UCI vs Ashenden

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 4, 2012
250
0
9,030
python said:
there are several people with the keys to the closet with those dead bodies that ashenden is trying so desperately to unlock.

the three most important are:
- gripper (the uci anti-doping tzarina at the time)
- saugy (the swiss lab director who cares/cared for almost 100% of blood passport)
- sotas (the creator and the custodian of the passport statistical model)
Interesting you mention the creator/custodian of the passport model. I've assumed the model and modelling process is flawed, eg not sensitive to manipulations that maintain blood values which should be dropping during a GT).

But are you suggesting something more sinister?
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
sniper said:
One of RR's twitters recently suggested Pat has some bad wheather coming up. Let's hope there is more to come.
Pat has a serious **** storm coming. We are only at the start. I doubt Pat makes it to the end of the year
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
Cramps said:
Interesting you mention the creator/custodian of the passport model. I've assumed the model and modelling process is flawed, eg not sensitive to manipulations that maintain blood values which should be dropping during a GT).

But are you suggesting something more sinister?
Software can be manipulated or not? Doesn't take a genius to reprogramme a model to exclude some 'numbers'.
 
Second, because the abnormality in Armstrong's profile was a series of flat results, not spikes in blood values, the software was not engineered to detect that abnormality. In other words, the abnormality does not show up in the software and would not have been flagged, but it does become evident to an expert when reviewing the raw blood results.
Yes, as I said before, and the question is why not? Almost certainly software can be designed for this purpose, but if not, or even if so, all of the data may have to be reviewed by experts. But Gore’s conclusion suggests that some abnormalities that are not picked up by the current software may nevertheless be detected rather easily.

Gore said there was a one in a million chance that all seven of LA’s 2009 and 2010 reticulocyte values could be as low as they were. I’m not sure, but he may have reached this conclusion by determining the probability of any one value being that low, and then raising it to the seventh power. If we assume all of these values fell in a fairly narrow range, the probability of any one of those values being in that range would be one/(seventh root of one million), or about seven (7.2 to be more exact). That is, if the probability of one low value was about 1/7, the probability of the seven TDF values all being that low, assuming they were independent of each other, would be (1/7) to the seventh power, or about one in a million.

There are two simple ways Gore might have come up with this probability of about one-seventh:

1) about 1/7 of all of LA’s reticulocyte values were in this range. For example, it may be that these seven values were the only ones in this range, out of a total of fifty (7/50 is close to 1/7.2). So the probability of those seven all being that low would be (7/50) to the seventh power, or about one in a million.

2) A more accurate way to estimate probability would be to add up all the reticulocyte values, and determine a mean and SD. In any normal distribution, about one-sixth of the values will fall one SD or more below the mean. One-seventh of the values would fall below a SD of slightly more than one. So if all seven of these values fell below this criterion, again, the probability would be (1/7) to the seventh power, or about one in a million.

This is a quick and dirty approach,and could be criticized on several grounds, e.g., that values taken within a three week period are not completely independent of each other, but may be somewhat correlated. There are ways one might correct for this. In any case, whether Gore used this approach or not, something like it could be used as a quick screen. In fact, the passport might at this stage be like the gel EPO test--more a matter of an expert judging a pattern than fitting some software. As shown in that video, it doesn't take a lot of time or any formulas to see that all the TDF HT values are relatively high, and most important, close together throughout the three weeks, and that conversely, all the retic values are low and together for the same period.

That the software is apparently blind to this is a very serious weakness, and one wonders why it was approved for use when it is so well known that HT values fall during a three week Tour. A GT is of course one of the most likely times a rider will blood dope, so at a minimum, any values obtained during a GT should not be analyzed by, or only by, software, but by an expert aware of the usual drop. Once a suspicious pattern, that is, one in which the values stay together and don't drop, is noted, there be may other formulas that could be applied to it, e.g., cluster type approaches that evaluate how close a group of values are to one another. These could be evaluated relative to their own baseline, that is, several samples taken during a three week period during the offseason or other official baseline period, so that one could control for the fact that there might be some correlation simply because of proximity in time.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
So the UCI blames it on a computer. They say the program did not flag Armstrong's results and send them to the panel for review......yet all of his pre March 2009 samples were sent to the panel?

How is it the UCI computer program flags Armstrong's least suspicious samples for review but ignores the most questionable ones?
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Cramps said:
Interesting you mention the creator/custodian of the passport model.
simply b/c the uci pointed the finger at the statistical model...clearly, the model custodian (if testifying honestly) can shed some light as to whether that is true or another lie and why. he can also answer several more specific (currently disputed) questions as to how the software parameters effect results...i personally think this was another uci misdirection.

I've assumed the model and modelling process is flawed, eg not sensitive to manipulations that maintain blood values which should be dropping during a GT).
there are several threads on the suspect of bio passport veracity and sensitivity...i personally rarely get involved in those b/c it is mostly arguing about the shades of grey... i never believed that blood passport was anything better than an intelligent targeting tool, much less the head-chopping sanctioning hatchet.

But are you suggesting something more sinister?
not necessarily. the current bio pass statistical model is public knowledge. it's principles are well known. it is only one of the many models available and considered but eventually adopted. i am far from questioning the integrity of the people that invented it, BUT i am highly suspicious of people who ADMINISTERED the system in 2009 and are still in charge of the results management.:mad:
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
3
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
If I were a half-decent journalist I'd be trying to speak to Anne Gripper because this would seem to come back to her.

Weird how the computers at the UCI decide who is or is not suspicious. Must be a "Super Computer".
I guess London and the bricks are safe.
 
The computer says no.

That must be some computer.

I wonder is there's an app for that?

And to all those successful riders/team touting the Passport as the "end of doping".

Deary me.

Regardless thanks to Lance the UCI is going down. All has been told.
 
Aug 7, 2010
1,247
0
0
thehog said:
The computer says no.

That must be some computer.

I wonder is there's an app for that?

And to all those successful riders/team touting the Passport as the "end of doping".

Deary me.

Regardless thanks to Lance the UCI is going down. All has been told.
I knew all along that computers are responsible for the widespread doping in cycling. And I bet they were running Windows Vista.
Microsoft. Pfft.
 
python said:
there are several people with the keys to the closet with those dead bodies that ashenden is trying so desperately to unlock.

the three most important are:
- gripper (the uci anti-doping tzarina at the time)
- saugy (the swiss lab director who cares/cared for almost 100% of blood passport)
- sotas (the creator and the custodian of the passport statistical model)
Thanks for posting this.

Having read a bunch of WADA standards documents last night, saugy has to be key. His name is on the distribution list for various standards drafts.

As I understand the way the system works as documented by WADA and the UCI explanation given, Saugy would be providing the recommended population to test until sometime 2012 when the UCI takes over the task.

Given the way the UCI was asking him to meet riders and his immediate compliance suggests far more is going on between the UCI and Saugy.

I also agree with your estimation of Gripper. She was very vocal much to the discomfort of Pat and Hein.
 
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Software can be manipulated or not? Doesn't take a genius to reprogramme a model to exclude some 'numbers'.
There's some confusion about the term software in the UCI and at least Velonation's story.

Understand that the samples are tested and those results and all the documentation that goes with them is entered into software that track/manage the test results. Suspicious samples are then forwarded to experts for further analysis. Not-suspicious results are not forwarded. I would assume the expert gets all the stuff she/he needs for analysis from the APMU system.

The manipulation is not at the software level. Between Saugy's providing the pool of athletes to test and then the UCI ordering some riders tested from that pool and specifying the tests run there's plenty of room to hide positives.

As an example, This was how CERA tests were never run the year a CERA test was available for the Giro while Zomnegan was running the event. Riders were popped for CERA at other events the same year. Cleanest Giro ever!
 
Fortyninefourteen said:
I knew all along that computers are responsible for the widespread doping in cycling. And I bet they were running Windows Vista.
Microsoft. Pfft.
I posted elsewhere but if for example Kerrison or Ferrari had the “parameters” that the software pushes the file to the experts then no one (with money) is going to trigger a passport review. In addition it appears that even if the software did mark a file then there is a process to ensure if doesn’t move forward.

But most interestingly what I learnt from all of this is the use of “altitude”. It basically gives you a free pass for the passport. Now I understand much better the obsessive use Tenerife. It’s not so much to meet and liaise with doping Doctors but basically to “hijack” the passport so it readings do not come up for review.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
thehog said:
But most interestingly what I learnt from all of this is the use of “altitude”. It basically gives you a free pass for the passport. Now I understand much better the obsessive use Tenerife.
Are y kiddin hog?

Dope = logistics

works both ways, vultures have the same 'problem'
DirtyWorks said:
As an example, This was how CERA tests were never run the year a CERA test was available for the Giro while Zomnegan was running the event. Riders were popped for CERA at other events the same year. Cleanest Giro ever!
Good points DW.
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
The efforts that the UCI are going to to claim Armstrong's return is clean makes me believe it is here the papertrail to UCI culpability in his doping is clearest.

Given the depth of his fall from grace, and its detail, it is curious they have chosen to make such a strong stand, when the battle is already lost. They clearly want to maintain the narrative of the effectiveness of the blood passport and repeat the mantra of 'no-one has done more than the UCI combat doping'. There is no redemption for Lance if he rode 2009 and 2010 clean, and there can be no credit for the UCI if he did, given he had already ridden an entire career dosed to the gills.

Either this is the last act of desperate men, or more obfuscation from stupid men too complacent and confident in their positions, believing they can ride out the storm and come out smelling of roses at the end. I hope it's a case of they can't see the wood for the trees, as their position in charge is surely untenable. It must be a matter of time, for the sake of cycling
 
thehog said:
I posted elsewhere but if for example Kerrison or Ferrari had the “parameters” that the software pushes the file to the experts then no one (with money) is going to trigger a passport review. In addition it appears that even if the software did mark a file then there is a process to ensure if doesn’t move forward.
If the doping doctors know the positive threshold, then they design a doping program to stay below that threshold. Given the way Saugy was meeting riders, I'm lead to believe it was Saugy passing the information around.

WADA documents make it clear the APMU is just a system to track test results and their disposition. Python's post suggests it was run by Saugy. The UCI never specified who managed the APMU. The APMU is another opportunity to suppress positives by never passing on suspicious results. The WADA documents make it clear humans are managing the routing of doping tests within the APMU.

It's about beating the test or plain old human corruption not the software the APMU administrators, or even software used for testing samples.

If I'm wrong, then let me know.
 
Race Radio said:
So the UCI blames it on a computer. They say the program did not flag Armstrong's results and send them to the panel for review......yet all of his pre March 2009 samples were sent to the panel?

How is it the UCI computer program flags Armstrong's least suspicious samples for review but ignores the most questionable ones?
Dunno, maybe the first load of samples are used for the baseline so they like the experts to see them anyway to check the samples are ok to use for the baseline?
 
JimmyFingers said:
The efforts that the UCI are going to to claim Armstrong's return is clean makes me believe it is here the papertrail to UCI culpability in his doping is clearest.

Given the depth of his fall from grace, and its detail, it is curious they have chosen to make such a strong stand, when the battle is already lost. They clearly want to maintain the narrative of the effectiveness of the blood passport and repeat the mantra of 'no-one has done more than the UCI combat doping'. There is no redemption for Lance if he rode 2009 and 2010 clean, and there can be no credit for the UCI if he did, given he had already ridden an entire career dosed to the gills.

Either this is the last act of desperate men, or more obfuscation from stupid men too complacent and confident in their positions, believing they can ride out the storm and come out smelling of roses at the end. I hope it's a case of they can't see the wood for the trees, as their position in charge is surely untenable. It must be a matter of time, for the sake of cycling

If only it was Armstrong.

The issue demonstrates that despite riders, teams and the various administrations claiming the passport has ended doping it has clearly not. Doping is alive and well but just in a new form. The UCI as ever have control over the results but allowing some a “pass” whilst others not.

The revelations are not good for cycling at all. Doping did not die in 2006. Or in 2012.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
3
0
thehog said:
If only it was Armstrong.

The issue demonstrates that despite riders, teams and the various administrations claiming the passport has ended doping it has clearly not. Doping is alive and well but just in a new form. The UCI as ever have control over the results but allowing some a “pass” whilst others not.

The revelations are not good for cycling at all. Doping did not die in 2006. Or in 2012.
That is what the UCI wants us to go with. The UCI wish like hell things such as the internet was never invented. With Twitter, Message boards, immediate distribution of rebuttals to Boo S&^%!. :D
 
Glenn_Wilson said:
That is what the UCI wants us to go with. The UCI wish like hell things such as the internet was never invented. With Twitter, Message boards, immediate distribution of rebuttals to Boo S&^%!. :D
Ashenden comments serve as an excellent commentary of the UCI and those so called “clean teams”.


''The UCI also sought to shift responsibility by claiming that the decision on which passports to share with experts were made by the Lausanne laboratory, not the UCI. However, Pat McQuaid has previously stated that the UCI do themselves also examine the raw data from passports.

''The UCI have also repeatedly claimed to target test their riders based on information gleaned directly from their blood profiles. Therefore, … it is simply untenable to believe that the UCI did not examine the passport profile of the podium finishers from the 2009 Tour de France.

''If the UCI failed to examine Armstrong's raw data when he placed third at the 2009 Tour de France, the UCI were derelict in their obligations.

''If, on the other hand, the UCI did examine Armstrong's raw data but failed to recognise that flat line blood values in tandem with suppressed bone marrow activity in the third place getter of a major Tour was consistent with the possible use of blood transfusion, they have proven themselves to be biologically illiterate.''
 
DirtyWorks said:
Good post Hog! Here's a link for that quote. Probably not exactly where you got it, but I think it works. http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/cycling-chief-accused-of-mishandling-armstrong-tests-20130213-2edfq.html
Thanks for the link!

It was a good post.

"biologically illiterate" !

Strewth! Hope I never get called that!

For me the entire passport is a hoax. A scam. Marketing. That is all.

Outside of Armstrong I’d like to know how many riders on winning teams from 2012 had their passports in front of the panel and if the computer said “no”.

For further debate; is cycling is cleaner in 2012/13 than 2005 or 2009, 2010?
 
Ok sports writers, the story is solid. The UCI was and probably still is selectively enforcing the bio-passport.

If the UCI barely followed WADA standards, they had complete control over every step of testing. USADA's documents show his comeback samples were clearly positive. The UCI specially handled Wonderboy's bio-passport testing to maintain a "never tested positive" status.

Obviously, the story can only concentrate on Wonderboy, but Sky's 2012 miracle now makes complete sense. Selectively test Sky riders to give them an overwhelming advantage while maintaining a "never tested positive" record for Sky.

Another gift from The Clinic.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY