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

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 12, 2010
1,998
0
0
RhodriM said:
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.

It's a list based on suspicion of doping, Thomas is high because his bloodpassport is highly suspicious.
 
Oct 16, 2009
3,864
0
0
You have riders with 10s who are still not busted. What's the point of the BP then?

Although the list itself seems completely arbitrary, I would like to see the comments on the riders ranked above five. That could possibly be interesting. Unlike the list.
 
May 15, 2009
236
0
0
Lanark said:
It's a list based on suspicion of doping, Thomas is high because his bloodpassport is highly suspicious.

Do you know that specifically?

It might well be, but as far as I can tell these ratings seem quite subjective.
 
Jun 16, 2009
647
0
0
• 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.

Hands up who thought this was definitely the biggest name of the "4" group when it was released?

Still, i'd bet a dollar or two it was his teammate....
 
Big GMaC said:
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!

Remember that these values are a "snap shot". If Levi was about to hit the blood during the Tour then he would have done a withdrawal and stayed steady until the Tour. Then he would have smashed the values during the Tour. Lance and Levi at 4 shows they were on the same program and about to hit it big about a month from these published values.

In addition to this Armstrong, Levi and co. would head back to the US before the Tour to go off the “passport radar”.
 
May 12, 2010
1,998
0
0
RhodriM said:
Do you know that specifically?

Yes:
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.
Outside of hope, there is no reason to believe Thomas got a six for any other reason.
 
Jul 30, 2009
1,735
0
0
That Geraint has a 6 in and of itself is not bothersome to me.

What I find difficult to understand is why some riders who are clearly more suspiscous (at an intuitive level) are so low.

Maybe it is because they are better at managing their blood passport values?

There are some super mountain domestiques with low scores when their destruction of the peloton and GC contenders suggests otherwise for example.

I also suspect there are other variables - eg amount of money paid to UCI/damage to sports reputation if they get popped etc
 
goggalor said:
You have riders with 10s who are still not busted. What's the point of the BP then?

Although the list itself seems completely arbitrary, I would like to see the comments on the riders ranked above five. That could possibly be interesting. Unlike the list.

The BioPassport shouldn't be used to "bust" people. It should be used to target test. Well thats what is meant for. Appears the UCI just went after mid-range riders and forgot the rest.

How PoPo and Kloden are still riding today beggers belief. 9 lives those guys!
 
Jun 16, 2009
647
0
0
Winterfold said:
That Geraint has a 6 in and of itself is not bothersome to me.

What I find difficult to understand is why some riders who are clearly more suspiscous (at an intuitive level) are so low.

Maybe it is because they are better at managing their blood passport values?

There are some super mountain domestiques with low scores when their destruction of the peloton and GC contenders suggests otherwise for example.

I also suspect there are other variables - eg amount of money paid to UCI/damage to sports reputation if they get popped etc

But as this is the UCI's own list doesn't this only tell us which riders the UCI would be prepared to see go down, if someone has to....

I mean imagine if a certain texan was on his own as 10 - that would have been leaked before the race even started!
 
Winterfold said:
That Geraint has a 6 in and of itself is not bothersome to me.

What I find difficult to understand is why some riders who are clearly more suspiscous (at an intuitive level) are so low.

Maybe it is because they are better at managing their blood passport values?

There are some super mountain domestiques with low scores when their destruction of the peloton and GC contenders suggests otherwise for example.

I also suspect there are other variables - eg amount of money paid to UCI/damage to sports reputation if they get popped etc

The scores are presumably only based on a subset of doping methods. For example hGH won't figure in these scores
 
Aug 16, 2009
401
0
0
Thomas or anyone else could have a high number because of one weird wayward statistic. Other guys could be low because they are meticulous. I guarantee people everywhere will reference these numbers in future discussions of who is doing what. Rider x could be pumping an extra liter in as we speak but he could have been a zero last July. This thing should have never seen the light of day.

And besides. This could all be about McQuaid retaliating and have nothing to do with trying to clean the sport.
 
May 15, 2009
236
0
0
Dekker_Tifosi said:
It even said so in the article :rolleyes:

l'equipe claim that in the article, but haven't actually seen the passports have they?

But yeah, you're right. These ratings are subjective. They would only be objective if Thomas had 0 and Sky was the cleanest team

Not at all. But a 'rating' is not like an absolute value is it?

I'm not saying this wasn't a useful tool for the UCI and testers, and that those ratings weren't arrived at in an intelligent manner. But they were intended as a guide for testers, rather than proof of guilt. Looking at the order I can't help but think that improved results might also get a rider flagged up as suspicious - and why not? They should do. If a rider suddenly starts performing they should be targeted for testing.

Leaving the arguments about individual riders aside for a moment, the most disturbing thing for me is the talk on this thread that those who were rated highly were not tested much. That stinks.
 
Mar 10, 2009
350
0
0
RhodriM said:
Leaving the arguments about individual riders aside for a moment, the most disturbing thing for me is the talk on this thread that those who were rated highly were not tested much. That stinks.

Exactly. Surely that is the story here, not whether or not your favourite/least favourite rider has a high/low score.
 
Could a rider trying out various (legal) supplements end up with a suspicious blood profile? I saw a rider with above-zero rating, of whom I received first-hand intel that he is very much into supplement testing. If you're not using a supplement that works for you all year long, there's going to be variances between tests. Most supplements are advised against being used year-round. They can offer noticable performance boost between instantly and after a month of use. The latter kind may effect the blood profile most.
 
Jun 16, 2009
647
0
0
Astana1 said:
Thomas or anyone else could have a high number because of one weird wayward statistic. Other guys could be low because they are meticulous. I guarantee people everywhere will reference these numbers in future discussions of who is doing what. Rider x could be pumping an extra liter in as we speak but he could have been a zero last July. This thing should have never seen the light of day.

And besides. This could all be about McQuaid retaliating and have nothing to do with trying to clean the sport.

But if you combine this list with other known issues you can get a good idea:

Matthew Lloyd looks pretty obvious (unemployable)
Popo looks doomed (laptop, Ferrari)
Kloden looks obvious (Freiburg, RSH)
Hondo (previously suspended)
Rogers (Freiburg, Ferrari)

The most likely candidates for "meticulous" would obviously be LA and AC, based on failed tests, FDA investigations, links with Ferrari etc.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
5
0
Dekker_Tifosi said:
I seriously doubt the low scores of riders such as Gesink and Cancellara are based on a lack of tests :eek:

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

I suspect Cancellara doesn't load him self up during July.

Actually, I'm not surprised at Cancellara. Could be such a great talent that he doesn't need dope.
 
Astana1 said:
Thomas or anyone else could have a high number because of one weird wayward statistic. Other guys could be low because they are meticulous. I guarantee people everywhere will reference these numbers in future discussions of who is doing what. Rider x could be pumping an extra liter in as we speak but he could have been a zero last July. This thing should have never seen the light of day.

And besides. This could all be about McQuaid retaliating and have nothing to do with trying to clean the sport.
Judging by the explanation of these numbers, a 6 can't be because of one single wayward fluctuation.
 
El Pistolero said:
I suspect Cancellara doesn't load him self up during July.

Actually, I'm not surprised at Cancellara. Could be such a great talent that he doesn't need dope.

If I understood correctly, the index consists of longer term (presumably seasonwide) bio-passport values including the pre 2010 Tour test.

That means your first statement is not entirely relevant to the score but your second could be true since the results cover a longer period. :)
 
May 12, 2010
1,998
0
0
rolfrae said:
Exactly. Surely that is the story here, not whether or not your favourite/least favourite rider has a high/low score.

Why would that be the story, we've known that for months. In fact, this point has become less salient because the category-10 riders are 'only' Popovych and Barredo.