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

[Anonymous]

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



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.

this is the problem for all the riders. we have no idea what the basis is for the scoring. Why is Cancellara 0 and why is menchov 10.

 

[just some guy]

Cycling news update.

The French newspaper L'Equipe on Friday published a list of all the riders participating in last year's Tour de France and their individual scores of suspicion for doping from a confidential International Cycling Union document.

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 the riders' individual biological passport values up to the event, and included the readings of the first blood test performed on July 1, 2010, just prior to the Grand Départ.

Scores of zero went to, amongst others, Fabian Cancellara, David Zabriskie, Edvald Boasson Hagen and Lars Boom. Lance Armstrong was given a four, as were Cadel Evans and Levi Leipheimer.

Race winner Alberto Contador (who later tested positive for Clenbuterol during the race), was given a five, second-placed Andy Schleck a three, and third-placed Denis Menchov received a nine.

As explained by the newspaper, only the scores of zero and one meant that the riders had a very clean record. Ratings from two to four were based on stable passports which nevertheless showed a rare abnormality at a precise time. From five upwards, the comments associated to the rider files started to become much more precise, "even affirmative" according to L'Equipe.

From six to ten, the circumstantial evidence of possible doping was "overwhelming". According to the paper, some of the riders located to the top of list have already been singled out by the biological passport and evaluated by the panel of nine experts, even if no procedure was opened. "Still, some of the files' commentaries are damning. Recurrent abnormal profiles, enormous fluctuations, identification of the used doping product and means of administration..." wrote L'Equipe's anti-doping expert journalist Damien Ressiot.

 

[slowspoke]

Why is 39 year old, 10th placed finisher, Chris Horner a 0???????

 

[sheenyp]

Examples of increased suspicion include:

•sudden drop in hemoglobin one month before the summer of 2010 which could point to an important loss of blood possibly destined to be re-injected during the Tour
•suspicion of EPO use during the 2009 Giro
•hematocrit, hemoglobin or stimulation index superior to 2010 values, which could have led to a start ban before the UCI rules were changed
•low parameters off-race

 

[William H]

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

Wiggins published some of his results after his 4th in the tour.

 

[Anonymous]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Reverend_T_Preedy]

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

Not really. At this moment in time it means as much as me saying Contador is clean and always has. Nobody knows why this list was produced so you can't draw any conclusions from it.

Some may have had strange readings but have been able to explain it to the UCI (medical conditions etc) so the list could be out of date by now.

This is not a list of dopers.

 

[Frosty]

Its been around this time in 2009 and 2010 when the UCI have listed their passport failures. This seems to be the time when they all sit round, look at the evidence and decide who has failed. Well the actual time is several months before since they have to notify the cyclist(s) involved and give them a month to come up with a reason for the suspect tests. Anyway, this year i think they may have wanted to wait for the Pellizotti/Valjavec cases to come to a verdict before deciding which readings could result in a successful prosecution. If this is right then any fails from this year probably still have some time to go before we know about them? They would have to analyse the verdict and data and then start sending out letters.

 

[Frosty]

Not really. At this moment in time it means as much as me saying Contador is clean and always has. Nobody knows why this list was produced so you can't draw any conclusions from it.

Some may have had strange readings but have been able to explain it to the UCI (medical conditions etc) so the list could be out of date by now.

This is not a list of dopers.

Indeed, looking at it the other way, someone with a 'clean' 0 or 1 could have produced suspicious readings between then and now, so could currently be 6+

 

[euanli]

This is a list of people who started the 2010 Tour de France, no more meaning can be gleamed from it

 

[sheenyp]

The list was handed out to UCI anti-doping officials at the race, as well as the WADA observers present at the event. It was established to evaluate and target certain riders during the race, based on the information gathered by their bio passports and their alleged doping practices at previous events such as the Giro d'Italia and the Vuelta a Espana.

 

[roundabout]

Not really. At this moment in time it means as much as me saying Contador is clean and always has. Nobody knows why this list was produced so you can't draw any conclusions from it.

Some may have had strange readings but have been able to explain it to the UCI (medical conditions etc) so the list could be out of date by now.

This is not a list of dopers.

Of course it's not a list of dopers, but to dismiss the results of actual tests just because they don't confirm what people already think they know is quite silly.

An extra perspective is always welcome especially on the forum where a lot of bitter battles have been fought over every single piece of evidence.

 

[python]

i am pretty sure that the indexes from 1 to 10 are derived from the variability of the riders off-score, which in turn takes into consideration both the variability of hg and hct.

i doubt, but i could be wrong, the actual rider performance is reflected in the index. my hunch is based on the reports that the indexes were produced by the swiss lab (where they should have been related only to bar codes).

the rider identification is done by the uci medical/anti-doping people like zorzolli.

btw, gesing is a 1

 

[Astana1]

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

Really? As far as I can tell, it just shows how stupid their testing system is. The winner who tested positive was a five. Guys with a 10 just were not tested enough or at all. Why werent they tested? Nothing concrete can learned from this.

If they know what a rider was using and how it was administered then why didnt they take action?

Because there was no proof. That's why.

 

[thirteen]

Hmm its just been announced by the UCI that the scoring was actually done by the chaperones and is based on Penis size.

hmmmmmmm, i'm going to have to look at that list more closely

 

[hrotha]

I think it's hilarious that the average score for the British is the same as for the Spanish.

I'm also inclined to agree with python. I would bet these scores were calculated by a computer. It takes into account variations in your blood profile, not other Clinic lore.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Not because there was no proof. But not enough to make it in a court case...

 

[Lanark]

Of course it's not a list of dopers, but to dismiss the results of actual tests just because they don't confirm what people already think they know is quite silly.

An extra perspective is always welcome especially on the forum where a lot of bitter battles have been fought over every single piece of evidence.

If Thomas had a zero-rating, people would treat this list as the holy gospel. It just goes to show that 90% of the estimations whether someones dopes or not are based on personal preference.

You can't judge riders based solely on this list, but it does show some interesting tendencies (French riders and team cleaner for example, although that's hardly surprising), and, if we can believe L'Equipes words, riders with a score of 6 or higher are highly suspect (apart from Thomas of course, that's because of his spleen, or he likes to eat his meat raw, or whatever).

 

[clipperton]

apologies if this seems the question of a naive australian who'd never think he coulda done it, but could matt lloyd's recent heave-ho from the good ship omega pharma lotto have been the result of a heads-up on his 8?

 

[Big GMaC]

How is Levi so low?

What about all the stuff about when he was on Gerolsteiner and he was 0.5 away from being done on heamoglobin!

 

[Reverend_T_Preedy]

Of course it's not a list of dopers, but to dismiss the results of actual tests just because they don't confirm what people already think they know is quite silly.

An extra perspective is always welcome especially on the forum where a lot of bitter battles have been fought over every single piece of evidence.

I'm not dismissing it and I'm sure there's some good science behind it. Personally, if everyone over a 0 is doping then the UCI should ban them all.

However, it's a very dangerous thing to leak this information to the public without any info or data that supports it. People will jump to conclusions straight away as go around making wild accusations that people are doping when, in fact, the list might not mean that at all.

 

[Bavarianrider]

Sorry but this list seems very silly. So Pop is the doper of all? Well then what was he back in 03/04 when he was actually still good?
And Cancellara. If this list is true he's rthe greatest cyclist of all time and would murder anyone but a huge margin in a drug leveld field

 

[Astana1]

Not because there was no proof. But not enough to make it in a court case...

Could be. But I call bs if they had good info and couldn't figure it out then they are a bunch of Inspector Cluesoes.

Just look at this place. This thread has become all about Geraint Thomas.

 

[RhodriM]

This isn't a list of likely dopers though is it? It's a list of those who should be most targeted for testing?

Thomas was getting good results last year, that he hadn't necessarily got before(IMO because of injury and focussing on the track, but there we are). Can't blame them for giving him more tests.

 

[just some guy]

apologies if this seems the question of a naive australian who'd never think he coulda done it, but could matt lloyd's recent heave-ho from the good ship omega pharma lotto have been the result of a heads-up on his 8?

why get rid of him if the capt and 8.

I do believe the most important info to come from this is

• 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.

seems odd to rate a person 10 but not test them a lot.