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

[ergmonkey]

Barredo's lawyers are considering legal action against the UCI over the list, and say that as "Public Enemy Number One" he hasn't been tested for the Biological Passport since October 2.

http://www.marca.com/2011/05/14/cic...55e5dceb4f3821cd80c6712d632df4a3&t=1305410497

"Considering" legal action is free; actually taking legal action is expensive, time-consuming, and even risky.

I'll believe it when it happens. Until then, it's just a bunch of chest-thumping.

 

[movingtarget]

Good to know that monitoring of the riders is happening. Bad that the information was leaked. Even though some of the ratings are curious, it isn't an issue until the UCI decide to act on the information and it is obviously an ongoing concern which I think is a good thing. I don't understand why someone would leak this information unless they were out to undermine the UCI or have taken a fistful of cash in exchange or both. I hope the UCI traces the offender and sacks them. All that's happened is that some riders are unhappy, some pleased or confused and the UCI is looking silly once again.

 

[Benotti69]

They have been tested, just no blood monitoring.

Winner gets automatically tested in World Tour events. I'm pretty sure Philippe Gilbert has been tested a lot more than Fabian Cancellara.

Which is still a big difference to monitoring. Gilbert knew as a winner he was gonna be tested, so could prepare. No monitoring between races helps riders prepare for those performances and recover, no?

 

[Frosty]

Which is still a big difference to monitoring. Gilbert knew as a winner he was gonna be tested, so could prepare. No monitoring between races helps riders prepare for those performances and recover, no?

Yes, but only if they know they are not going to get tested? Unless someone told them there would be no tests then they would have to assume that some could happen. Maybe even the longer they go without testing, the more they think that they are about to get tested. I agree though that it does seem strange.

 

[Benotti69]

Yes, but only if they know they are not going to get tested? Unless someone told them there would be no tests then they would have to assume that some could happen. Maybe even the longer they go without testing, the more they think that they are about to get tested. I agree though that it does seem strange.

which they have probably paid for the notification of testing. this is the UCi after all we are talking about with their grubby little fingers

The whole thing stinks.

 

[craig1985]

Would a rider in court who filed a law suit have to hand over blood profiles etc., to prove that they are clean?

 

[frenchfry]

You really think they are stupid? I don't, I think they are shrewd else how could the charade go on so long? I agree most of the cycling media, as well as the media in general, are nothing but stenographic *****s. Le Equipe does not seem to be in this mold, though. This is unlike the American sports press (see Rick "the *** who doesn't respond to my emails" Oreilly). The press in general enables the powerful to keep their position, since their version of events is rarely questioned or else access is cut off, but I digress.

Do you really think that Canc for example has a pile of test result data that points to him being like a 9, and it was whitewashed at the upper level? Instead of bringing that 9 down to say something like a 3 to keep him under the radar, they put the in-your-face score of a 0 on him that arouses uber suspicion? And, that whitewash will be kept under wraps? Really?????

Apparently I know your answer, but I tend to keep asking the same thing over and over again when my brain can't wrap itself around something that seems so outlandish. It is a flaw in my character I am trying to overcome. My apologies.

French newspapers depend a lot less on advertising than in the US. They are generally more expensive to buy, but less dependant on the advertisers with regards to content. In any case, l'Equipe is not a cycling publication, so the dependance is even less.

I don't know if anyone has commented yet on the fact that L'Equipe had taken a position to reduce their coverage of doping, then this. Damien Ressot is just too difficult to keep down - once again he has done an excellent job and the paper couldn't pass on this.

On the group ride this morning not a word about this. Some of us had a good laugh (no disrespect for the victim) about Strauss Kahn's latest adventures though. He has a reputation for this kind of thing.

 

[Oldman]

Would a rider in court who filed a law suit have to hand over blood profiles etc., to prove that they are clean?

If you're arguing you are cleaner than this "report" implies, yes. Now that WADA wants to "help" the UCI get to the heart of the leak the whole thing is getting really interesting.
Wasn't it **** Pound that characterized the Bio Passport as a facilitation of PED programs? Wonder where they're going with that...

 

[skippythepinhead]

If you're arguing you are cleaner than this "report" implies, yes. Now that WADA wants to "help" the UCI get to the heart of the leak the whole thing is getting really interesting.
Wasn't it **** Pound that characterized the Bio Passport as a facilitation of PED programs? Wonder where they're going with that...

I thought his name was ****. I can't type the guy's name if it's ****?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

If you're arguing you are cleaner than this "report" implies, yes. Now that WADA wants to "help" the UCI get to the heart of the leak the whole thing is getting really interesting.
Wasn't it **** Pound that characterized the Bio Passport as a facilitation of PED programs? Wonder where they're going with that...

I've argued since day one that the BioPass could, potentially, result in MORE doping.

If you're a rider who sets their parameters after "preperation", then you're beholden to keeping those values relatively flat. If your fundamental data is skewed, you have to keep skewing it to not look suspicious.

BioPass is not anti-doping. It's PR, and that's it.

Can I get away with saying "penis"?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Penis Pound...

There's something funny...

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

I've argued since day one that the BioPass could, potentially, result in MORE doping.

If you're a rider who sets their parameters after "preperation", then you're beholden to keeping those values relatively flat. If your fundamental data is skewed, you have to keep skewing it to not look suspicious.

The possibility of an increase in off-season doping, to keep values consistent, indicates the need to shift from emphasizing in-competition to OOC testing, particularly for one day specialists. There's no excuse for one day racers to get busted in competition, and occasional blood monitoring is unlikely to identify any abnormally smooth values. Perhaps that's how the odometer ticks around to zero?

BioPass is not anti-doping. It's PR, and that's it.

It's pretty clear that was the expectation of the hierarchy that agreed to it. However, I think the geeks are able to do more with the data than Hein imagined*. With time, they should be able to strengthen the passport further. The mere hint of the passport turning out to be a trojan horse pleases me immensely.

*Poor Hein obviously struggles with data interpretation. When the biopassport team told him "we're pretty sure 3 - 10 riders are doping", he thought they were talking about 3 - 10 individual riders. That ludicrous estimate of only 1% doping was all an unfortunate misunderstanding...

 

[Stingray34]

*Poor Hein obviously struggles with data interpretation. When the biopassport team told him "we're pretty sure 3 - 10 riders are doping", he thought they were talking about 3 - 10 individual riders. That ludicrous estimate of only 1% doping was all an unfortunate misunderstanding...

Is this true? It makes a good joke on its own.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

...........

 

[Frosty]

I've argued since day one that the BioPass could, potentially, result in MORE doping.

If you're a rider who sets their parameters after "preperation", then you're beholden to keeping those values relatively flat. If your fundamental data is skewed, you have to keep skewing it to not look suspicious.

BioPass is not anti-doping. It's PR, and that's it.

Yeah, the l'equipe article mentioned some of the notes, and one was apparently that a rider's values were superior to 2010 values which could have lead to a start line ban. If correct and i am reading this right, it suggests that someone was doping a lot in 2008 and/or 2009 but now was not, thus putting suspicion on them.

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

 

[Oldman]

Yeah, the l'equipe article mentioned some of the notes, and one was apparently that a rider's values were superior to 2010 values which could have lead to a start line ban. If correct and i am reading this right, it suggests that someone was doping a lot in 2008 and/or 2009 but now was not, thus putting suspicion on them.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ucis-suspicious-list-leaked-from-2010-tour-de-france

Or not...whatever you could bill for for UCI consultation. I still wonder what territory WADA might grab from this little imbroglio?

 

[ergmonkey]

Would a rider in court who filed a law suit have to hand over blood profiles etc., to prove that they are clean?

How much information the rider would have to disclose would very greatly depending upon where the lawsuit is filed and what the scope of the discovery process looks like in that jurisdiction. In European countries, a lot will typically depend on the judge and what (s)he orders during the disposition of the case. In the US, automatic disclosures are typically much broader and the rider would expect to turn over pretty much all available information related to his medical and doping test histories.

Under any system, though, it's likely that a rider in this type of case would have to reveal a lot about his drug test history and blood profiles. Just about every place accepts truth as a defense to claims of slander, libel, defamation, and the like. So, if a rider wants to be compensated for any sort of 'wrongful publication' then the rider is first going to have to establish what was 'wrongful'.

 

[just some guy]

Was thinking about this today..... Don´t remember if it has been mentioned or not



it is a big what if, but there you go.

Whats if the UCI made up the leak, wanted the paper to publish it.

They would never claim they did of course but if they did them they would watch the blood values of riders from 6 up very closely over they next 3 months, if they suddenly start to change - ie the rider thinks the UCI and WADA are on to me so I will stop with the PEDS. Their blood workups change and the UCI and WADA use this to bust people with the Blood passport system.

Just an idea

 

[DirtyWorks]

Was thinking about this today..... Don´t remember if it has been mentioned or not



it is a big what if, but there you go.

Whats if the UCI made up the leak, wanted the paper to publish it.

They would never claim they did of course but if they did them they would watch the blood values of riders from 6 up very closely over they next 3 months, if they suddenly start to change - ie the rider thinks the UCI and WADA are on to me so I will stop with the PEDS. Their blood workups change and the UCI and WADA use this to bust people with the Blood passport system.

Just an idea

I'm all for throwing ideas out, but your scenario is counter to the reported actions of the UCI and doping. The UCI tends to keep most of their doping management out of public scrutiny. That is, unless you have lost the UCI's top secret popularity contest.

 

[Benotti69]

I'm all for throwing ideas out, but your scenario is counter to the reported actions of the UCI and doping. The UCI tends to keep most of their doping management out of public scrutiny. That is, unless you have lost the UCI's top secret popularity contest.

I agree, it would be a complete u-turn from sweeping everything under the carpet for years and years, but maybe the space under the carpet is full and there is no accounting for how stupid the UCI top 2 are, McQ and Hein*.


* I firmly believe Hein is still involved with McQ in UCi in some capacity

 

[thehog]

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

Open letter from Pat.

 

[L'arriviste]

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

Open letter from Pat.

Only a week late from Mr Zero Credibility. Won't be reading that, then. The guy couldn't organise a maid for the Strauss-Kahn suite.

On second thoughts, I suppose I had better, lest I be accused later of being one-sided.

 

[gobuck]

The riders on the list in the zero category are media darlings.

 

[Cobblestones]

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

Open letter from Pat.

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.

 

[Benotti69]

more comedy

We have all recognised the value of the biological passport on many occasions.

make no apologies for the fact that UCI will continue to take every measure possible to protect clean athletes. Our objective, shared by many of you, is a doping free cycling, one where the values of ethics and fair play are cherished.

The battle against doping has, for a long time, been a priority for the UCI, even to the extent that it could sometimes be considered to be over emphasised in our sport

the guys a complete c**t.