UCI says 98% of riders are clean

[Merckx index]

Well, they imply it:

The French Anti-Doping Agency and the International Cycling Union will work together again to conduct doping tests during the Tour de France.
The organizations have signed a new deal extending their recently renewed partnership for the July 2-24 race, AFLD president Bruno Genevois said at a press conference Thursday.

[UCI doctor Mario] Zorzoli said there are indications that the fight against doping is gaining results.
"If I look at all the data we have from the years 2001-2002, we had about 10 percent of riders showing abnormal results," Zorzoli said. "Since 2008, this figure has dropped to about 2 percent."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...ing.tour.de.france.ap/index.html?eref=si_more

So I guess this means that if you have a rating of below 10 on the suspicious index, that's not considered abnormal?

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

The 2% win the most important races.

 

[Anonymous]

Well, they imply it:






http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...ing.tour.de.france.ap/index.html?eref=si_more

So I guess this means that if you have a rating of below 10 on the suspicious index, that's not considered abnormal?

That's the problem with this kind of comment. It could also be stated that 80% fewer riders are showing abnormal results. Or that pro cycling is 5 times fewer abnormal results now versus 2002.

Then there is the whole problem with the standards. There was no passport back then so what parameters are being compared?

"There are lies, damn lies and there are statistics...." or something like that.

 

[LukeSchmid]

I hope the UCI is talking to the 2% who fail to shower regularly. It really gives cycling a bad name and must be stopped.

 

[tofino]

Better program

It just means that 2% need to get a better "doctor".

 

[LukeSchmid]

Cyclists get caught doping for two reasons
1. They are too stupid or lazy to do it properly
2. Their check bounces

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

...and 98% could be using methods that help them go undetected. That's an exaggeration. At least I hope so.

 

[Ferminal]

That's the problem with this kind of comment. It could also be stated that 80% fewer riders are showing abnormal results. Or that pro cycling is 5 times fewer abnormal results now versus 2002.

Then there is the whole problem with the standards. There was no passport back then so what parameters are being compared?

"There are lies, damn lies and there are statistics...." or something like that.

Indeed.

The science, may have been further behind then than it is today. At least, this is what we are told by supporters of the passport.

So:

-There is only one fifth the amount of dopers today as there were then
-The definitions of "abnormal" have changed with the times

If the second part is partly true, were they too critical back then, or are their definitions too lenient now? Or "dopers" are able to manage their values to make them not appear abnormal.

In 01-02 was managing your values a big issue? The newly introduced EPO test was probably the big threat at that time?

 

[python]

Indeed.

.........
-The definitions of "abnormal" have changed with the times

........

the gods of doping know, i mean the clinic knows, i'm no defender of the uci, but the quote i have dissected is worth looking into a bit more closely...

yes, the definition of abnormal has changed with times. that's the fact (if people are interested, i can delve into more details, but for now, let's just simplify it as this - they are talking about hct, hg, and %rets- things that were measurable - and actually measured - for decades and served as broad indexes of blood doping)

however, the changing standard does not mean that there is no basis for reasonable comparisons not with standing that the uci numbers are a pr stunt.

also note, the op deliberately spun 'abnormal' in the thread title to sound as if it's an implication of '% clean'.

bottom line, there are several sources/studies/articles as to the prevalence abd dynamic of blood doping and how the technique evolved. they include, but are not limited to, the zorzoli report, interviews with wada lab directors (particularly the swiss) etc...

we know the trend is down but it's a fallacy to speak of winning or some accurate knowledge as to why it's the winning.

 

[Granville57]

Allow me to bold the other part:

"If I look at all the data we have from the years 2001-2002, we had about 10 percent of riders showing abnormal results," Zorzoli said. "Since 2008, this figure has dropped to about 2 percent."

Is Zorzoli trying to imply that in 2001/2002, at the apex of USPS, only 10 percent of riders were doping?

9 guys on USPS in the TdF alone would make up about 6 percent of the peloton right there (based on number of riders who finished). We know they were doped. So that only leaves about 4 percent of the rest of the field (only 5 to 6 riders in total) to have had "abnormal" results. Unless his numbers reflect a time of year that would somehow be more relevant than what transpired during the biggest race of the season.

That sounds like some pretty incomplete data to me. But I'm no expert.

 

[python]

Allow me to bold the other part:


Is Zorzoli trying to imply that in 2001/2002, [/SIZE]

i'm going to *try* one more, perhaps the last time...

we need to look into the specifics and details more closely...

zorzoli is talking apples and oranges.

in 2001-2002 the most riders in the 'peloton' were only exposed to quarterly health tests. though the haematocrit limit of 50% was introduced in 1997, the frequency of testing was very low - only several blood tests per rider per year.

hardly a sufficient filter to detect and expose rampant blood doping in the mid and late nineties... the epo test introduction in 2001 resulted in micro dosing and thus smaller blood parameter fluctuations - thus 'the abnormality' standard has shifted.

 

[D-Queued]

Well, they imply it:

"Since 2008, this figure has dropped to about 2 percent."

So I guess this means that if you have a rating of below 10 on the suspicious index, that's not considered abnormal?

There goes the Zorzoli.

Scratched him right off my hero list. This ranks at least a 4 out of 10 on the Ostrich list.

Dave.

 

[Granville57]

This is a more complete quote from Velonews
http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/06/news/uci-says-it-has-flagged-several-riders-samples-ahead-of-tour-de-france_179976

Zorzoli said the passport is bringing benefits, compared to 2001 when authorities were first able to analyze the reticulocytes (young blood cells), another useful tool to determine if blood doping had taken place.

“In 2001, when we first started analyzing reticulocytes during blood testing … about 10 to 11 percent of the samples revealed abnormal values. Since 2008, this has reduced to about two percent.”

I'll leave my previous posts intact although it's somewhat off the mark when viewed in this more specific context.

 

[lean mean &green]

I'll leave my previous posts intact although it's somewhat off the mark when viewed in this more specific context.

i just read the full quote on velonews and was returning to post the link but you beat me to it.

if you view the quote as it pertains to a single variable, retics in this case, i think his statements are pretty accurate and fair. retics can be normal even while abusing EPO so 10-11 percent abnormalities isn't even like saying 90 percent are clean. it just means there's a reduction in suspicious retic values. no more, no less. there's a vague implication of a reduction in EPO use but that's about it.

for those who don't know, retics are pretty easy to manipulate so in the end these statements mean nothing.

 

[la.margna]

It just means that 2% need to get a better "doctor".

exactly!!!

 

[lancaster]

if only 10% of the TdF were doped in '01 and '02 i'd be very pleasantly surprised.

 

[Lanark]

The Science of Sports guys did two articles a couple of months back using the same data. I'm sure they have been posted here before. For people who are really interested in what's going on, and don't just want to launch some nice soundbites lambasting the UCI:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/03/biological-passport-legal-scientific.html

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/03/biological-passport-effective-fight-or.html

This is where the '2%' figure comes from:

 

[Cloxxki]

Did we see books coming out from uncaught, now broke doping docters? No we didn't. Apparently they can still make a buck just fine.
Apart from only a few getting caught, I see no clear indication why fewer riders would be doping. The riders know more than the labs, Floyd showed us that. After having been on a good program and paid attention, you don't need the special docs as much anymore.
Perhaps 2% of all comeptitive cyclists, inclusing all amateur ranks, that might be close to right.

 

[BigBoat]

Cyclists get caught doping for two reasons
1. They are too stupid or lazy to do it properly
2. Their check bounces

YUP! It is hard to get caught doping in pro cycling if you take all the proper precautions.

They might not all be jacked to 55-59% on epo anymore but they still are doped. They might not all infuse their own red blood cells before the Tour but that doesnt mean their not using HGH & small amounts of epo.

The UCI doctor must be dyslexic ha! He meant to say 98% of the riders still dope.

 

[rickshaw]

Pah-leeze

Let's see: UCI cheerleader goes live with great story on how clean cycling is now. Hurray! Sis Boom Bah!

Now hit your back button until you get to the article on how the UCI and AFLD are gonna work together this year like the buddies they should be. At the borrom is a link to the WADA Independent Observers Report from last year. Hmmm? This does not seem consistant? I like this bit a lot,

"The most glaring observation was that despite collecting 540 samples during the race, only 15% of the controls were unannounced, and some of the most suspicious riders and those with "significantly improved performances" were hardly tested at all."

OR, it could be the Emperor (UCI) has no clothes.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

The Science of Sports guys did two articles a couple of months back using the same data. I'm sure they have been posted here before. For people who are really interested in what's going on, and don't just want to launch some nice soundbites lambasting the UCI:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/03/biological-passport-legal-scientific.html

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/03/biological-passport-effective-fight-or.html

This is where the '2%' figure comes from:

great post! thanks for the info and links.