UCI targeted riders (bio passport)

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
nobody said:
Who would bet that Bezayev is on UCI list?

What better to push one of yours under the bus to protect the most important.

Why to chose a kazakh rider in the current fight between the Hog and Kazakh?
He's done it before.
Bazayev is just a pawn in the ongoing power struggle at Satana.

As for the 50 riders. McQuaid's changed his tune, yet again. Last week it was a number of riders to be persused and teams to hopefully suspended.
As I understand it, 50 Tour riders were being targetted for blanket testing at the Tour, due to suspicious blood values.
In short, exactly the same strategy as we saw last year, when the French were carrying out the testing.
 
Pretty much agree completely with 180 crank.

Like to see verification on power profiling. And how they are determining that.

If the UCI were smart, and true, they'd start doing hematology CO testing for blood volume and not tell anyone. Only that they were doing new testing to catch those that break the already known rules on doping, so don't break them. That would really catch many riders by surprise and a whole heap of them would be screwed.

Thoughtforfood said:
If there are no really big names, we will know one thing. Kohl is right, those with the money to fake it, do. 50 riders is a lot.
This is my fear as well. That there may be a token name rider or two, but the majority of riders will be domestiques. Which, if true, will stink to high heaven.
ndpuck said:
75%+ of the active peloton has a history of doping. I hope they're all not on the list, otherwise the Tour could be quite boring.
Agree on the history part. But a much cleaner peloton would be more exciting. Just a lot of lesser names, that's all. But the Tour makes the riders, not the other way around.
ElChingon said:
I see your point, but being tracked like that is almost well is infringing on their human rights to be free?
No, they will still be completely free to do whatever they choose, just in a different vocation. This is a sporting organization of employment. No one is keeping them from getting other work, or riding their bike. If my employer, and all like them in my field, decided that my fellow workers and I needed daily drug testing because so many before me were doped to their eye balls, it's not an infringement on my rights. I'm free to find employment elsewhere in another field. This is a job, not a human right.
 
Mar 18, 2009
981
0
0
Agree with 180mm crank. If this is an exercise in PR they are doing far more damage to the sport than any good they think they are doing. Why can't they just say, your busted, here's your suspension and fine. If its the end of your career, so sad but too bad!:confused:
 
Apr 11, 2009
85
0
0
It will be interesting to see how many potential stage/jersey winners develop

1: 'A virus'
2: 'A niggling injury'
3: 'A personl problem'

in the next week or so, thus precipitating their heart-breaking inability to compete.
 
May 30, 2009
109
0
0
msjett said:
Agree with 180mm crank. If this is an exercise in PR they are doing far more damage to the sport than any good they think they are doing. Why can't they just say, your busted, here's your suspension and fine. If its the end of your career, so sad but too bad!:confused:
No the UCI is doing this the best possible way. Right now their team of lawyers is ensuring that the cases can't be lost due to those pesky technicalities which so many times have turned the court cases in to a circus ending with 100% guilty dopers going free.

Remember it isn't only about catching these accused riders but also about scaring other riders(and their lawyers) from doping. For this to happen it needs to be one big decisive win in court.

But because the UCI legal department isn't ready(having covered all loop holes) they can't and won't suspend the riders just yet as it would mean immediate legal proceedings from the accused riders.

So instead the UCI ask the teams to keep the riders away from the Tour as it only would harm the sport if these riders won in the Tour for then to be prosecuted.

This time around the UCI is handling things right, even the French are pleased.
Combined with UCI ASO's joint anti doping effort during this year's Tour the future looks very bright.

Just the fact that the samples will be under scrutiny of AFLD for 8 years should scare off many riders.
 
Mar 18, 2009
981
0
0
OctaBech said:
No the UCI is doing this the best possible way. Right now their team of lawyers is ensuring that the cases can't be lost due to those pesky technicalities which so many times have turned the court cases in to a circus ending with 100% guilty dopers going free.

Remember it isn't only about catching these accused riders but also about scaring other riders(and their lawyers) from doping. For this to happen it needs to be one big decisive win in court.

But because the UCI legal department isn't ready(having covered all loop holes) they can't and won't suspend the riders just yet as it would mean immediate legal proceedings from the accused riders.

So instead the UCI ask the teams to keep the riders away from the Tour as it only would harm the sport if these riders won in the Tour for then to be prosecuted.

This time around the UCI is handling things right, even the French are pleased.
Combined with UCI ASO's joint anti doping effort during this year's Tour the future looks very bright.

Just the fact that the samples will be under scrutiny of AFLD for 8 years should scare off many riders.
I understand what they are trying to do...they have been "trying" to do it for years.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
The UCI are handling it in the best possible way ... from a PR perspective. They are still the gutless bunch of no-hopers that ever had the misfortune to administer a sport. Forget Boonen, the UCI has done more to damage the image of cycling than any other individual or group. Why release these names immediately prior to the TdF, especially when the biological passport was meant to be completed six months ago? Why get the teams to do the dirty work? What happens if the teams do not comply? What happens if they do comply - when can the riders return to riding if they are not going to be formally suspended? Kohl was correct - the biological passport will be used to tailor your results and then "hey presto, I'm clean". The UCI are going to use the list to target riders, but what if the riders are not racing? What are they going to target? As BigBoat and Alpe continually point out, blood volume and power profiles are probably the way of the future, but the UCI are very unlikely to implement these in the near future. It took them 10 years after knowing that EPO was a problem to introduce the EPO test. The AFLD were responsible for targeting CERA, not the UCI. The UCI have done next to nothing in improving testing for drugs or doping practices in the past, what makes anyone think that this will be any different?

As others have said, it will be no surprise if there are no big names in this list of 50 riders. Or they will use the list to get rid of pesky riders like Valverde. This will just be a token effort so the UCI cronies can pat themselves on the back and delude themselves about what a good job they're doing, when they're really doing nothing serious to tackle the problem. I hope I am wrong, but the UCI has the track record of being completely useless thanks to the shoddy and corrupt leadership of Verbruggen and his right-hand man McQuaid.
 
Apr 1, 2009
187
0
0
Im also content with the UCI approach here. Yes they have been taking time etc but I feel they have been getting as much info on riders as possible which includes off season & also the current racing calender year 2009. The results they have must be waterproof in order to stand up. The timing doesnt bother me as it will give teams a chance to pull riders from the Tour as opposed to everything going pear shaped during the Tour (which will have an even more huge media profile this year with LA etc etc etc).
For me people get too much into cloak & daggers regarding who does why when & what if. People forget the main issue, TO CATCH DOPERS.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
elapid said:
The UCI are handling it in the best possible way ... from a PR perspective. They are still the gutless bunch of no-hopers that ever had the misfortune to administer a sport. Forget Boonen, the UCI has done more to damage the image of cycling than any other individual or group. Why release these names immediately prior to the TdF, especially when the biological passport was meant to be completed six months ago? Why get the teams to do the dirty work? What happens if the teams do not comply? What happens if they do comply - when can the riders return to riding if they are not going to be formally suspended? Kohl was correct - the biological passport will be used to tailor your results and then "hey presto, I'm clean". The UCI are going to use the list to target riders, but what if the riders are not racing? What are they going to target? As BigBoat and Alpe continually point out, blood volume and power profiles are probably the way of the future, but the UCI are very unlikely to implement these in the near future. It took them 10 years after knowing that EPO was a problem to introduce the EPO test. The AFLD were responsible for targeting CERA, not the UCI. The UCI have done next to nothing in improving testing for drugs or doping practices in the past, what makes anyone think that this will be any different?

As others have said, it will be no surprise if there are no big names in this list of 50 riders. Or they will use the list to get rid of pesky riders like Valverde. This will just be a token effort so the UCI cronies can pat themselves on the back and delude themselves about what a good job they're doing, when they're really doing nothing serious to tackle the problem. I hope I am wrong, but the UCI has the track record of being completely useless thanks to the shoddy and corrupt leadership of Verbruggen and his right-hand man McQuaid.
The UCI is running a PR campaign, not a testing program. I will wait to see who is on the list, if the list is ever publisized, to make further judgments. However, if they are stupid enough to just bust the middling riders, then their failure to recognize the immediate suspicion that places upon the team leaders is evidence that they need a new PR firm.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Kerbdog said:
Yes they have been taking time etc but I feel they have been getting as much info on riders as possible which includes off season & also the current racing calender year 2009.
The biological passport was based on preseason 2008, racing season 2008, and preseason 2009. Results were meant to be released at the start of 2009.

Kerbdog said:
The results they have must be waterproof in order to stand up.
If they were meant to be waterproof, the UCI would be doing the suspending and not leaving the dirty work to the teams. The UCI are not standing by the results at all.

Kerbdog said:
People forget the main issue, TO CATCH DOPERS.
I hope I am wrong and you are right, but there is nothing cloak and dagger about the UCI's past ineptitude in regards to doping and testing. With the supposed prevalence of doping in the professional peloton, it should be the top performers that are most likely doping and going to be caught/targeted by this list. Let's wait and see how many of the top 10 riders are on this list of 50. Then we'll know how serious the UCI are about this issue.
 
Apr 1, 2009
187
0
0
Dont get me wrong Elapid i am agreeing with a lot of your points, i am i suppose trying to see how the UCI will navigate this. I cant speak for them but maybe they needed more time with the passport etc? I dont know. It seems like sadomasochism to say this but I really want theses names out as soon as possible. If anything just to see this board completely meltdown...........
 
May 30, 2009
109
0
0
elapid said:
The UCI are handling it in the best possible way ... from a PR perspective. They are still the gutless bunch of no-hopers that ever had the misfortune to administer a sport. Forget Boonen, the UCI has done more to damage the image of cycling than any other individual or group. Why release these names immediately prior to the TdF, especially when the biological passport was meant to be completed six months ago? Why get the teams to do the dirty work? What happens if the teams do not comply? What happens if they do comply - when can the riders return to riding if they are not going to be formally suspended? Kohl was correct - the biological passport will be used to tailor your results and then "hey presto, I'm clean". The UCI are going to use the list to target riders, but what if the riders are not racing? What are they going to target? As BigBoat and Alpe continually point out, blood volume and power profiles are probably the way of the future, but the UCI are very unlikely to implement these in the near future. It took them 10 years after knowing that EPO was a problem to introduce the EPO test. The AFLD were responsible for targeting CERA, not the UCI. The UCI have done next to nothing in improving testing for drugs or doping practices in the past, what makes anyone think that this will be any different?

As others have said, it will be no surprise if there are no big names in this list of 50 riders. Or they will use the list to get rid of pesky riders like Valverde. This will just be a token effort so the UCI cronies can pat themselves on the back and delude themselves about what a good job they're doing, when they're really doing nothing serious to tackle the problem. I hope I am wrong, but the UCI has the track record of being completely useless thanks to the shoddy and corrupt leadership of Verbruggen and his right-hand man McQuaid.
No one harming the sport more than those who make mindless allegations based on googled articles and numbers which they do not even know the meaning of.

Everyone knows that setting a deadline for something as delicate as the biological passport is futile, especially when considering how many riders it cover. It becomes even more convoluted when having to include jura with all its loopholes.

As I said the reason to release the names now is to avoid hurting the Tour's image by allowing known dopers to participate. These riders aren't left out due to questionable evidence but due to the UCI not wanting to take chances with technicalities, no open doors for unborn twins.
And it's not like the names are made public.

No one is forcing the teams to do the dirty work either, they are simply asked to help saving the integrity of the sport's biggest event and the integrity of the teams themselves.

Even if the UCI had gone straight to court we are talking about 50 cases which will have to be handled individually against a new type of evidence.
Meaning the accused riders still would be in limbo, a public limbo.

Before blindly bashing the UCI, ASO and AFLD(they are doing this together) people should at least come with a better way to handle these biological passport based cases.

BLOOPERS:

The AFLD were responsible for targeting CERA, not the UCI. The UCI have done next to nothing in improving testing for drugs or doping practices in the past
Yes the AFLD did amazing work taking everyone by surprise including WADA(though they didn't hesitate to steal some of the glory) which is why the UCI has hired them to conduct the tests.

Kohl was correct - the biological passport will be used to tailor your results and then "hey presto, I'm clean".
If you tailor your results then you won't be recovering faster killing the advantage of doping leaving it up to the placebo effect.
And don't listen too much to Kohl and his newly found followers, they aren't thinking things through. Had Kohl been tapping and injecting blood under the passport then it would show up on as a jump in the traced values.

Or they will use the list to get rid of pesky riders like Valverde.
Valverde, what kind of example is that? Just because he was involved in OP doesn't mean he has been doping during the time the UCI has been collecting data for the passport.
The UCI wouldn't be able to place him among the 50 "excluded" riders unless there's enough evidence to get him nailed in court as they want to win all the cases.

This will just be a token effort so the UCI cronies can pat themselves on the back and delude themselves about what a good job they're doing
What about the ASO and AFLD?
And can the passport really really be considering as them patting themselves on the back when they clearly aren't using it as a pillow to rest on but also increase the war against doping inn other areas like TdF?
 
180mmCrank said:
Yes and broadcasting out to everyone else that they are doing it. I have said this before but I'll say it again...

Other sports just don't do it like this. It just doesn't help the sport to make a song and dance of all this an the eve of the biggest cycling race in the world. They should just notify the athletes that have irregular blood values and follow the correct protocol. The cyclists that are cheating will suffer the consequences - it doesn't need to be played out in public - and it doesn't need to be fifty riders at one go. It just feels too much like a UCI publicity stunt.

Don't talk about it - just get on with it and do it. It doesn't have to be a circus!
I'm in full and complete agreement. They're shooting themselves in the foot by almost always timing these announcements just before the sport's premier event. It makes no sense if their goal is to further the sport in a positive way.
 
May 14, 2009
151
0
0
OctaBech said:
BLOOPERS:

Yes the AFLD did amazing work taking everyone by surprise including WADA(though they didn't hesitate to steal some of the glory) which is why the UCI has hired them to conduct the tests.
Not exactly. UCI wanted to control all the doping testing, they tried to put pressure but French laws give to AFLD full power on french soil. UCI could have make the full UCI testing but AFLD could have make their own in the same time.

So there were no room for UCI to play. Better to leave an already lost fight.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,269
1
0
So when UCI decides to cut out 50 riders and none of them is a big smoking gun (which would prove the hypothesis that there is doping at different prices), it would effectively result in the composition of a peloton of super well prepped riders and clean riders.

The differences in finishing times should be enormous, because the midlings have been ejected. There is a top 10 and 4 hours later we have the rest (unless someone pulls off a Pereiro Sio, gaining 30m-1hr)

Last year SASTRE C won in 87h 52' 52". If doping gives you that 10% advantage, the rest should come in at around 96h haha.
 
Angliru said:
I'm in full and complete agreement. They're shooting themselves in the foot by almost always timing these announcements just before the sport's premier event. It makes no sense if their goal is to further the sport in a positive way.
I guess they needed more time. First year to acquire data. The second year you have to wait until the season has fully started and in process so they can have at least values for half of the season to really evaluate the jumps in numbers compared to last year. Now they are reacting. Why now and not later? I don't know. Maybe avoid a scandal in the biggest race of the year. We don't want the winner to be decided 1 or 2 months after the race, don't we? Besides they have been hurt by Kohl's comments. They needed some redemption.
 
Mar 19, 2009
832
0
0
OctaBech said:
If you tailor your results then you won't be recovering faster killing the advantage of doping leaving it up to the placebo effect.
And don't listen too much to Kohl and his newly found followers, they aren't thinking things through. Had Kohl been tapping and injecting blood under the passport then it would show up on as a jump in the traced values.
I don't understand what you are trying to say with the first part of this paragraph. Every rider on a blood doping program, or his doctor, should be keeping close watch on his blood values to avoid detection. Any rider on a good program, or his doctor, would be testing himself so he knows what is going on before he gets tested by the UCI. It appears Kohl was on a sloppy program all around.

Kohl's transfusions may not have been as obvious if the CERA stimulated enough reticulocyte production to offset the effect of the stored red cells. With Kohl's sloppy program it would have taken luck but it's possible.
 
Mar 10, 2009
221
0
0
Angliru said:
I'm in full and complete agreement. They're shooting themselves in the foot by almost always timing these announcements just before the sport's premier event. It makes no sense if their goal is to further the sport in a positive way.
I think McQuade likes a circus. And I don't think he's over get ***** slapped by the ASO last year when the teams rode Paris-Nice despite his threats. So would he like to **** on ASO's biggest show? Yeah. Hate is the only thing that lasts.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
OctaBech said:
No one harming the sport more than those who make mindless allegations based on googled articles and numbers which they do not even know the meaning of.
Who are you referring to here? If it is me, then you're way off base. I often use published papers and reliable sources to back up my statements. If you've got something that proves the contrary, then provide the evidence.

OctaBech said:
And it's not like the names are made public.
Yes, just like the name of any athlete testing "non-negative" on an A sample is not released to the public. How many cyclists has this happened to? Every non-negative cyclist on an A sample has their name released. Very unlikely that this list will not go public.

OctaBech said:
No one is forcing the teams to do the dirty work either, they are simply asked to help saving the integrity of the sport's biggest event and the integrity of the teams themselves.
Exactly. The UCI have asked them to do their dirty work. But what if they don't suspend those riders? What will the UCI do then? When can those riders return to racing if the team does suspend them? I suspect when their blood values are in order, hence the reference to Kohl's statement that he used the results of the biological passport to tailor his doping regime.

OctaBech said:
Valverde, what kind of example is that? Just because he was involved in OP doesn't mean he has been doping during the time the UCI has been collecting data for the passport.
The UCI wouldn't be able to place him among the 50 "excluded" riders unless there's enough evidence to get him nailed in court as they want to win all the cases.
We'll wait for the list. But I am very cynical in regards to the UCI and doping, and I have every reason to be cynical based on the UCI's past performance in combating doping. Valverde has been a thorn in the UCI's side for a long time. The passport would be an ideal method to "globalize" CONI's 2-year ban. Conspiracy theory, yes. But let's wait and see how true it will turn out to be.

OctaBech said:
And can the passport really really be considering as them patting themselves on the back when they clearly aren't using it as a pillow to rest on but also increase the war against doping inn other areas like TdF?
The passport is an excellent PR exercise for the UCI. Let's hope that it will be functional and practical and it will be beneficial in catching dopers. I have my sincere doubts unless an independent agency takes over the screening process.
 
Has anyone thought about the possibility that these "50 riders on the watch list" are different from the ones, UCI is about to sue for abnormalities in their blood passports? I know it might seem a bit weird to publish both at the same time, but McQuaids statement in CN news leaves me wondering.

I'm thinking: What if these 50 riders just showed smaller abnormalities (not big enough to go to court with) and therefore get a warning letting them know they'll be targeted in the tour, so if (oh, yes...I said IF) the riders ARE doping, they'll either a)clean up their act or 2) don't show up at TDF.

No matter what, this is a new way of trying things in UCI - let's see how it pans out... And yes, agree with the ones saying it'll be a shame if only domestiques are on this list. 50 minor names can't suffice. But I'm especially interested in UCI's explanation of the background to this drastic announcement....
 
Kazistuta said:
Has anyone thought about the possibility that these "50 riders on the watch list" are different from the ones, UCI is about to sue for abnormalities in their blood passports? I know it might seem a bit weird to publish both at the same time, but McQuaids statement in CN news leaves me wondering.

I'm thinking: What if these 50 riders just showed smaller abnormalities (not big enough to go to court with) and therefore get a warning letting them know they'll be targeted in the tour, so if (oh, yes...I said IF) the riders ARE doping, they'll either a)clean up their act or 2) don't show up at TDF.

No matter what, this is a new way of trying things in UCI - let's see how it pans out... And yes, agree with the ones saying it'll be a shame if only domestiques are on this list. 50 minor names can't suffice. But I'm especially interested in UCI's explanation of the background to this drastic announcement....
That's exactly what I thought at the beginning when I read the news from Pat McQuaid. But then I got confused by reading the posts in this forum. I just find it very hard to believe that the UCI will go to court against 50 riders unless you are 100% sure of your data. My guess is that it would be between 5-10 riders at the most. Again I am speculating here.
 
May 30, 2009
109
0
0
Angliru said:
I'm in full and complete agreement. They're shooting themselves in the foot by almost always timing these announcements just before the sport's premier event. It makes no sense if their goal is to further the sport in a positive way.
Would you rather prefer them to wait till after the Tour risking yet again having to re-write the final GC? I bet te ASO wouldn't agree with you.

nobody said:
Not exactly. UCI wanted to control all the doping testing, they tried to put pressure but French laws give to AFLD full power on french soil. UCI could have make the full UCI testing but AFLD could have make their own in the same time.

So there were no room for UCI to play. Better to leave an already lost fight.
That's not exactly the same as no room to operate, the UCI would still be allowed to chose which laboratory to use as they finance the testing.
They couldn't deny the AFLD to make their own tests, but then again why would they?

But let's not forget that it's a combined effort by the UCI and ASO where both parties have agreed to finance the testing which is a pleasant surprise as many thought the ASO partnership with the UCI was because last year's testing had been too expensive.

Epicycle said:
I don't understand what you are trying to say with the first part of this paragraph. Every rider on a blood doping program, or his doctor, should be keeping close watch on his blood values to avoid detection. Any rider on a good program, or his doctor, would be testing himself so he knows what is going on before he gets tested by the UCI. It appears Kohl was on a sloppy program all around.

Kohl's transfusions may not have been as obvious if the CERA stimulated enough reticulocyte production to offset the effect of the stored red cells. With Kohl's sloppy program it would have taken luck but it's possible.
No the problem with Kohl's story is his talk about how micro dosing EPO raising the level of red cells can cheat the biological passport.

That's just mad rambling, it cheats tests for EPO but the passport doesn't look for how the rider did it but what happened to the blood values.

No matter how much Kohl hide the EPO he can't hide the increase in red blood cells or the imminent change in reticulocytes to grown red cells ratio when he takes a refill.
It would demand for the rider's doctor to on the day of the refill to test the rider's blood values and then manipulate the content of the blood-bag which demands for detectable masking agents(no more under the table refills at the nearest café).

A rider could try to micro dose straight into the body but in danger of recovering blood cells which isn't possible during a tour and the longitudinal graphs will show if his minimized loss in red blood cells is ordinary, not only to him self but also compared to the other riders in the race.

------->8

The biological passport isn't new, but it's new and very bold of the UCI that they dare to use the passport as evidence in court.

If they can succed with this then I wouldn't mind if they spend another couple of months on closing loopholes. :D
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
0
0
Well sending a warning to the 50 only means the UCI is powerless and gutless, either they are in violation or they're not. Do cops send people a warning, hey you've been rather close and loitering near banks? No.

The warning is like some of our idea that team testing leads to fine tuning of organized doping. Imagine if some of the 50 are on teams that perform team testing. What does that say, well the teams know very well whats going on and let it happen, that's what. Sending the warning is basically a notice to stop doping or improve it like the teammate/friend/fellow-centrifuge-buy-in-rider does, that didn't get warned.

Again, the lack of bans means they don't have the legal credibility to take it to court, if they did they could outright ban those riders.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY