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

[hrotha]

well it seems they are already doing it for you. androni for a start this giro

also, where is the proove 90% is on juice?? certain guys are 100% clean like pinotti, moncoutie and gesink so pls explain how it comes they ride so well.

Where did I say 90% dope or that clean riders can't possibly be competitive?

 

[La Vie Claire]

This list confirms my suspicions of Cancellara: that he's riding a doped-to-the-gills bike.

 

[spalco]

The UK Eurosport guys are being sharply critical of this release, Sean Kelly especially. I kind of understand his point since it does seem unfair to pre-judge people that way who haven't been "convicted" of anything for doping; on the other hand cyclists simply have lost their right to presumption of innocence in my mind, so publishing a list of who's how suspicious, supposedly researched by people who know their stuff, helps correct the image of those cyclists who are cleaner than others. Someone like Cancellara for example should be very happy about this.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

BMC is listed as one of the most suspicious teams.
Nice to see them keeping the Phonak tradition strong.

 

[Big Doopie]

i think it bears repeating that only riders with a 0 or 1 are considered to have a clean blood profile.

from 2 up, they are suspicious.

the spectrum from 2-10 of how suspicious they are may depend on a lot of invariables -- when were they tested, how many times were they tested, did they benefit from long showers, paid off UCI testers, advanced knowledge of testing and exclusive contracts with a doctor that has decades of experience in blood and can "stabilize" their parameters in a few minutes...

to me there really is little difference between a 2 and a 10.

 

[auscyclefan94]

This document defames many riders of which they're isn't any proof what so ever that they are doping. Doping and cycling has officially become a joke.

 

[spalco]

Who said?????

I guess Chris Horner and Fabian Cancellara must be clean then. Also people have said Linus was clean and he got a 6.

One person on the list I'm disappointed about is Tony Martin. I mean, he's a ****ing police officer...

 

[bigloco]

This list confirms my suspicions of Cancellara: that he's riding a doped-to-the-gills bike.

Thats a completely different chart that will be released tomorrow!

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

In the "you couldn't make it up" files I can imagine the next person to fail a primetime test will be one of the "zero boys"

 

[nesocip]

This document defames many riders of which they're isn't any proof what so ever that they are doping. Doping and cycling has officially become a joke.

Such as Cadel and the rest of BMC boys?

 

[spalco]

In the "you couldn't make it up" files I can imagine the next person to fail a primetime test will be one of the "zero boys"

That wouldn't disprove the validity of this document though, it's only a snapshot from last year. A lot can change in a year.

 

[roundabout]

This document defames many riders of which they're isn't any proof what so ever that they are doping. Doping and cycling has officially become a joke.

Yeah, I am sure that when they get tested they assume that they have the lowest priority and others are tested more (even more?) often than they are.

 

[hrotha]

This document defames many riders of which they're isn't any proof what so ever that they are doping. Doping and cycling has officially become a joke.

This document doesn't defame anyone. It's based on entirely objective data. It's up to the readers to take it out of context.

People are forgetting this isn't a list of who dopes the most. It's a list of whose blood values merit being looked at more closely. If your blood values are naturally weird, you'll have a high score, and that doesn't mean you're being defamed or accused of being a doper by the people who compiled the document. Random internet people are a different matter.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

This document doesn't defame anyone. It's based on entirely objective data. It's up to the readers to take it out of context.

People are forgetting this isn't a list of who dopes the most. It's a list of whose blood values merit being looked at more closely. If your blood values are naturally weird, you'll have a high score, and that doesn't mean you're being defamed or accused of being a doper by the people who compiled the document. Random internet people are a different matter.

+1

Of course riders who have high scores AND are implicated in other ways (eg Popo) can be accused of being dirty with justification.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

This document doesn't defame anyone. It's based on entirely objective data. It's up to the readers to take it out of context.

People are forgetting this isn't a list of who dopes the most. It's a list of whose blood values merit being looked at more closely. If your blood values are naturally weird, you'll have a high score, and that doesn't mean you're being defamed or accused of being a doper by the people who compiled the document. Random internet people are a different matter.

I think there are quite a few riders with "natural" blood anormalities that manifest themselves only during the month of July.

 

[skippythepinhead]

This document defames many riders of which they're isn't any proof what so ever that they are doping. Doping and cycling has officially become a joke.

The document doesn't defame anyone. It doesn't say anyone's a doper. It provides a rationale and guideline for test priorities during one race. If the UCI failed to follow those priorities during the race itself, it is officially the UCI making a mockery of cycling.

Anyone drawing conclusions about dope use by a particular rider based on this list just doesn't get it. The list isn't about who is a doper, it's about whether the UCI follows their own protocols. It's about the UCI playing favorites.

On one level, it's brutal payback for claiming to be suing Floyd Landis. On another, it's for simply being as corrupt as they claim they are not.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Such as Cadel and the rest of BMC boys?

No because some of the BMC riders who were on the list are under investigation.

This document doesn't defame anyone. It's based on entirely objective data. It's up to the readers to take it out of context.

People are forgetting this isn't a list of who dopes the most. It's a list of whose blood values merit being looked at more closely. If your blood values are naturally weird, you'll have a high score, and that doesn't mean you're being defamed or accused of being a doper by the people who compiled the document. Random internet people are a different matter.

Again Mark Cavendish's point, For the people who aren't 0 or 1, why aren't they? The two to fours said to have one abnormality but were stable. Why are certain people two and others four? I think there needs to be more explanation on how these riders get their points otherwise it is unfair.

 

[Cimber]

This document doesn't defame anyone. It's based on entirely objective data. It's up to the readers to take it out of context.

People are forgetting this isn't a list of who dopes the most. It's a list of whose blood values merit being looked at more closely. If your blood values are naturally weird, you'll have a high score, and that doesn't mean you're being defamed or accused of being a doper by the people who compiled the document. Random internet people are a different matter.

Problem is that the media dont care. Parts of the Danish media, for example, have already proclaimed that Nicki Sørensen and Matti Breschel is under doping suspicion (they are both in the category 5 on the list).

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

i think it bears repeating that only riders with a 0 or 1 are considered to have a clean blood profile.

from 2 up, they are suspicious.

Sort of.

I think that you are missing the existence of two significant break points between 2 and 10, at least according to l'Equipe. 6-10 seems to mean blood values suspicious to a point that a non-doping explanation is very unlikely. 5 seems to represent strong suspicion. 2-4 seems to give no evidence either way - ie there's an odd value or two but nothing that couldn't quite reasonably and unremarkably happen to the blood of someone who was clean.

You are right that only 0-1 seems to represent positive (sorry for the pun) evidence of cleanliness. Not absolute proof of cleanliness, but some real evidence thereof. And the distinction between evidence and proof is important here, because even the guys at 10 haven't been convicted of anything because the evidence isn't so overwhelming that no alternative explanation is reasonably conceivable. And even the guys at 0 could conceivably be on amazingly sophisticated programme or have been incredibly lucky with the timing of his tests.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

One person on the list I'm disappointed about is Tony Martin. I mean, he's a ****ing police officer...

oh god you guys really believe that list?? it's based on fluctuating blood values which occur by sickness, drought and altitude training! guess what many favorites do before the tour?? altitude training.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I'm skeptical...who is to say this list and these numbers are meaningful and how trustworthy ? Was this compiled by the whole UCI or a select few within?... is it poorly researched and factual in its entirety?

These seem like completely random ratings...too many variable factors that might influence each rider.
True, some match our guesses and expectations, but this is not at all a scientific or empirically rigorous list.

Motives and parties behind the leak speak more than the actual 'ratings' on paper maybe...
Maybe this was the 'leakable' copy and there exists another? you know, like accounting books???

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

I never thought Gerdemann was clean. I explained many times when that discussion came up that he trained with Cecchini.

Only most people don't care about Gerdemann because he is only an average rider nowadays. After he broke with Cecchini his performances declined

gerdemann became less after he broke his hip in tirreno. altho0ugh he was srly doped within csc

 

[hrotha]

I think there are quite a few riders with "natural" blood anormalities that manifest themselves only during the month of July.

"Natural", in quotation marks, or natural? I doubt there's many of the latter

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

BMC is listed as one of the most suspicious teams.
Nice to see them keeping the Phonak tradition strong.

lol

.

 

[hrotha]

Problem is that the media dont care. Parts of the Danish media, for example, have already proclaimed that Nicki Sørensen and Matti Breschel is under doping suspicion (they are both in the category 5 on the list).

Yes, and that's bad, but that's not the fault of the document itself, but of the journalists reporting it from a sensationalist angle and, if anything, of whoever leaked it.