UCI vs Ashenden

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 24, 2010
101
0
0
RobbieCanuck said:
What is it McQuaid cannot understand about his petty, pathetic and intellectually dishonest statements, that make it abundantly clear he is simply incompetent and not qualified to head the UCI. You get the sense he is denser than a brick.

Why have the member associations of the UCI not called for his resignation? I have not read anything from for example USA Cyling or Cycling Canada or Cycling Australia or any of the European countries federations about concerns over McQuaid or have I just missed it?
John Tolkamp, the Cycling Canada president has issued this open letter to other federations. It's not really calling for his resignation, but it is calling his approach into question. I'd urge Clinicians to follow-up with their national federation presidents. Whoever runs against McQuaid in September is going to need some votes.

http://www.canadiancyclist.com/dailynews.php?id=25637

January 31/13 22:24 pm - Cycling Canada President Sends Open Letter to UCI

Posted by Editoress on 01/31/13

John Tolkamp, President of Cycling Canada, has released a letter that he sent today to the Management Committee of the UCI:

January 31, 2013

To: UCI Management Committee
cc: National Federations

Lance, the biggest figure in the history of cycling, admits to doping. Not just doping but a systematic, decade long program designed to compete with, and beat what turns out to be an epidemic of doping in the peloton. And the ONLY public press release by our international federation, the Union Cycliste International (UCI) is one of vindication.

REALLY? ... Is that OUR best response to the world?

To the world we are a dirty, drug infested sport. Yes we have been leaders in anti-doping; leading the way with programs like the biological passport and no needles. However, to the public this falls on deaf ears - Lance's "confession", (not to mention Operation Puerto) is what they have heard and equate with cycling.

Our event organizers, our trade teams, our national federations, the club and amateur riders now wear this tarnished public perception. All pro riders of today ride under an air of suspicion – with the media and public not just raising questions but assuming they are dirty.

Sponsors, supporters, governing funding bodies are fleeing – our inclusion in the Olympics has already been questioned.

As a sport we need to be contrite; we need to acknowledge there has been a problem. More importantly we need a vision, a plan forward - the last thing we should be doing is to feel vindicated.

We need our international federation, our national federations, our athletes, our event organizers all committed to gaining back the public's trust.

I believe we can create this vision, a plan where we not only address this issue fully, but are envied by the sporting world. An example of a sport which took a long, hard look at itself and said "Enough - we can do better!”

It will take federations putting in place educational programs, athletes speaking up when asked or put in positions of compromise, athletes being saluted for speaking up for racing clean, teams dedicated to a clean program, it will take changes to our detection, investigation and penalties. It must be foremost and on top of ALL cycling stakeholder minds. We must be asking each and every one of us: “what are you doing to save this sport?’

What can we be doing, what can be done to bring about this change? Well lots, such as:

• UCI requiring every national federation & trade/pro team to develop and implement an anti-doping, fair sport educational program targeted at youth, developing and neo-pro athletes. Without which national federations would lose their official standing and trade/pro teams would lose their licences

• Working with WADA to improve testing, consequences and legal avenues to investigate and prosecute cheaters

• Modifying scope and mandate of Anti-doping Commission to being more focused on driving culture of change and education instead of only focused on detection and penalties

• Promoting, high lighting prominent athletes who speak out against doping and champion clean sport; there by building a culture 180 degrees opposite to the “Omerta” culture

• Implementing salary “hold backs” to fund an individual athlete pensions which is only accessible after a rider retires and is clear of any doping infractions

• Involving all stakeholder groups (professional rider associations, event organizers, commissions etc) in developing deterrent and positive educational strategies

• Leveraging the recently announced national federation “UCI Sharing Program” to highlight successful “fair sport” programs such as our Cycling Canada’s “Race Clean, Own your victory/Roulez gagnant au naturel” initiative

• Allowing national team and trade teams to promote their anti-doping/fair sport programs on competition clothing.

It will also require UCI leadership relinquishing the current defensive attitude, and taking on a contrite, conciliatory tone - focused on a clear and unrelenting vision for a clean sport.

Recently we learned that the UCI’s Independent Commission would not complete its mandate due to the lack of participation of key anti-doping bodies including WADA and the USADA. At the same time we learned that the UCI was going to strike a ‘Truth and Reconciliation Commission” however; it will work with WADA and other anti-doping stakeholders to set the terms of reference and other key details of operation. Among the issues to be determined is the manner in which anyone who came forward would be sanctioned if they implicated themselves with their testimony.

If the UCI follows through on this undertaking we would strongly suggest that it be an independent body and that its oversight be provided by the WADA rather than the UCI. The UCI can’t be seen or perceived to be in a position where it could control the commission’s work or reporting.

I believe we can create a clean sport to be envied. One parents, athletes, sponsors, fans are proud of.

After all, cycling is a beautiful sport.

Yours in cycling,

John Tolkamp
President, Cycling Canada
 
thehog said:
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”.
It's simpler than that. The UCI just doesn't test for modern doping products on Sky riders. They are in total control. Saugy helps Sky whenever they have any questions. The system sure looks busy!
 
Nov 27, 2012
327
0
0
I wonder if Paul Kimmage can amend his criminal complaint to include this latest UCI biopassport scam. It is interesting there's no word from Swiss officials yet. Me thinks, the complaint would have been dismissed by now if there was no substance to it. Time to start reviewing the clowns' bank accounts.

Kimmage’s lawsuit files a criminal complaint against Verbruggen and McQuaid “for slander/defamation, denigration and for strong suspicions of fraud,” according to a November 1 release from his attorney, Cédric Aguet. The complaint was sent to the public prosecutor of Vevey, Switzerland, and was distributed among the cycling media. The 28-page document, with 55 exhibits, alleges that Kimmage “was dragged through the mud (and) called a liar in public” after obtaining the publication of an interview with Floyd Landis, who criticized the conduct of the UCI and its management. Aguet said his client “informs the Swiss criminal authorities of the strong suspicions which weigh on at least Hein Verbruggen to have granted, directly or indirectly, the essential assistance which allowed Lance Armstrong to gain significant sums of money in and out of competition while he was doped.”
 
Race Radio said:
http://gerard.cc/2013/02/14/uci-vs-ashenden/

Excellent analysis of UCI v Ashenden by Gerard Veroom

Also. 3 years ago Shane Stokes talked to the UCI about Armstrong's questionable values from the 20009 Tour. He was told that the experts would look at them.....never happened
Expect two things from the UCI in the next few days:

1. McQuaid will make his trademark switch from “I’m in control, trust me, it’s getting better” to “It’s not my area of expertise, you should ask the experts, the passport is actually the work of WADA”.

2. Silence

On the money, right there.
 
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Does anyone have any info on the developer of the software, Sotas?
Software isn't the problem. Greatly simplified and based on WADA standards documentation, it appeared to go something like this:
Saugy sends a list of likely riders to target for testing
UCI picks riders to test and the tests to run.
Samples end up in the lab and are tested.
All the documentation from the tests are attached to some kind of case management software.
Nothing is done for most negatives except for some random negatives.
Suspicious results are routed to experts with humans involved in the routing/disposition of the test, etc.

Software isn't the problem. The software just records the results and tracks documents. The UCI picks the riders and tests with Saugy their best buddy working the lab end. At the time of Wonderboy's comeback, Saugy's lab also handled routing of tests to experts. So, it's possible, but IMHO very unlikely a suspicious result could just not get forwarded as it's a people-driven system. The UCI just orders tests for PED's no one uses in cycling.

In 2012, the UCI took over the entire job of choosing which riders to test and routing results to experts.

The bio-passport is definitely at "it's okay to dope, just don't kill yourself. And if Hein loooves you like he loooves Wonderboy, your samples can get special handling like Wonderboy's."
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
DirtyWorks said:
..In 2012, the UCI took over the entire job of choosing which riders to test and routing results to experts.

The bio-passport is definitely at "it's okay to dope, just don't kill yourself. And if Hein loooves you like he loooves Wonderboy, your samples can get special handling like Wonderboy's."
and then to see Sky's meeting with ASO and McQuaid partying in the Sky tent like it's 1999. ffs.
really time for some to smell the coffee.
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
sniper said:
that's exactly what makes Sky's meeting with ASO and the Sky-McQuaid partyhouse all the more problematic.
And quite baffling that a guy like JV isn't ringing the bell on this one.
Where is this partyhouse? Why wasn't I invited?
 
DirtyWorks said:
Software isn't the problem. Greatly simplified and based on WADA standards documentation, it appeared to go something like this:
Saugy sends a list of likely riders to target for testing
UCI picks riders to test and the tests to run.
Samples end up in the lab and are tested.
All the documentation from the tests are attached to some kind of case management software.
Nothing is done for most negatives except for some random negatives.
Suspicious results are routed to experts with humans involved in the routing/disposition of the test, etc.

Software isn't the problem. The software just records the results and tracks documents. The UCI picks the riders and tests with Saugy their best buddy working the lab end. At the time of Wonderboy's comeback, Saugy's lab also handled routing of tests to experts. So, it's possible, but IMHO very unlikely a suspicious result could just not get forwarded as it's a people-driven system. The UCI just orders tests for PED's no one uses in cycling.

In 2012, the UCI took over the entire job of choosing which riders to test and routing results to experts.

The bio-passport is definitely at "it's okay to dope, just don't kill yourself. And if Hein loooves you like he loooves Wonderboy, your samples can get special handling like Wonderboy's."
Its more how the software is configured.
 
Race Radio said:
Of course, blaming it on WADA is hilarious.

Who created the Passport? UCI.

Who refused to embrace it when they reviewed how it was to be administered? WADA

Whose Independent Observers at the 2009 Tour pointed out that high profile BP cyclists were not being tested? WADA

Who didn't do anything about it? UCI.

As others have eloquently pointed out, it turns out that at best the BP is simply a more sophisticated version of the HCT 50% test.

Dope all you want. That is what the threshold is for.

Dave.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
It would certainly be interesting to see the ADAMs software "dodgy doper detector" module that UCI are claiming is to blame for Lance's Tour profile not being selected for scrutiny.

Given his values pre-Tour were flagged for checking - yet also remain inside the limits imposed - it seems inconsistent for software to make this kind of mistake. Lance's Giro values look great, especially compared to Ryder 2012.

Software just works, it's not all gooey and whimsical like squishy humans.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
it seems inconsistent for software to make this kind of mistake.
+1000.

Unless there is some crazy, stupid luck involved a configuration issue would affect many athletes, presumably across a number of sports as this is an IOC initiative.

I'd like to hear more about the configuration issue details if there's more known.
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Given his values pre-Tour were flagged for checking - yet also remain inside the limits imposed - it seems inconsistent for software to make this kind of mistake.
I don't think we have enough information to draw a conclusion that the software made a mistake.

McQuaid said the 8 profiles submitted to Ashenden were chosen at random, so it is just as likely that the software didn't flag them to begin with.

However, since McQuaid has 0 credibility, it's also likely that Lance's profile was specifically picked pre-Giro to ensure that the UCI could confirm that Lance's values had been reviewed if any questions came up about him either in the Giro or the Tour as a result of the previous history of allegations.

I haven't seen anything to indicate the software made a mistake (ie. contains a bug), only that the algorithm/parameters/other selection process it uses is the real problem and the decision on that was made by the UCI.
 
peterst6906 said:
I don't think we have enough information to draw a conclusion that the software made a mistake.

McQuaid said the 8 profiles submitted to Ashenden were chosen at random, so it is just as likely that the software didn't flag them to begin with.

However, since McQuaid has 0 credibility, it's also likely that Lance's profile was specifically picked pre-Giro to ensure that the UCI could confirm that Lance's values had been reviewed if any questions came up about him either in the Giro or the Tour as a result of the previous history of allegations.

I haven't seen anything to indicate the software made a mistake (ie. contains a bug), only that the algorithm/parameters/other selection process it uses is the real problem and the decision on that was made by the UCI.
Also possible that the first samples are sent to experts to check that they are happy with the baseline that the other samples will be compared to?
 
peterst6906 said:
I don't think we have enough information to draw a conclusion that the software made a mistake.

McQuaid said the 8 profiles submitted to Ashenden were chosen at random, so it is just as likely that the software didn't flag them to begin with.
If the results were negative and I'm reading the WADA standards right, of a pool of negative results, his was randomly chosen and then did not get passed on for expert analysis.

If this were an automated process then it would happen every time 8 negative results were passed to experts and there'd be numerous unclosed tests over time.

Given Pat's credibility, I don't believe it, or they got ***incredibly*** lucky.
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
If the results were negative and I'm reading the WADA standards right, of a pool of negative results, his was randomly chosen and then did not get passed on for expert analysis.
If you mean later on (after the initial review by 3 experts prior to the Giro), I would suspect something corrupt involved - whether his profile was flagged, not flagged but chosen at random or not chosen at all - there was no way the UCI would have allowed his profile to go to experts after the initial review.

Just my 0.02 on the basis of the Lance/UCI special relationship.
 
peterst6906 said:
If you mean later on (after the initial review by 3 experts prior to the Giro)
If there was a software issue, then there would be many other random samples over the course of other random tests that did not get delivered to an expert. That is the way software bugs/features work.

Maybe that's the case. But, given Pat/Hein's credibility I doubt it.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
If there was a software issue, then there would be many other random samples over the course of other random tests that did not get delivered to an expert. That is the way software bugs/features work.

Maybe that's the case. But, given Pat/Hein's credibility I doubt it.
That is why I asked for the info on Sotas...
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
If there was a software issue, then there would be many other random samples over the course of other random tests that did not get delivered to an expert. That is the way software bugs/features work.

Maybe that's the case. But, given Pat/Hein's credibility I doubt it.
Ah ok, I see what you were getting at. Yeah, I agree.
 
D-Queued said:
Of course, blaming it on WADA is hilarious.

Who created the Passport? UCI.

Who refused to embrace it when they reviewed how it was to be administered? WADA

Whose Independent Observers at the 2009 Tour pointed out that high profile BP cyclists were not being tested? WADA

Who didn't do anything about it? UCI.
This really says it all, particularly the bold. This all goes back to Pound, who called the UCI on their lack of interest in going after dopers a long time ago. That resulted in a rift between WADA and UCI (not to say they were ever that close to begin with, UCI was one of the last organizations to sign on to WADA), preventing them from working together on the passport. It was UCI's baby, WADA always had criticisms of it.

Some problems with the passport are not UCI's fault, i.e., to avoid false positives, the baseline has to be sufficiently broad to allow a certain degree of blood manipulation. And to give credit where credit is due, the evidence does suggest that the passport has reduced the degree of doping possible. The 50% HT rule allowed doping up to that level. The passport allows riders to increase their HT a little, but if their natural value is considerably lower than 50, they can't easily dope up to that level. IF the passport is actually administered as it should be--and whether it is, obviously, is another whole issue--it is an improvement over the 50% rule.

But there are at least two kinds of suspicious parameters, both illustrated by LA's 2009 TDF, that the passport doesn't flag that it could be set up to detect: 1) HT/Hb values that are within the baseline, but do not drop during a GT as they should; and 2) a set of values that are all within the baseline, but which show an unusual clustering within a tight range. I would love to see UCI explain why they did not attempt to address these issues in the first place. Regardless of what LA did or did not do during the 2009 TDF, the discussion of his data shows that it's possible to dope very effectively without altering your parameters all that much. The key is just to halt the natural decrease during a GT.
 
To put the lie of a software issue to bed, The way it's being described, they claim no test case in the software for naturally impossible clustered results.

They caught Pellizotti on similar values, but not Wonderboy. That's not a software bug. That's the UCI suppressing doping and trying to cover it up.

Here's Ashenden's latest content on the matter.

other biological passport cases have proceeded without the software being triggered, such as that of Franco Pellizotti....
A series of blood results can be suspicious and consistent with blood doping but not flagged by the software, which the CAS had already concluded and as can be found in its Pellizotti finding.



Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13932/Ashenden-The-experts-were-only-allowed-to-see-the-first-nine-of-Armstrongs-38-blood-results.aspx#ixzz2KuyOJjCC

At least now I better understand what the APMU does.

This should have *everyone* wondering how much Saugy knows about the tests written for the APMU, since his lab ran it for the UCI and his WADA standards involvement.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS