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

[DirtyWorks]

Salient Quote

This is probably the meat of the letter:

a list of priorities has to be established based upon a number of indications and not upon coincidence or discretion. Such indications are: the raw data of the haematological profile in the blood passport (so without taking into account whichever explanation for such data), the circumstance whether the rider has been tested recently and how often, sporting considerations (results, ranking, race programme, ambition, objectives).

He tries to make the list sound as empirical as possible, then throws in the whatever is in the kitchen sink with the sporting recommendations. ????

Can someone explain 'so without taking into account whichever explanation for such data' means? It makes no sense to me.

 

[Fus087]

Can someone explain 'so without taking into account whichever explanation for such data' means? It makes no sense to me.

A rider could have a natural/medical explanation for unusual numbers in the blood passport. These explanations are not taken into consideration for the purpose of "The List".

 

[Benotti69]

Did the UCI initiate the 'suspicion list' soley for TdF testing and it was updated for other events or were they asked to compile it for the TdF?

Is there a 'suspicion list' for other years or is this the first?

 

[just some guy]

Did the UCI initiate the 'suspicion list' soley for TdF testing and it was updated for other events or were they asked to compile it for the TdF?

Is there a 'suspicion list' for other years or is this the first?

there must have been lists for years - target testing and all that.

 

[ChrisE]

Interesting. Instead of the simple 'we can neither confirm nor deny', and 'the UCI does not leak' he confirms that the list is authentic, and then he even goes on to discuss how they came up with the ratings. Either he's a complete moron for doing this or there is some agenda.

To be honest, my money would be on the former.

So how does saying it is authentic, and how it was derived mean he is a moron?

 

[sniper]

more comedy







the guys a complete c**t.

a total dite****, for sure.

 

[D-Queued]

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/8...es-publication-of-the-Index-of-Suspicion.aspx

Open letter from Pat.

ROTFLMAO

It is essential to understand that this is not a list that indicates degrees of suspicion of doping, but a working document that establishes an order of priority for carrying out doping tests.

Oh, of course.

Umm, how does order of priority differ from suspicion again?

Something like this?

We start with the secret ring ceremony and remove the names of all of those who have contributed to our anti-doping program.

Then, we have the F'ing see filter.

If the first name starts with F, and the last with a C, they get a 0. Similarly, an F'ing S scores lower than A(n) S, etc.

Afterwards, we perform the classic stair test and toss the names down the staircase. This has been scientifically proven to be effective for setting exam grades at Universities and Colleges around the world - and it works for us as well.

Finally, if they are Russians (or Ukrainians 'cuz we can't tell the difference), they get an automatic 10. Because the Russians always get a 10 from the Russian judge.

Dave.

 

[Benotti69]

there must have been lists for years - target testing and all that.

black lists, ask Pellizotti.

 

[thehog]

Good summation by Velonation:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/8...pendent-Observers-report-raise-questions.aspx

 

[D-Queued]

Good summation by Velonation:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/8...pendent-Observers-report-raise-questions.aspx

Thanks hog:

• the document’s validity itself has not been disputed (just like the results of the 6 EPO positives was NEVER disputed)
• those ranked closer to the maximum ten out of ten should have been targeted for very close scrutiny by testers
• serious questions about the efficacy of testing
• When the Independent Observers report was released, the UCI did not comment on these shortcomings
• (10/10) Popovych is under scrutiny from US and Italian anti-doping investigators, and has been questioned on several occasions in relation to suspected use of doping products
• equally pertinent questions should be answered as to why four riders at the top end of the scale were not tested adequately

Dave.

 

[YoRUsh]

Yesterday during the broadcast of the tour of Cali the Dutch commentator on Eurosport said he talked with Barredo about the list. Of course he first said that he was shocked to get a score of ten, but also that he was very surprised, because he hasn't been tested since octobre. Why have a list if they are not gonna act on it?

 

[D-Queued]

Yesterday during the broadcast of the tour of Cali the Dutch commentator on Eurosport said he talked with Barredo about the list. Of course he first said that he was shocked to get a score of ten, but also that he was very surprised, because he hasn't been tested since octobre. Why have a list if they are not gonna act on it?

Somebody made an anonymous contribution on his behalf?

Dave.

 

[YoRUsh]

Somebody made an anonymous contribution on his behalf?

Dave.

For that contribution he could have been put lower on the list...I would ask for my money back if I was him. And if that is the case, then why bring this out yourself, instead of following the normal route of claiming to be tested a lot

 

[D-Queued]

For that contribution he could have been put lower on the list...I would ask for my money back if I was him. And if that is the case, then why bring this out yourself, instead of following the normal route of claiming to be tested a lot

Good point.

Maybe the contribution was very low, like $.25 or something.

Or, perhaps this is further verificaiton of the use of the Magic 8 Ball as a scoring criterion.

Dave.

 

[icefire]

Iban Mayoz sued the UCI for this list and the case has just been admitted at a court of law in San Sebastian:

http://www.biciciclismo.com/cas/site/noticias-ficha.asp?id=40410

This may be funny knowing that Mayoz is now retired and has nothing to fear from Pat's circus.

 

[hrotha]

Iban Mayoz sued the UCI for this list and the case has just been admitted at a court of law in San Sebastian:

http://www.biciciclismo.com/cas/site/noticias-ficha.asp?id=40410

This may be funny knowing that Mayoz is now retired and has nothing to fear from Pat's circus.

When I first heard of this I was wondering where exactly he was going to file his lawsuit. I was expecting Switzerland or at least France. But San Sebastián? How does that work?

 

[icefire]

When I first heard of this I was wondering where exactly he was going to file his lawsuit. I was expecting Switzerland or at least France. But San Sebastián? How does that work?

No idea. But chances that the judge is a cycling fan may be higher in the Basque Country than anywhere else

 

[neineinei]

As one of the 10's (Barredo) and the 9 (Menchov) now have been sanctioned, it might be interesting to revisit this list and compare it to the General classification (after stage 10) of the 2014 Tour de France.

There are two 8's riding this years tour: Jurgen Van Den Broeck (11) and Daniel Oss (64). There are also two 7's: Tony Martin (33) and Michael Rogers (50), and two 6's: Alessandro Petacchi (172) and Geraint Thomas (14).

The only top ten rider who also rode the 2010 TdF, and thus is on the suspiscion index, is Rui Costa. He was a 3.

Van Den Broeck (at 11) was a 8, Fuglsang (at 12) was a 1, Geraint Thomas (at 14) was a 6, Rolland (at 16) was a 0, Horner (at 17) was a 0, Gautier (at 18) was a 5.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ucis-suspicious-list-leaked-from-2010-tour-de-france

 

[King Boonen]

Well the Horner score shows how useless that list is...

 

[JimmyFingers]

Well the Horner score shows how useless that list is...

Despite that it keeps getting dragged up though.

 

[hrotha]

Well the Horner score shows how useless that list is...

Again with this.

Horner's score is equivalent to a negative test. Just because he was given a low priority at the time for whatever reasons, that doesn't mean he was thought to be clean. We've seen his blood data from back then and we know it's dodgy, so god knows why the testers weren't told to target him at that Tour (remember, that list is a snapshot of the 2010 TdF), but we also know he's been pretty heavily targeted in recent years so his perfect score of 0 wasn't due to an immaculate blood profile.

A high score (=>5) was said to correspond to values for which doping was almost the only possible explanation. It doesn't follow that a low score means the rider wasn't doping, just like a positive test is proof of doping but a negative means ****-all.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

A high score (=>5) was said to correspond to values for which doping was almost the only possible explanation. It doesn't follow that a low score means the rider wasn't doping, just like a positive test is proof of doping but a negative means ****-all.

That was the explanation printed in l'equipe. However, there was never a definitive answer for this. I have seen various other explanations and JV posted a slightly different one.

it was based on the pre tour test result, combined with the frequency of recent tests. Barredo, who got a 10, had not been tested by bio pass in over 4 months and had some suspicious values. The 10 meant "test a lot, as this one needs it"

You could get a high number as the result of lack of recent testing or an odd blood result.

And a positive doping test can still be wrong. Hence they test multiple times.

 

[Dalakhani]

There are also two 7's: Tony Martin (33) and Michael Rogers (50)

...one of whom has subsequently "eaten contaminated meat". (Which, presumably, came from the guy who sold Contador his meat.)

 

[hrotha]

That was the explanation printed in l'equipe. However, there was never a definitive answer for this. I have seen various other explanations and JV posted a slightly different one.



And a positive doping test can still be wrong. Hence they test multiple times.

Thing is, I don't buy the UCI's official explanation (which is what JV was bringing up). There are inconsistencies with it that haven't been addressed properly:

In fact, IIRC L'Equipe said the list was compiled taking only blood data into account, with other parties suggesting other factors were involved afterwards, possibly to be able to water down the ugly inferences regarding specific riders.

Oddly enough, the French teams and riders got, by far, the lowest scores. This was before 2011's Europcar festival, and before some other worrying signals coming from France. If lack of recent testing was such a big factor, wouldn't you expect high scores to be distributed more evenly? Or does this mean the French were tested more often than anybody else in 2010, despite their being largely a non-factor, therefore lowering their scores?

 

[del1962]

...one of whom has subsequently "eaten contaminated meat". (Which, presumably, came from the guy who sold Contador his meat.)

Clenbutarol in China is very different from the EU, much more concerning is that Mick is a former Ferrari client