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

[Escarabajo]

I think I am agreeing with Cobbles and Brodeal on this one. This looks like a case of bad blood between the UCI and the Giro. The way it was unveiled was rather strange.

Having said that it is always good to know that some dopers are being caught.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Was he tested every day between the Giro and the Tour?

The allegation is that he may have used 1 unit of blood during the TdF. That's not a great amount. That's why it probably doesn't meet the UCI's likely 'beyond reasonable doubt' criteria for a bust.

BPC -Just going back to your theory on Lance blood boosting for the Tour in 09, because he got dropped by Pellizotti in the Giro and felt he must dope to stay competitive - perhaps Pellizotti felt the need to dope because he saw Lance at the Giro and realized that Lance had never been caught so he must throw away his high moral values to be like Lance and remain competitive.... poor guy I almost feel sorry for him.

Oh, and for your info on the UCI Rules;

Proof of Doping. Rule 22
...This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

As to the argument, the problem is that the UCI is about as trustworthy as major political parties in the US. Right when it seems like they are going to do the right thing, another layer is peeled back, showing more false hopes.

I just hope Valjavec, Prado and especially Pellizotti confess, and cooperate with authorities at this point. Doing so would help everyone. The sport, fans, even themselves in the long run.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Yeah and Gibo won the 2006 Giro, finishing third behind 2 confirmed OP boys. Doesn't work that way.

Is Cadel Evans really Pat McQuaid's love child?

Well, that's what cadel brings out in people!

Pellizotti last night went out to 4.75 from 3.75 so some punters must of known it was him!

 

[red_flanders]

Was he tested every day between the Giro and the Tour?

The allegation is that he may have used 1 unit of blood during the TdF. That's not a great amount. That's why it probably doesn't meet the UCI's likely 'beyond reasonable doubt' criteria for a bust.

That's not the allegation. The allegation is that he doped during the Tour. No one can know the quantity of doping.

One expert said he thought the results of the Giro were that he was likely not doping, or at least not obviously so.

Farking grotesque revisionism. Transparent, lame, slimeball agenda.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

It looks like Pellizotti and the others are now in an inescapable limbo constructed by the UCI. They have to explain their blood values or get banned, but there is no scientific study that has been made to show what normal values for an elite cyclist should be. In effect they will be forced to prove their innocence. This seems like it could run into problems if a conviction is taken up with a real court. It should be the UCI that has to prove that their blood values show clear proof of doping. If their lawyers sucessfully argue that the proof of doping is insufficient or the case is legally flawed then riders will likely remain in limbo. Even if they beat the case, they could very well end up like Sevilla and Mancebo.

This is exactly the problem I foresee. Seems that there will be a fair bit of room to argue in these cases as to what is and what is not sufficient evidence of doping. As for a study, I thought there has been at least one small study regarding blood values for elite cyclist. Of course I would be very interested to see the results of a larger, more in depth study of the issue. Anyone know if such a study is being done?

It seems that the scientific study has now been completed. It's called the Bio Passport. The study outline goes like this....collect data....compare with previous smaller studies and any other available info....develop statistical tools to predict doping....demonstrate predictive merit of statistical tools by targeting riders with suspicious values and proving doping by traditional tests....

 

[El Oso]

Where is privacy coming into this?

If they can't ban people as a result of irregular values taken from the bio passport, cycling will be truly and totally dead. Unless they actually start total body Hb tests.

In looking into the privacy issue and Kasheckin's attempt to use it as a defense, I found the Pro Tour teams association agreed exactly with that point back in 2007:

The legal battle between the Kazakh and the UCI could have larger implications for the sport and the antidoping initiatives which seem to have begun to make inroads in the past year. "This is not a battle for or against doping, because we all are against doping. It a battle against the system which does not respect the fundamental rights of individuals," Botteman said.
However, the ProTour teams association, the IPCT, has joined the side of the UCI in the battle, saying that the fate of the sport is at risk. "If Kashechkin wins on the principle that only public authorities can take care of doping, then we can close shop," IPCT lawyer Jean-Louis Dupont said.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kashechkin-case-battles-the-system

 

[issoisso]

Re issoisso 134

My sincere apologies, of course you are right. Whatever was I thinking?
And that's after just reading about Chioccioli in the latest edition of Procycling!

No worries. Everyone makes mistakes

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

If the troublesome values were from almost a year ago then why has it taken so long for the UCI to take action - why take action now and not a month ago or 6 months ago?

We are supposed to believe that all of a sudden less than a week before the start of the Giro they have suddenly discovered that two top ten riders have out of whack values...

One other important angle in this is the failure of the cycling media to ask tough questions of the UCI and their conduct in running these programs and the sport in general. The perception of UCI corruption isn't helped by a softball media that lets the likes of McQuaid get away with running the UCI into the ground.

 

[Escarabajo]

...

Oh, and for your info on the UCI Rules;

Proof of Doping. Rule 22
...This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

It sounds like SEC ruling for proved reserves in the Oil Industry:

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" That means above 90% certain.

To be just above the balance is just about above 50%. That's not that much. Is that true Doc? Where did you get that from?

 

[BroDeal]

It seems that the scientific study has now been completed. It's called the Bio Passport. The study outline goes like this....collect data....compare with previous smaller studies and any other available info....develop statistical tools to predict doping....demonstrate predictive merit of statistical tools by targeting riders with suspicious values and proving doping by traditional tests....

That just will not work very well. The traditional tests are ineffective. How do you know whether a rider who tests negative is not doping or whether the test was not given during the small time window that might detect doping? There will be a very large number of cases, probably the vast majority, where the data predicts doping but there is no positive test to confirm it. Where is the clean control group of elite athletes? Finding positive tests in a group of athletes, most of whom might be doping, does not prove the predictive power of the passport.

 

[Eyjafjallajokull]

BPC -Just going back to your theory on Lance blood boosting for the Tour in 09, because he got dropped by Pellizotti in the Giro and felt he must dope to stay competitive - perhaps Pellizotti felt the need to dope because he saw Lance at the Giro and realized that Lance had never been caught so he must throw away his high moral values to be like Lance and remain competitive.... poor guy I almost feel sorry for him.

I can't see the logic in that. Pellizotti will not have been scared by Armstrong's performance in the Giro. He would also have had to have done the doping before the Giro started.

I will concede that Armstrong may have had back up plans. Again, the fact that he started the year promising to put the results online and have an independent tester seems to suggest the back up plans were not the first choice. When it became clear at the Giro all the GC guys were juiced, I could imagine that confirming the decision to change course. All just guess work, of course, but my sense on this is fairly strong.

Oh, and for your info on the UCI Rules;

Proof of Doping. Rule 22
...This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Interesting, thanks. I said "likely" criteria because I did not know. However I would imagine the passport is more of a grey area and is new territory. I would imagine they'd only go for slam dunk evidence and not something that looks a bit unlikely but could possibly be explained.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

We are supposed to believe that all of a sudden less than a week before the start of the Giro they have suddenly discovered that two top ten riders have out of whack values...

Not all of a sudden, no. But the releases are now for two reasons: 1) They waited as long as they could to cross every t and dot every i, before time compelled them to release. 2) Maximum impact and exposure is on the eve of the big race.

One other important angle in this is the failure of the cycling media to ask tough questions of the UCI and their conduct in running these programs and the sport in general. The perception of UCI corruption isn't helped by a softball media that lets the likes of McQuaid get away with running the UCI into the ground.

Yes, and no. Pat doesn't really give press conferences like the President where he answers all comers. This would leave it to investigative jouralists. But the other side of this sword is that when someone like L'Equipe, Gazetta, or even LeMonde does hard investigative journalism on the sport, it's more aimed at cyclists, and when they do this, an equal amount of fanboys come out calling them tabloid trash, even if what's reported is ironclad evidence.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

That just will not work very well. The traditional tests are ineffective. How do you know whether a rider who tests negative is not doping or whether the test was not given during the small time window that might detect doping? There will be a very large number of cases, probably the vast majority, where the data predicts doping but there is no positive test to confirm it.

I don't think they need to know whether most riders who don't test positive are doping or not. What they need to do is show that riders with the most extreme blood values are, which takes time because they have to keep targeting or retrospectively testing till they get a +ve. In theory the most extreme blood values will generally belong to the heaviest PED users, so even with the high false negative rate, it should be possible to catch them with persistence. Then they you can start busting others with really extreme values on the basis of the passport alone...then you select the next most extreme values and begin the process again, thereby gradually reducing the upper limit of doping that is tacitly accepted.

...Where is the clean control group of elite athletes?...

Ha! Precisely the point I was trying to make in another thread, which is precisely the point that made me think the whole system works as I outlined above. Perhaps you and cobblestones can thrash this subject out. I would like to debate this stuff with both of you but I have a meeting in 3 hrs that I really need to prepare for.......work sux.

...Finding positive tests in a group of athletes, most of whom might be doping, does not prove the predictive power of the passport....

Yes. You would need to subject some riders with the cleanest looking blood values to the same scrutiny as those with the apparently dirtiest values and come up negative to properly demonstrate predictive merit.

 

[JayZee]

It seems that the scientific study has now been completed. It's called the Bio Passport. The study outline goes like this....collect data....compare with previous smaller studies and any other available info....develop statistical tools to predict doping....demonstrate predictive merit of statistical tools by targeting riders with suspicious values and proving doping by traditional tests....

That was actually my thought as well about the Bio Passport and it certainly would provide a very detailed picture of the blood values of elite cyclist. The problem is that it isn't an independent/open/peer reviewed study nor are there any plans that I am aware of to release the data in some anonymous form so it can be evaluated by others outside of the UCI's control.

If I was defending one these guys I sure as heck would be arguing that not only do I need to see my client's info, but I would also want to see all of the data and analysis so my retained expert can review it and reach his own conclusions as to the efficacy of the Bio Passport.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It sounds like SEC ruling for proved reserves in the Oil Industry:

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" That means above 90% certain.

To be just above the balance is just about above 50%. That's not that much. Is that true Doc? Where did you get that from?

Page 8 of the UCI Cycling Regulations, Part 14 Anti-doping.
Proof of doping
Burdens and standards of proof
22.
The UCI and its National Federations shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the UCI or its National Federation has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing
in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Where these Anti-Doping Rules place the burden of proof upon the License-Holder alleged to have committed an antidoping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard
of proof shall be by a balance of probability, except as provided in articles 295 and 305 where the License-Holder must satisfy a higher burden of proof.

 

[BroDeal]

I can't see the logic in that. Pellizotti will not have been scared by Armstrong's performance in the Giro. He would also have had to have done the doping before the Giro started.

I will concede that Armstrong may have had back up plans. Again, the fact that he started the year promising to put the results online and have an independent tester seems to suggest the back up plans were not the first choice. When it became clear at the Giro all the GC guys were juiced, I could imagine that confirming the decision to change course. All just guess work, of course, but my sense on this is fairly strong.

This one has to be a BPC classic. It is the resurrection of the Dario Frigo defense. Frigo carried around a suitcase full of dope not because he intended to use it, but just in case he needed it. It gave him peace of mind knowing that it was available if dope was required. Now Armstrong had his blood extracted and stored because, even though he intended to ride the Tour clean, he needed back up plan just in case. Actually Frigo's defense makes more sense. He only had to stuff a suitcase full of drugs. It never affected his training like extraction of blood would.

My sense that you are trolling about Armstrong in a thread about Pellizotti and the others named by the UCI is fairly strong.

 

[Beech Mtn]

That just will not work very well. The traditional tests are ineffective. How do you know whether a rider who tests negative is not doping or whether the test was not given during the small time window that might detect doping? There will be a very large number of cases, probably the vast majority, where the data predicts doping but there is no positive test to confirm it. Where is the clean control group of elite athletes? Finding positive tests in a group of athletes, most of whom might be doping, does not prove the predictive power of the passport.

Take a look at the USADA website - look at all cycling tests for the past few years. Those athletes with a star beside their names voluntarily participated in a pilot testing program, which included increased testing. Kristen Armstrong, for example, was one of these volunteers. They tested her 24 times in 2008 alone. Could some of these, presumably clean riders, have been providing data to serve as the control group? I'm guessing other countries may have had similar programs with clean riders volunteering to be tested more often.

Edit - there are also athletes from other sports who participated in the increased testing. Would the Bio Passport have to rely solely on cyclists, or could runners, swimmers, cross-country skiers, etc. also be used in the data bank?

 

[BroDeal]

I don't think they need to know whether most riders who don't test positive are doping or not. What they need to do is show that riders with the most extreme blood values are, which takes time because they have to keep targeting or retrospectively testing till they get a +ve. In theory the most extreme blood values will generally belong to the heaviest PED users, so even with the high false negative rate, it should be possible to catch them with persistence. Then they you can start busting others with really extreme values on the basis of the passport alone...then you select the next most extreme values and begin the process again, thereby gradually reducing the upper limit of doping that is tacitly accepted.

Ha! Precisely the point I was trying to make in another thread, which is precisely the point that made me think the whole system works as I outlined above. Perhaps you and cobblestones can thrash this subject out. I would like to debate this stuff with both of you but I have a meeting in 3 hrs that I really need to prepare for.......work sux.

Yes. You would need to subject some riders with the cleanest looking blood values to the same scrutiny as those with the apparently dirtiest values and come up negative to properly demonstrate predictive merit.

I understand your poiint, and in practical terms I don't see any other way to validate a passport-like system. I just wonder about what the real numbers would be like. I can envision fifty riders being singled out for funky blood number but only five testing positive.

I would be willing to bet that Pellizotti's numbers are extreme enough that his defense will sound like FLandis denying the benefits of testosterone, so the only result of the passport will be to eliminate such extremes.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Was he tested every day between the Giro and the Tour?

The allegation is that he may have used 1 unit of blood during the TdF. That's not a great amount. That's why it probably doesn't meet the UCI's likely 'beyond reasonable doubt' criteria for a bust.

Are you saying that he had blood removed after the Giro during the time when he was first recovering and then probably doing his hardest block of training before the Tour? I have a strong sense that you do not know what you are talking about. I also have a strong sense that another troll storm is brewing up here on the ol' Cycling News Forum.

 

[El Oso]

This one has to be a BPC classic. It is the resurrection of the Dario Frigo defense. Frigo carried around a suitcase full of dope not because he intended to use it, but just in case he needed it. It gave him peace of mind knowing that it was available if dope was required. Now Armstrong had his blood extracted and stored because, even though he intended to ride the Tour clean, he needed back up plan just in case. Actually Frigo's defense makes more sense. He only had to stuff a suitcase full of drugs. It never affected his training like extraction of blood would.

My sense that you are trolling about Armstrong in a thread about Pellizotti and the others named by the UCI is fairly strong.

I was more thinking it was along the lines of the Brillo, filling the blood bags was only attempted doping claim.

 

[Eyjafjallajokull]

This one has to be a BPC classic. It is the resurrection of the Dario Frigo defense. Frigo carried around a suitcase full of dope not because he intended to use it, but just in case he needed it. It gave him peace of mind knowing that it was available if dope was required. Now Armstrong had his blood extracted and stored because, even though he intended to ride the Tour clean, he needed back up plan just in case. Actually Frigo's defense makes more sense. He only had to stuff a suitcase full of drugs. It never affected his training like extraction of blood would.

I'm not clear on what your point is or what you mean by "defence". It's my view that circumstances did play a role in Armstrong's possible decision to blood dope at the TdF last year. Are you claiming that it would be a lessor crime if circumstances did play a role? You seem to be admitting that it would or you wouldn't be so adamant that they did not.

The circumstantial evidence is the relatively easy field in 2008, the plan to have an independent tester and publish results online, the fact several other GC riders - at least Diluca and Pellizotti - were doped at the Giro, making it impossible to win clean, and Armstrong's seemingly clean numbers for that Tour.

You do not believe any of this played a role and it was the hard plan throughout, no doubt.

We have a disagreement. There is no need for anyone to get snarky or question each others motives.

 

[Eyjafjallajokull]

Are you saying that he had blood removed after the Giro during the time when he was first recovering and then probably doing his hardest block of training before the Tour? I have a strong sense that you do not know what you are talking about. I also have a strong sense that another troll storm is brewing up here on the ol' Cycling News Forum.

I don't know. How long would it take to recover from taking out 1 unit of blood? Whenever the blood came from - if it indeed occurred because it's not beyond reasonable doubt in my view - it does not look like it was used during the Giro itself. That is interesting itself.

I expect there could be a "troll storm" if people microanalyse everything I say to look for fault whilst the likes of BroDeal can shoot the breeze peddling conspiracy theories about the UCI sacrificing the Giro for the tour - based on no evidence whatsoever, without anyone questioning that at all.

That would be somewhat of a double standard. I'd hate to see double standards becomming common in this forum.

 

[BroDeal]

I'm not clear on what your point is or what you mean by "defence". It's my view that circumstances did play a role in Armstrong's possible decision to blood dope at the TdF last year. Are you claiming that it would be a lessor crime if circumstances did play a role? You seem to be admitting that it would or you wouldn't be so adamant that they did not.

The circumstantial evidence is the relatively easy field in 2008, the plan to have an independent tester and publish results online, the fact several other GC riders - at least Diluca and Pellizotti - were doped at the Giro, making it impossible to win clean, and Armstrong's seemingly clean numbers for that Tour.

You do not believe any of this played a role and it was the hard plan throughout, no doubt.

We have a disagreement. There is no need for anyone to get snarky or question each others motives.

We know what your motive is. You are a troll who has been banned from this forum thirty times.

This is classic BPC trolling technique: Lie about the facts and then draw a bogus conclusion using them. Note the assertion that Armstrong's Giro was clean despite the jump up in numbers before the Giro, touting an independent testing program that never made it past the press conference stage, the injection of an Armstrong defense into a thread that has nothing to do with Armstrong, arguing against made up viewpoints attributed to others, and playing stupid when his logic is questioned.

 

[Eyjafjallajokull]

This is classic BPC trolling technique: Lie about the facts and then draw a bogus conclusion using them.

You're the only person that was caught lying that UCI has not targeted RadioShack yet.

Note the assertion that Armstrong's Giro was clean despite the jump up in numbers before the Giro,

I was careful to say "it seems". Unlike you I don't assert anything as fact. I'm merely making an assumption on the evidence, which was looked at and judged to be clean by one doping expert who questioned the Tour numbers.

As you probably know, all red blood cell counts go up before a GT because riders don't do any hard riding in the last week before the tour to ensure they are completely recovered, so that is not evidence in itself of doping.

touting an independent testing program that never made it past the press conference stage,

This is where we have a disagreement. It seems unlikely to me that he planned to junk the testing programme all along. A decision was clearly made to do this later on, but the fact that he put himself in the position where he had promised to do it and had someone lined up, and was forced to stick tp putting some numbers online, does indictate to me that he did plan on being clean last year. Why are we not allowed to have a different intepretation of that evidence? Surely reasonable people can disagree on this?

the injection of an Armstrong defense into a thread that has nothing to do with Armstrong,.

Again you use the word "defense". Are you saying it would be less bad if other dopers made Armstrong feel like he had to change a plan not to dope last year? That is the implication of your distaste at me mentioning this.