• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

UCI vs Ashenden

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
T

Tyler'sTwin

Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
The UCI has reacted to Michael Ashenden’s assertion that he had not seen Lance Armstrong’s blood profile during his time on the Biological Passport panel by revealing previously unpublished material pointing to the contrary. The UCI has stated that Ashenden, who quit the passport panel last year, studied Armstrong’s anonymous data before the 2009 Giro d’Italia, and reported the profile as ‘normal’. However Ashenden, who claimed not to have seen Armstrong’s data, has always asserted that the American doped during the Tour de France, a period in which it’s unclear whether his data was studied by Ashenden.
Click to expand...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci...-in-attempt-to-refute-ashendens-doping-claims

How pathetic of the UCI! No one cares if Ashenden cleared LA's profile before the 2009 Giro, because no one has claimed LA's profile was indicative of blood manipulation at the time. Who are they trying to fool?
 
DirtyWorks

DirtyWorks

Feb 10, 2010
10,645
20
22,510
Tyler'sTwin said:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci...-in-attempt-to-refute-ashendens-doping-claims

How pathetic of the UCI! Now one cares if Ashenden cleared LA's profile before the 2009 Giro, because no one has claimed LA's profile was indicative of blood manipulation at the time. Who are they trying to fool?
Click to expand...

Maybe the point is to obfuscate the matter enough that people half-paying attention get lost and just assume the UCI is sort of right enough that they retain legitimacy. That's why I'd do it if I were sitting in Hein's office.

Hein needs to sue Ashenden. Turn a pedal in anger Hein!
 
Race Radio

Race Radio

Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
UCI has lost it. Armstrong's numbers were questionable at the Tour so they provide numbers from the Giro?
 
M

Morbius

Sep 23, 2011
536
0
0
Does anyone have a link to the source of the comments? I'd like to see the full UCI statement, but there is nothing on their web site.

It may be that CN have verbal quotes in full - in which case it would be good to know that for certain.
 
Mrs John Murphy

Mrs John Murphy

May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
Race Radio said:
UCI has lost it. Armstrong's numbers were questionable at the Tour so they provide numbers from the Giro?
Click to expand...

Because they know that no one in the media will pick up on it. It allows them to try to discredit (smear) Ashenden.

Benson really needs a kicking for not picking up on the fact that the the UCI used the Giro numbers while Ashenden has been specifically highlighting the TDF numbers.
 
Semper Fidelis

Semper Fidelis

Dec 7, 2010
8,770
3
0
I thought Ash said HE NEVER reviewed any blood passport data for Armstrong?

If that is the case then HE was wrong and never should have said....that London to a brick stuff.
 
D-Queued

D-Queued

May 27, 2010
6,333
3
17,485
Glenn_Wilson said:
I thought Ash said HE NEVER reviewed any blood passport data for Armstrong?

If that is the case then HE was wrong and never should have said....that London to a brick stuff.
Click to expand...

Hi Glenn,

You need to read the next sentence or two from Ashenden.

(I know you did, but you should acknowledge it)

Dave.
 
sittingbison

sittingbison

Jul 5, 2012
2,878
1
11,485
Morbius said:
Does anyone have a link to the source of the comments?...
Click to expand...

“Michael Ashenden’s assertion that he never had the opportunity to review Lance Armstrong’s profile is very surprising,” said UCI Communication Director Enrico Carpani.

However, the rest of the quotes could be from anybody at UCI so who knows.

I particularly liked THIS comment from the UCI:
“This profile was based on 9 results of analyses carried out in 2008 (October 16, November 26, December 3, December 11 and December 18) and 2009 (January 16, February 4, February 13, March 11).”
Click to expand...

WTF?? The whole point from USADA and Ashenden (and captainbag) is Armstrong doped DURING THE TOUR in 2009.

All in all this entire article is completely disingenuous and clear obfuscation. It is clear Ashenden is talking about not seeing the TdF values (the suspicious ones lol), and UCI have just shot themselves in the other foot after taking it out of their mouth.
 
skippy

skippy

May 26, 2009
460
0
0
phat mc splat took 6 lawyers to the UCIIC Procedural hearing and couldn't keep his foot out of his mouth . Carpani is leaving UCI shortly .

If this is what phat comes up with these people around him , imagine the mayhem when they have gone ?

phat does not understand , that people are already taking everything he says , as worthless. But then , do we need a jester to brighten up our lives ?

Even his family must be wondering how long mor , he is going to drag them through the mud !
 
Fearless Greg Lemond

Fearless Greg Lemond

Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
It is rather childish by the UCI since the bloodprofiles Ashenden studied were in fact anonymous.

For that matter, texadope had the half of 2008 to create a believable blood passport with the help of his buddy Ferrari, you know, crit at 42/43, hemaglobine within the believable realms.

Again, the UCI looks like a bunch of fools, they should immediately hire Damsgaard, then everything will be just fine.
 
Semper Fidelis

Semper Fidelis

Dec 7, 2010
8,770
3
0
D-Queued said:
Hi Glenn,

You need to read the next sentence or two from Ashenden.

(I know you did, but you should acknowledge it)

Dave.
Click to expand...

Is this the quote you want me to acknowledge? “With regard to McQuaid’s slippery assertion that I had reviewed Armstrong’s blood profile, I lay London to a brick that I did not. If in fact I’m wrong, and I did review the profile, I hereby give the UCI full permission to publish whatever opinion that I gave on that profile. The ball is now in the UCI’s court on that one.”

So did Ashenden say "any blood profile" somewhere else? Semantics correct?

Some quote any and some point to the "Relevant" data.

Problem is that I think somewhere Ashenden said "any data/blood profile" and left himself open to the antics of the UCI. Sure it is stupid but you had to know the UCI would do that. Still does not take away the fact that Ashenden was wrong when he said "any". It does not matter because the data after that was indicative of transfusions / doping. Next time Ashenden should not make blanket statements that make him an easy target for the dolts at the UCI.

Here is a quote from VN.
"Ashenden appears wrong in his claim that he never reviewed an Armstrong test in the comeback years, yes, but, according to that same source close to the testing data, Ashenden never reviewed any relevant samples that would logically contain evidence of blood manipulation. No Tours de France, namely."http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/02/news/source-uci-citing-incomplete-information-to-discredit-ashenden_274528
 
Mrs John Murphy

Mrs John Murphy

May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
It boils down to this.

USADA says biopassport shows evidence of manipulation relating to TDF

UCI says biopassport signed off by Ashenden and others.

Ashenden says he never saw the Armstrong profile (but does not specify the TDF period) but is almost certainly referring to it.

UCI says Ashenden did look at the data and points to the pre-TDF period.

Now, Ashenden would obviously not have known he was looking at Armstrong's data as it would have been anonymous (we hope).

Ashenden should have been more specific but I could not know whose profiles he looked at and signed off as normal. Unless said biopassport inform is actually showing as being abnormal in which case we have a cluster****.

The UCI needs to show that Ashenden signed off on the TDF biopassport data in order to actually refute Ashenden.
 
Semper Fidelis

Semper Fidelis

Dec 7, 2010
8,770
3
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
It boils down to this.

USADA says biopassport shows evidence of manipulation relating to TDF

UCI says biopassport signed off by Ashenden and others.

Ashenden says he never saw the Armstrong profile (but does not specify the TDF period) but is almost certainly referring to it.

UCI says Ashenden did look at the data and points to the pre-TDF period.

Now, Ashenden would obviously not have known he was looking at Armstrong's data as it would have been anonymous (we hope).

Ashenden should have been more specific but I could not know whose profiles he looked at and signed off as normal. Unless said biopassport inform is actually showing as being abnormal in which case we have a cluster****.

The UCI needs to show that Ashenden signed off on the TDF biopassport data in order to actually refute Ashenden.
Click to expand...

That is where the UCI was and are playing games. Here is the latest.
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...-at-loggerheads-over-Texans-test-results.aspx

So it is in fact just a matter of semantics on the UCI's play. It would have helped if Ashenden would have been totally specific with his statement but that does not matter.

Wondering if any other expert that viewed the passport data will speak up publicly?
 
J

JimmyFingers

Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
I'm guessing this latest gambit by the UCI is to try to reinforce the myth Armstrong was clean he returned, which in turn reinforces the mantra of everyone stopped doping in 2006, which then endorses the blood passport and legitimises the UCI narrative of being tougher than anyone else on drugs.

This in turn means they can keep control of testing rather than turning it over to WADA. I don't necessarily buy that they're doing that so the chosen few can keep doping under UCI protective win, but mnore likely WADA's bill would be too much for the UCI to stomach, and the chosen few under the UCIs wing would be exposed.

Talk about fiddling while Rome burns. Puerto, Padua and Armstrong, it's just too much to spin away, isn't it?
 
Mrs John Murphy

Mrs John Murphy

May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
JimmyFingers said:
I'm guessing this latest gambit by the UCI is to try to reinforce the myth Armstrong was clean he returned, which in turn reinforces the mantra of everyone stopped doping in 2006, which then endorses the blood passport and legitimises the UCI narrative of being tougher than anyone else on drugs.

This in turn means they can keep control of testing rather than turning it over to WADA. I don't necessarily buy that they're doing that so the chosen few can keep doping under UCI protective win, but mnore likely WADA's bill would be too much for the UCI to stomach, and the chosen few under the UCIs wing would be exposed.

Talk about fiddling while Rome burns. Puerto, Padua and Armstrong, it's just too much to spin away, isn't it?
Click to expand...

It's all about the money. The UCI wants to protect their golden boys. They would rather expend time and energy on protecting their financial interests than in actually dealing with doping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom