UCI: Italian Giro top favourite will be Bio-pass exposed in hours

[python]

I have been reading up on it a little, but my god what are there a lot of options for corruption and arbitrariness within this system

welcome to the uci world. still, id be careful to take any one's word at this point
be it pat or franco as they all await the upcoming legal battle and continue to sandbag not to give away anything important.

the best is to self educate on bio passport process.

 

[Galic Ho]

Well, but that's just normal, genetically programmed human behaviour, isn't it?

I'd say from my own experience and observations, it is a learned behaviour. But it is normal if you look at the average person following any sport or code.

By far the most common type of post on any cycling forum is "yes, X is probably on drugs, Y too, but not [insert favourite rider/rider from the same nationality]. I know everyone says that, but this case is different from everyone else's because [same excuse as everyone else]"

So true. Valverde is my favourite rider. So to Contador and Vino. I make no exceptions. They've all done what they felt they needed to do to win. I know they dope and continue to do so. I don't get torn up about it. But I do not like to hear fans make excuses. It looks sad and pathetic. All riders are human at the end of day and can suffer the same ego and downfalls that others have.

Has anyone thought about last years breakaways in the Tour? Pellizotti single handedly on consecutive stages beat down multiple Euskatel riders. Sure the guys were not Astarloza (present) or Anton and Samu (not present) who were the teams best climbers, but Basque riders are no slouches in the hills. Pellizotti knocked them down on his own. No help at all. Still surprised he had suspicious blood values before the Tour? I get the impression he doped too high, with his crit count high and a very low reticuloyte score and thus the value stood out. Might be wrong on that bit but it makes sense. Recovery before the Tour. He uses too much, has the bad sample, and also doesn't leave enough blood bags to maintain his performance over three weeks, ie: he doesn't ration well enough after a tough Giro.

Also regarding Liquigas. There are two scenarios I can see behind the scene strategy wise for their GC ambitions. Firstly, Nibali being bumped up does not sound good. Why not Kreuziger? Nibali is not in brilliant form. I get the impression that he was not one of the targetted leaders. He is the disposable rider. They know he won't perform miracles and were not planning on him being a gun on form rider at any event so his preparations can be altered. Thus keeping Basso and Kreuziger on target for the Tour and Vuelta.

Second scenario is the reverse. Nibali really is on form and can handle a slight alteration. Better scenario for him and the team. Because in the first scenario I can see him leaving Liquigas. The first scenario would confirm the lack of faith in his abilities compared to the other two. Why stay and get second fiddle? Why not move to Sky when Wigans stuffs up? Sky have already been interested.

Will be good to see how the other Liquigas GC boys ambitions match their form. Even with only 3 GC riders on the team, someone still has to lose out now in theory. That person is Nibali. His form suggests he cannot expect a podium at the Giro and if he were aiming for the other two GT's originally he would not have been the fill in for Franco. I guess I'm saying I think my first scenario above is more or less the most likely. In the event Nibali has a blinder at the Giro, his market value will increase, making contract renegotiations and new offers interesting. I'll stick with my prediction at the end of last year. Nibali will switch to Sky next season and become their GC man.

 

[Galic Ho]

Please, don't psychoanalyse a reaction you've misunderstood. Same goes for Galic Ho (who can only argue in platitudes, it seems). I'm not saying Gesink is clean (I'm not even that big of a Gesink fan) but I'd be more surprised to find out he's a doper than, say, Thomas Dekker.

Well when you put it that way. For the record, I've never heard a peep about Gesink. Only tainted by association. Hardly proof. Good for him. A certain Cadel Evans is in the exact same boat. People on the side were saying things about Dekker for years. Haven't heard a peep about Gesink. Just saying his team mate is Dennis Menchov and his team threw out the Chicken. We all know about those two and the others mentioned. Just saying it doesn't require too much of an imagination to wonder if Gesink may have been tempted to take a short cut and that if he did want to dope, help and advice would not be far away.

 

[Barrus]

welcome to the uci world. still, id be careful to take any one's word at this point
be it pat or franco as they all await the upcoming legal battle and continue to sandbag not to give away anything important.

the best is to self educate on bio passport process.

The problem is that without the numbers and the exact reality of what happened in the procedure up to this there is no knowing who has the best chance of winning. It does seem like they are railroading Pelli a bit, just to ensure a high level catch for the bio-pass. Because I believe with most high level riders you will find at least one or two entries in the bio-pass which can be considered as off. So either Pelli is so far off that it is just unbelievable, or they are attempting to see what they can do, and do it at such a time that it has the most PR-value, outside of the tour. If Pelli's lawyers are making the dehydration argument in the upcoming proceedings, I believe the samples would not be that much off, or else they would come up with a different type of excuse, the difference in that case would be such that it at least is possible to explain it in that way, improbable but that there is a statistical probability. If that is the case and the values are not that strange I would find it strange that they would choose Pelli and not someone whose values were even more off. Again just speculation.

Another thing which I find odd, is why Pat would be reluctant to release more information in the future, mainly due to the fact that Pelli should be granted all the evidence, so that the evidence which shows possible/probable doping being released (or leaked) would only be in the advantage of the reputation of the UCI

 

[craig1985]

I don't mean to be pedantic, but Rasmussen's nickname is "Chicken", not "the Chicken".

Carry on.

 

[python]

The problem is that without the numbers and the exact reality of what happened in the procedure up to this there is no knowing who has the best chance of winning. It does seem like they are railroading Pelli a bit, just to ensure a high level catch for the bio-pass. Because I believe with most high level riders you will find at least one or two entries in the bio-pass which can be considered as off. So either Pelli is so far off that it is just unbelievable, or they are attempting to see what they can do, and do it at such a time that it has the most PR-value, outside of the tour. If Pelli's lawyers are making the dehydration argument in the upcoming proceedings, I believe the samples would not be that much off, or else they would come up with a different type of excuse, the difference in that case would be such that it at least is possible to explain it in that way, improbable but that there is a statistical probability. If that is the case and the values are not that strange I would find it strange that they would choose Pelli and not someone whose values were even more off. Again just speculation.

Another thing which I find odd, is why Pat would be reluctant to release more information in the future, mainly due to the fact that Pelli should be granted all the evidence, so that the evidence which shows possible/probable doping being released (or leaked) would only be in the advantage of the reputation of the UCI

the truth about pelli is in the technical factors of his blood profile. if he is sure of his innocence he can release them for a public review, like flandis did.

the wada document i referred you to defines rather clearly what would make him positive.

the way it supposed to work (i say supposed because i dont know pelli's numbers) is this.

as they accumulate more and more data points,they draw lines beyond which the deviations would be considered red flag/abnormal. the more data points, the tighter these line are the smaller the deviations are considered normal and allowable. at least five tests are required. most are unannounced and sudden. before drawing the sample, an athlete is required to answer a long list of questions aimed at filtering out confounding factors like illness, altitude, dehydration etc.

when the hammer goes down,it would typically mean there was a series of abnormal readings that were given the credence. btw, the wada document mandates 99.9% probability for proceeding to leveling a charge.

 

[Barrus]

that 99,9% however is not a strict guideline, that is especially one of the things in which there is such a arbitrariness and corruption

 

[python]

that 99,9% however is not a strict guideline, that is especially one of the things in which there is such a arbitrariness and corruption

quite opposite. the higher the required probability the less room for randomness. if that's confounding you, im afraid i reached a limit of time i have to invest in further engagements with you today.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Has anyone thought about last years breakaways in the Tour? Pellizotti single handedly on consecutive stages beat down multiple Euskatel riders. Sure the guys were not Astarloza (present) or Anton and Samu (not present) who were the teams best climbers, but Basque riders are no slouches in the hills. Pellizotti knocked them down on his own.

Antón was present. But as he'd missed most of the first half of the season or barely raced thanks to his injuries crashing out of the 2008 Vuelta when placed about 5th, he was rather quiet, his best result being 16th to Verbier and 25th to Ventoux (dragging Astarloza with him). The main people he was beating were Egoi Martínez and Rubén Pérez (who spent more time in breakaways than anyone bar José Iván Gutiérrez in last year's Tour). To be honest I wasn't surprised with him winning the climbs, because he was staying with the group, and then outsprinting the Basques to the top, and since he's got a better kick than Martínez, I let it go.

It's disappointing though, because the polka points fight was the ONLY thing to watch in the second week of the Tour last year, no disrespect to Ag2r who held onto the jersey well, but the route didn't exactly encourage exciting racing.

 

[Barrus]

quite opposite. the higher the required probability the less room for randomness. if that's confounding you, im afraid i reached a limit of time i have to invest in further engagements with you today.

I know that the higher the required probability the less room there is for randomness, however the 99,9% is not something to which they need to strcitly adhere to. If it was fixed that would be great

However, individual Anti-Doping Organizations may choose a lower probability score to identify Samples for further results management.

That is the first thing in which they can deviate from that percentage

or profiles identified by one expert during the initial review

the second manner in which there can be arbitrariness

This is what I mean by that the 99,9% is not a strict guideline

 

[Galic Ho]

I don't mean to be pedantic, but Rasmussen's nickname is "Chicken", not "the Chicken".

Carry on.

I used 'the Chicken', for sentence structure and grammar. Speak out loud what I wrote. If you do not include, 'the', it sounds weird. Incorrect use of grammar.

If I had intended 'the' to be part of his nickname I would have indented the word and used capitals; "The Chicken". I didn't.

 

[Galic Ho]

Antón was present. But as he'd missed most of the first half of the season or barely raced thanks to his injuries crashing out of the 2008 Vuelta when placed about 5th, he was rather quiet, his best result being 16th to Verbier and 25th to Ventoux (dragging Astarloza with him). The main people he was beating were Egoi Martínez and Rubén Pérez (who spent more time in breakaways than anyone bar José Iván Gutiérrez in last year's Tour). To be honest I wasn't surprised with him winning the climbs, because he was staying with the group, and then outsprinting the Basques to the top, and since he's got a better kick than Martínez, I let it go.

It's disappointing though, because the polka points fight was the ONLY thing to watch in the second week of the Tour last year, no disrespect to Ag2r who held onto the jersey well, but the route didn't exactly encourage exciting racing.

I stand corrected. I forgot that Antón was present. He was rather quiet that is why I missed him. I expected him to win a stage. He was injured and recovering though so no surprise there. Franco did beat Egoi Martínez and Rubén Pérez time and again and I did note they were in a lot of breakaways. I was surprised though that Pellizotti did not win a stage. His form suggested he would. It wasn't that he stayed with the group that seemed odd, it was the number of times he did it in a breakaway. He went out front again and again and when their teammate Martínez was not there to protect his KOM jersey, Euskatel stepped in and still could not stop Franco. Over a three day period he knocked them all down by himself. Then he tried to win Ventoux and almost succeeded. Where were these types of performances before 2008?

It isn't one thing alone that I found interesting. It was the Giro and the Tour performances combined that seemed suspect. I thought at the time that Franco could have gone for a top 10 at the Tour if he wanted. He looked like he was holding back at times to avoid unwanted suspicion. Kind of like Menchov, Sastre and Evans.

 

[issoisso]

The UCI's Francesca Rossi confirms there are more cases coming: "I just don't know when, exactly".

 

[auscyclefan94]

It isn't one thing alone that I found interesting. It was the Giro and the Tour performances combined that seemed suspect. I thought at the time that Franco could have gone for a top 10 at the Tour if he wanted. He looked like he was holding back at times to avoid unwanted suspicion. Kind of like Menchov, Sastre and Evans.

What a load of rubbish! Franco capitualted at the Andorra stage last year, Menchov and sastre died after the tour and evans peaked too early and was ill.

 

[craig1985]

Antón was present. But as he'd missed most of the first half of the season or barely raced thanks to his injuries crashing out of the 2008 Vuelta when placed about 5th, he was rather quiet, his best result being 16th to Verbier and 25th to Ventoux (dragging Astarloza with him). The main people he was beating were Egoi Martínez and Rubén Pérez (who spent more time in breakaways than anyone bar José Iván Gutiérrez in last year's Tour). To be honest I wasn't surprised with him winning the climbs, because he was staying with the group, and then outsprinting the Basques to the top, and since he's got a better kick than Martínez, I let it go.

It's disappointing though, because the polka points fight was the ONLY thing to watch in the second week of the Tour last year, no disrespect to Ag2r who held onto the jersey well, but the route didn't exactly encourage exciting racing.

I thought it was a bit off that Pellizotti was so many breakaways, but I sort of let it go as well since everybody knew Pellizotti was in the break for kOM points and they would let him get the points in exchange for doing work in the break.

I used 'the Chicken', for sentence structure and grammar. Speak out loud what I wrote. If you do not include, 'the', it sounds weird. Incorrect use of grammar.

If I had intended 'the' to be part of his nickname I would have indented the word and used capitals; "The Chicken". I didn't.

I was being a pedantic **** just for the sake of it. Trust me, it was entirely in jest

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Franco lost four minutes to Arcalis, fourteen on the stage LL Sánchez won, to the point where he could break away in stage 9. Then he spent the rest of the race alternately dropping off the back and getting in the break. I figured it was preserving energy so that he could then go out for the KOM points, the same way riders used to ride like billy-o to the Intergiro, then soft-pedal to the stage finish.

Either way, of the high profile riders who did both the Giro and the Tour:

Menchov: Giro 1st, Tour 51st
Sastre: Giro 3rd, Tour 17th
Arroyo: Giro 10th, Tour 69th
Bruseghin: Giro 9th, Tour 80th
Leipheimer: Giro 5th, Tour DNF
Rogers: Giro 7th, Tour 103rd
Popovych: Giro 14th, Tour 41st
Pellizotti: Giro 2nd, Tour 37th+KOM
Armstrong: Giro 11th, Tour 3rd

- we've seen Armstrong's values and made our opinions of them known. It is arguable that Armstrong and Pellizotti were the only two riders to be successful at both the Giro and the Tour last year.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Franco lost four minutes to Arcalis, fourteen on the stage LL Sánchez won, to the point where he could break away in stage 9. Then he spent the rest of the race alternately dropping off the back and getting in the break. I figured it was preserving energy so that he could then go out for the KOM points, the same way riders used to ride like billy-o to the Intergiro, then soft-pedal to the stage finish.

Either way, of the high profile riders who did both the Giro and the Tour:

Menchov: Giro 1st, Tour 51st
Sastre: Giro 3rd, Tour 17th
Arroyo: Giro 10th, Tour 69th
Bruseghin: Giro 9th, Tour 80th
Leipheimer: Giro 5th, Tour DNF
Rogers: Giro 7th, Tour 103rd
Popovych: Giro 14th, Tour 41st
Pellizotti: Giro 2nd, Tour 37th+KOM
Armstrong: Giro 11th, Tour 3rd

- we've seen Armstrong's values and made our opinions of them known. It is arguable that Armstrong and Pellizotti were the only two riders to be successful at both the Giro and the Tour last year.

To be fair Leipheimer was looking pretty strong before he crashed out and so was Mike Rogers so hard to point to them. The Italians peak for the Giro, particularly Bruse. Sastre was disappointing I have to say at the tdf. Probably best to leave Armstrong out, there seems to be little objectivity around him from either camp on these forums from what I have seen.

 

[Nick777]

It isn't one thing alone that I found interesting. It was the Giro and the Tour performances combined that seemed suspect. I thought at the time that Franco could have gone for a top 10 at the Tour if he wanted. He looked like he was holding back at times to avoid unwanted suspicion. Kind of like Menchov, Sastre and Evans.

Absurd, even for you.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Probably best to leave Armstrong out, there seems to be little objectivity around him from either camp on these forums from what I have seen.

Hence why I simply put 'we've seen his values and made our opinions known'. I don't want to reopen that can of worms. The majority of people have their opinion of Armstrong and little will sway it.

 

[Escarabajo]

Tadej Valjavec must better find another excuse. As opposed to what Liquigas did, AG2R is not going to protect dopers:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ag2r-team-doctor-reacts-to-valjavec

 

[Escarabajo]

... btw, the wada document mandates 99.9% probability for proceeding to leveling a charge.

IMO, I honestly doubt in practice that there is such a thing as 99.9% certainty. Taking into account all the small errors in testing and parameters. It is really very hard to obtain.

Once you evaluate the data it is just a matter of opinions of a panel. But I believe that once the UCI presents the overwhelming data it will be very hard for the riders to defend. It still has to be "Beyond the Reasonable Doubt".

 

[Cobblestones]

Tadej Valjavec must better find another excuse. As opposed to what Liquigas did, AG2R is not going to protect dopers:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ag2r-team-doctor-reacts-to-valjavec

I read it and ... Ouch. AG2R hurries to put as much distance between itself and Tadej as possible. The exact opposite reaction from Leakygas. Hm. Interesting.

 

[craig1985]

They did it when Paco Mancebo was busted just before the 2006 Tour de France.

 

[Galic Ho]

What a load of rubbish! Franco capitualted at the Andorra stage last year, Menchov and sastre died after the tour and evans peaked too early and was ill.

No that is just one interpretation. It has been floated about numerous times that Menchov got scared by his involvement in the HumanBloodPlasma incident. Hence he switched off. Being tired or sick is the convenient excuse. We heard the excuse about Cadel coughing up flem but it was never confirmed. Sastre had the only obvious excuse. He was tired. Dennis could not stand up and well, Cuddles...apparently sick and in your opinion, left alone without a strong team. All the convenient excuses covered as usual.

Andorra Arcalis? That meant diddly squat. Only Brice Feillu and the Nocentini breakaway raced that stage with one GC exeption: Contador. What did Franco do after that? Breakaway on no less than three occasions. Wake up dude. If you are shocked Franco has been nabbed then you really are oblivious to the dark side of cycling. As I said. How good was he before 2008? He wasn't a GC contender that's for sure.

Did anyone here ask why it was Franco who was constantly in breakaways and managing to do well in every one? Who else did well in every one? Who else won anything of note beyond a solitary stage victory? Nobody. Oh and Franco podiumed at the Giro as well. Menchov didn't back up nearly half as well or Sastre. Pellizotti deliberately lost time so he could win the KOM. Other team mates were the GC hopefuls and not him. The remained of the peloton picked their one or two stages, tried their best and went for the win. Maybe Ill put it this way. Bernard Kohl won the 2008 KOM. Pellizotti won it last year. Juan Mauricio Soler Hernandez won it in 2007. Did they all look like they were doping during their wins? Don't answer that ACF94 it might ruin the fantasy.

 

[biker jk]

So Cadel Evans is a doper or just not good enough. Which is it Galic Ho? You seem to be perfectly hedged.