, it is not news, but a mere confirmation of own excellence.

If a rider is low on the list but was expected to be high, it is not a wrong judgment but again a confirmation of own excellence, it only doesn't show yet.

If a rider thought dope free is high on the list, he is still dope free because there are other reasons.

Really, this sums up the clinic really nicely. Not looking for the truth as you pretend to do, but only judging according to own prejucides. Thanks for reminding me that I shouldn't take this board seriously.

 

[hrotha]

Huh, hello? We have like 500 posts of people arguing with each other and obviously not agreeing about how to interpret all of this? Keep your blanket statements to yourself.

 

[Mambo95]

This thread is really funny.

If a rider a certain member thought to be doping is high on the list, it is not news, but a mere confirmation of own excellence.

If a rider is low on the list but was expected to be high, it is not a wrong judgment but again a confirmation of own excellence, it only doesn't show yet.

If a rider thought dope free is high on the list, he is still dope free because there are other reasons.

Really, this sums up the clinic really nicely. Not looking for the truth as you pretend to do, but only judging according to own prejucides. Thanks for reminding me that I shouldn't take this board seriously.

+1

I half predicted this before the list was even published. The conspiracy theories to explain the low scores are hilarious.

The truth seems to be that the UCI looked at the pre-Tour blood tests and acted on that. A pretty haphazard approach, but probably the best available.

 

[yetanothergreenworld]

It's just painfully obvious why L'Equipe have published this list. If, say, Thomas Voeckler had a suspicion index of 8, we'd have heard nothing about this.

I'm sick of people trying to discredit the French anti-doping crusade by portraying it as "just" a matter of self-interest or self-satisfaction. The French in general are on the right side of this fight; get over it.

 

[Arnout]

Huh, hello? We have like 500 posts of people arguing with each other and obviously not agreeing about how to interpret all of this? Keep your blanket statements to yourself.

Feel like a clean cyclist being wrongfully accused?

Well, as I know I am right I will keep by my statement. But if Moncoutie would be posting here, I would make an exception.

 

[Escarabajo]

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.

I knew I had read it somewhere:

AIGCP responds to leaked list

2. Levels of targeting occur due to performances, not just blood values. The UCI informed the teams of this in Geneva. So, a rider may have a higher index simply because they are riding unusually well, and not because of any hematological parameter. So, being “targeted” is not necessarily indicative of doping.