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

[nevada]

Odd

Hunt a 7 ?

 

[neineinei]

WADA Independent Observer Report from the 2010 Tour:

• For a rider identified as having a priority index of ten, no blood samples were collected following the Laboratory recommendations after interpretation of blood passport data from the first week of the Tour, with only urine being collected and no blood as recommended by the Laboratory. Further, a recommendation to target test the rider for EPO took seven days to be executed.

• A rider identified as having a priority index of ten was not tested for either urine or blood from 3 April to the start of the Tour. Recommendations made by the Laboratory following testing in the first three days of the Tour resulted in no further blood samples being collected but rather only urine and approximately ten days later. The IO Team became aware of the remarks made by the laboratory regarding the analysis of this rider’s specific sample that raised the suspicion of the use of proteases. No further information regarding any actions taken by the UCI for further analysis of that sample was made available.

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/Wo...TDF2010_EN.pdf

L'Equipe:
Rating of 10:
* Carlos Barredo, ESP, QuickStep
* Yaroslav Popovych, UKR, RadioShack


Why UCI?

 

[jsem94]

Still can't grasp why Canc is at 0. Lol.

 

[Straßenrennen]

The scale means

0-1 = Not suspicious
2-4 = Some remarks about the blood profile, but still not suspicious
5 = More remarks about the blood profile, is being watched carefully
6-10 = Very suspicious (the higher the worse obviously), many remarks about the blood profile which seems to have a very irregular pattern

Then why is the cycling news article saying the figures are based both on blood passport and "performance".

The riders were ranked with numbers from zero to ten, with zero being no suspicion, and ten being the maximum . The large majority of riders received scores of four or less. The ratings were based on both suspicion and performance.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

90% bloodpassport 10% performance, let it put that way

can't be 50/50 otherwise I can't fathom why Seeldraeyers, Popovych, Hunt and Barredo are up so high or why Cancellara has a 0

 

[rolfrae]

WADA Independent Observer Report from the 2010 Tour:

• For a rider identified as having a priority index of ten, no blood samples were collected following the Laboratory recommendations after interpretation of blood passport data from the first week of the Tour, with only urine being collected and no blood as recommended by the Laboratory. Further, a recommendation to target test the rider for EPO took seven days to be executed.

• A rider identified as having a priority index of ten was not tested for either urine or blood from 3 April to the start of the Tour. Recommendations made by the Laboratory following testing in the first three days of the Tour resulted in no further blood samples being collected but rather only urine and approximately ten days later. The IO Team became aware of the remarks made by the laboratory regarding the analysis of this rider’s specific sample that raised the suspicion of the use of proteases. No further information regarding any actions taken by the UCI for further analysis of that sample was made available.

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/Wo...TDF2010_EN.pdf

L'Equipe:
Rating of 10:
* Carlos Barredo, ESP, QuickStep
* Yaroslav Popovych, UKR, RadioShack


Why UCI?

Why indeed. The story here is surely not so much what rating each individual rider was given but the UCI's reaction to the recommendations. The UCI's idea of a clean Tour is where no one tests positive - because their testing is purposefully inadequate. It's like they're using the biopassport data in order to avoid catching anyone, not to actually catch them.

 

[Astana1]

I hope this blows back on the UCI whether they leaked it or not. I bet there are some clean riders who are getting hosed in this and vice versa.

 

[JPM London]

90% bloodpassport 10% performance, let it put that way

can't be 50/50 otherwise I can't fathom why Seeldraeyers, Popovych, Hunt and Barredo are up so high or why Cancellara has a 0

Maybe they don't use the clinic way of assessing performance as in "he won, he's a ten". Maybe they correlate performance and blood profile? And that's how performance is included?

 

[rolfrae]

I hope this blows back on the UCI whether they leaked it or not. I bet there are some clean riders who are getting hosed in this and vice versa.

Very true, and if the UCI don't test accordingly then we'll never know. The UCI's lack of adequate target testing not only lets potential dirty riders get away, it also sullies the reputation of clean riders (if such a thing exists outside of France!).

 

[Straßenrennen]

90% bloodpassport 10% performance, let it put that way

can't be 50/50 otherwise I can't fathom why Seeldraeyers, Popovych, Hunt and Barredo are up so high or why Cancellara has a 0

They would for example have a lot more collected data on those riders than a new pro peloton rider such as Thomas. In his case it must be more based on performance or not? I am geninuly interested here, because i thought Thomas was a real talent, but if hes taken his 3 required (I think its 3) Bio profile tests and already aquired a very bad bio passport that would be extremly disapointing.

Cancellara has a zero because the uci know he doesnt dope himself just his bike

 

[Arnout]

I might be the most stupid man on earth right now, but is this list not based on the number of observations before the Tour? At least, that's what I conclude when reading the Wada comments, they say the highest ranked riders were not sufficiently tested.

Funny by the way that everybody is most surprised by the high placed names that speak English or ride for English speaking teams, somehow doesn't surprise me at all...

 

[Mambo95]

Okay good cant quote your edited list, but i think Thomas's increased rating of 6 was based on the fact it was his first year with the bigboys and the kid pulls like a german panzer, he has no pain barriers, okay no pain barrier that he wont break.

I'm wondering if Thomas's lack of a spleen might mess up his passport a bit (I'm no doctor).

 

[Sylvester]

The French text says absolutely nothing about performance. We need more details anyway. According to the text, they even know which products some people (6-10) are using.

However, the cynics among us can't be happy with this document. 9 riders in the top 20 with scores from 0 to 2. And, more importantly, there are no teams with only scores above 3 or 4.

 

[Reverend_T_Preedy]

I'm wondering if Thomas's lack of a spleen might mess up his passport a bit (I'm no doctor).

Possible I suppose. It can cause an increase in white blood cells and platelets. Who knows. The problem is, if he's on the list because of strange blood values then we don't know what is strange about them. It might be something to do with his spleen. Then again, it might be something competely unrelated. That's why a list without any other detail is a dangerous thing.

Everyone is jumping to conclusions and that's why leaking this data is very dangerous.

 

[thehog]

From John Wilcockson's twitter

One might remember Floyd making reference about Wiggo's bloodwork sometime ago - Now how did he know that?

 

[webvan]

I'm very disappointed in Menchov, looks like Tchmill was right not to hire him...

Millar at 4...hum...old habits dies hard, eh, wonder what JV has to say about that?

Evans not in very good company at 4 with LA and Leppy.

 

[sniper]

The French text says absolutely nothing about performance. We need more details anyway. According to the text, they even know which products some people (6-10) are using.

However, the cynics among us can't be happy with this document. 9 riders in the top 20 with scores from 0 to 2. And, more importantly, there are no teams with only scores above 3 or 4.

that's why the lower scores on the list don'T tell us much. The bloodprofile of these low scorers may have been produced on the basis of one or two tests. we don't know.

Only the high scores (4+) are relevant. These clearly suggest doped-up riders. The lower scores mean ****-****.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

I seriously doubt the low scores of riders such as Gesink and Cancellara are based on a lack of tests

High profile riders like that get tested the **** out of them.

 

[Anonymous]

My take on these lists, ignoring which riders are on it etc.

Ridiculous and wrong. Firstly, we dont know the basis for the figures, bio passport? Results? Secret information? Or just hunches?

Secondly, riders like Menchov, wether they are dirty or clean are now going to be assumed dirty by the fans

Thirdly, the lance, schleck fans etc will now claim that this is undeniable proof that their riders are clean.

We are now making assumptions on riders based purely on a list from the UCI with no information at all as to how the figures came about.

And finally, the fact that the UCI decided to barely test any of the riders ranked 6-10 shows just how ****ed up the system is.

Going to be interesting to hear from the UCI how these figures come about, what they base them on. But at the moment, I think to assume Menchov is dirty and Schleck is clean, based on a list is a little dodgy.

All very very strange

 

[Astana1]

I'm very disappointed in Menchov, looks like Tchmill was right not to hire him...

Millar at 4...hum...old habits dies hard, eh, wonder what JV has to say about that?

Evans not in very good company at 4 with LA and Leppy.

This is what I am talking about. People will take an index from last year as gospel. It could be bs in a great many cases. What's next? Making the rider wear his suspicion index on his jersey?

 

[Anonymous]

Just found out what the figures mean. Its actually how good riders are at covering up doping, with 1 being really good, and 10 being crap

 

[roundabout]

While it's not gospel, it's a lot better than something like "Sky is clean because they say so".

 

[andy1234]

This is total bullsh*t
Riders reputations are being called into question because of an unsubstantiated magic number?

I dare say that a Clinic pole of which riders people thought were doping would be just as meaningful.

I pity the riders....

 

[Anonymous]

This is what I am talking about. People will take an index from last year as gospel. It could be bs in a great many cases. What's next? Making the rider wear his suspicion index on his jersey?

fully agree.

if menchov is a ten, and has been since last summer how come hes not been done for doping

a) hes not really a ten
b) hes really good at hiding it
c) the testing procedures dont work
d) the bio passport is screwed
e) the UCI are clueless
f) the uci are corrupt
g) all of the above

 

[Jamsque]

I don't really care about this list, I want to see the files.

some of the files' commentaries are damning. Recurrent abnormal profiles, enormous fluctuations, identification of the used doping product and means of administration...

THAT is the really interesting information. I'm shocked to see Geraint Thomas up at 6, I want to know if they found something in his tests that isn't banned yet or if his hematocrit is all over the place or if they are just suspicious because he transitioned from track to road too easily. Without the context of the evidence used to create the list, the list itself is not that informative.