UCI vs Ashenden

[DirtyWorks]

That is why I asked for the info on Sotas...

And I'm telling you the software specification that says, "make the software hide some results that we can't specify because we don't know what they are" won't be accepted by a dev team. That project would not be started.

 

[pmcg76]

And, the Chicken agrees

Biological passport only “puts a damper” on doping, Rasmussen says

...The biological passport “perhaps puts a damper on things, but it's absolutely no guarantee that cyclists do not undergo blood transfusions along the way.”

There were various ways to avoid testing positive, Rasmussen said. “For some of the products I used, there was no test. They could not be traced,” referring to human growth hormone.

For other products, such as EPO, “it was just a matter of stopping taking it in time. Also, I have never been a rider who took chances. I have always been very careful.

“For many years, there was also no controls outside competition. When they started in 2004, that complicated things a bit, but I was not particularly nervous to go to doping control.”...

Dave,

It would be interesting to hear what he would describe as putting a damper on it. Less frequent transfusions?? smaller amounts of blood transfused etc??
Would be good to hear how often and what amounts Rasmussen was transfusing.

I know people like to slate JV for defending the BP but I have always understood his line to be that though the BP has not stopped doping or indeed blood bags, it has reduced it to a level were a clean rider could win.

For example and this is all hypothetical, lets take Rasmussen and Hysdejal and say the Canadian is a much bigger natural talent and riding clean now. Then give Rasmussen the old style blood bags(pre BP) and he has the big advantage. The BP then put the damper on the level of transfusion etc. The 64 million question is does it bring a lesser talented guy like Rasmussen back down to the level of Hysdejal even if Rasmussen is still doing blood bags??

What is the critical number where natural talent outdoes the benefits of limited blood doping? To me that question is near impossible to answer as of course it varies from rider to rider and level of talent etc.

I also read an article from 2010 that said Rasmussen was only added to the BP in 2010. He claims it was 2008 but again it would be good to gear from an independent source which is the truth. I know the same article said Rasmussen was tested a lot during that period 08-10 but not for the BP.

We do know that Rasmussen never got to ride a GT after his ban so probably never got to transfuse a bag during actual competition. He says out of competition testing made things more complicated but does he actually know if it became more complicated during a 3 week race during the BP era as well.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

IF SUSPICION_INDEX >= 7 THEN DO;
IF RIDER = "LANCE" THEN DO; SUSPICION_INDEX = 4; CHECK_SYSMEX = "Y"; END;
ELSE IF RIDER_LANGUAGE = "ENGLISH" OR TEAM_BUDGET > 15000000 OR SIDI_ADVERTS = "Y" OR RIDER_AGENT = "McQUAID" THEN ACTION = "NONE";
ELSE IF RIDER_STATUS = "RETIRED" THEN GOTO PRESS_CONFERENCE;
END;

PRESS_CONFERENCE:
PASSPORT_SUCCESS = "Y"; CLEAN_NOW = "Y";

 

[thehog]

IF SUSPICION_INDEX >= 7 THEN DO;
IF RIDER = "LANCE" THEN DO; SUSPICION_INDEX = 4; CHECK_SYSMEX = "Y"; END;
ELSE IF RIDER_LANGUAGE = "ENGLISH" OR TEAM_BUDGET > 15000000 OR SIDI_ADVERTS = "Y" OR RIDER_AGENT = "McQUAID" THEN ACTION = "NONE";
ELSE IF RIDER_STATUS = "RETIRED" THEN GOTO PRESS_CONFERENCE;
END;

PRESS_CONFERENCE:
PASSPORT_SUCCESS = "Y"; CLEAN_NOW = "Y";

If then else?

Brilliant! Well done!!!!

 

[ElChingon]

IF SUSPICION_INDEX >= 7 THEN DO;
IF RIDER = "LANCE" THEN DO; SUSPICION_INDEX = 4; CHECK_SYSMEX = "Y"; END;
ELSE IF RIDER_LANGUAGE = "ENGLISH" OR TEAM_BUDGET > 15000000 OR SIDI_ADVERTS = "Y" OR RIDER_AGENT = "McQUAID" THEN ACTION = "NONE";
ELSE IF RIDER_STATUS = "RETIRED" THEN GOTO PRESS_CONFERENCE;
END;

PRESS_CONFERENCE:
PASSPORT_SUCCESS = "Y"; CLEAN_NOW = "Y";

Nothing like BASIC to make things clear to everyone

I hear the UCI is moving to COBOL soon, it can't be that clear anymore.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Nothing like BASIC to make things clear to everyone

I hear the UCI is moving to COBOL soon, it can't be that clear anymore.

Ah. Basic. I thought it looked more like SAP myself.

 

[frenchfry]

That's not a software bug. That's the UCI suppressing doping and trying to cover it up.

Software doesn't accept "donations", people do.

 

[sniper]

IF SUSPICION_INDEX >= 7 THEN DO;
IF RIDER = "LANCE" THEN DO; SUSPICION_INDEX = 4; CHECK_SYSMEX = "Y"; END;
ELSE IF RIDER_LANGUAGE = "ENGLISH" OR TEAM_BUDGET > 15000000 OR SIDI_ADVERTS = "Y" OR RIDER_AGENT = "McQUAID" THEN ACTION = "NONE";
ELSE IF RIDER_STATUS = "RETIRED" THEN GOTO PRESS_CONFERENCE;
END;

PRESS_CONFERENCE:
PASSPORT_SUCCESS = "Y"; CLEAN_NOW = "Y";

haha, nicely done

Software doesn't accept "donations", people do.

true story.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

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.

And of course ignored by the media.

Has anyone spoken to Anne Gripper yet?

 

[Race Radio]

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...didnt-target-Armstrong-over-bio-passport.aspx

Gerard continues to bring the heat

“They get attacked about something, then they just blurt out an excuse [blaming the software – ed.] which now something that threatens the whole basis of the passport.

 

[sniper]

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...didnt-target-Armstrong-over-bio-passport.aspx

Gerard continues to bring the heat

+1. Compare that to JV's puff piece two weaks ago.

Vroomen hitting nail on head:

[UCI are] willing to throw the whole biological passport system under the bus to save their skin.”

Ashenden/Vroomen still the only ones showing indignation...?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Everyone with a working brain knows the Bio is to give cyclists a Passport to dope but not kill themselves. Just like the EPO test, dope till 85% isoforms and you will be fine, dope till 50,999999% crit and you will be fine, same for the hemaglobine levels.

How do come cycling fans are so cynical?

 

[sniper]

Vaughters (two weaks ago):

"This takes creativity, vision, and UNITY."

(emphasis in original)

Vroomen (today):

"Instead of saying what we need now is unity, they need to say what we need now is to save cycling."

Also, quite revealing to read this through again:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vaughters-defends-ucis-biological-passport

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Vaughters (two weaks ago):
(emphasis in original)

Vroomen (today):



Also, quite revealing to read this through again:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vaughters-defends-ucis-biological-passport

Vaugthers also pointed out factors such as rolling resistance and bike mass altering from the mid 90s to the present day, as well as the high-tech fibers within clothing, lighter components and that bikes are now on the limit of the UCI's weight minimum regulations of 6.8kg. "In the mid-90s bikes were 9kg, you had these heavy Carnac shoes that Pantani used to wear, and the clothing held more sweat, so four kilograms per watt for a rider like Pantani who only weighed 55kg is around seven percent, which would have had a massive effect on his ascent velocity."

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/tour-de-france-winning-bikes-34375/
Pantani's climbing prowess was the stuff of legend at the time, as was his climbing style (often out of the saddle and in the drops) and gearing selection (stuff most riders would only consider for flat terrain). Like Armstrong, Pantani often ran a front down tube shifter to save weight on mountain stages. Aside from that, though, the equipment was fairly standard: a Campagnolo Record 9-speed group, Campagnolo shallow-profile aluminum tubular wheels, an ITM bar and stem and a custom embroidered Selle Italia saddle.

Total bike weight varied from stage to stage but quoted figures hover around 8.1kg (17.9lb).

Public relations are cooooool.

Note, Bianchi had some way cool bikes, still do.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

And of course ignored by the media.

Has anyone spoken to Anne Gripper yet?

she is just hiding out so she can spring the truth on everyone about how she was going to tell all and then was kidnapped and hidden in a underground bunker ...unable to give any statements.

Charter of the willing bull bleep.

 

[arjanh]

Gerard's remarks concerning the silence from the teams after seeing the ABP's budget being halfed is pretty damning. None are objecting as all have something to hide? Sure looks that way.

 

[sniper]

Gerard's remarks concerning the silence from the teams after seeing the ABP's budget being halfed is pretty damning. None are objecting as all have something to hide? Sure looks that way.

not even the clean teams complain.

 

[thehog]

not even the clean teams complain.

The sport has changed. The Armstrong affair was a long time ago.

You can cheat on the passport.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Vaugthers also pointed out factors such as rolling resistance and bike mass altering from the mid 90s to the present day, as well as the high-tech fibers within clothing, lighter components and that bikes are now on the limit of the UCI's weight minimum regulations of 6.8kg. "In the mid-90s bikes were 9kg, you had these heavy Carnac shoes that Pantani used to wear, and the clothing held more sweat, so four kilograms per watt for a rider like Pantani who only weighed 55kg is around seven percent, which would have had a massive effect on his ascent velocity."

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/tour-de-france-winning-bikes-34375/
Pantani's climbing prowess was the stuff of legend at the time, as was his climbing style (often out of the saddle and in the drops) and gearing selection (stuff most riders would only consider for flat terrain). Like Armstrong, Pantani often ran a front down tube shifter to save weight on mountain stages. Aside from that, though, the equipment was fairly standard: a Campagnolo Record 9-speed group, Campagnolo shallow-profile aluminum tubular wheels, an ITM bar and stem and a custom embroidered Selle Italia saddle.

Total bike weight varied from stage to stage but quoted figures hover around 8.1kg (17.9lb).

Public relations are cooooool.

Note, Bianchi had some way cool bikes, still do.

Vaughters clearly says "mid-90's" - yet you quote Pantanis bike of 1998.
In the same article you quote its says:
Ullrich's 1997 Pinarello ...... "for a total reported weight of about 9kg (19.8lb)."
and Indurains bikes had a "Claimed weight was about 9kg (19.8lb)"

 

[arjanh]

not even the clean teams complain.

You'd doubt there are any (left)....

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

You'd doubt there are any (left)....

If there ever were

 

[DirtyWorks]

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...didnt-target-Armstrong-over-bio-passport.aspx

Gerard continues to bring the heat

I would say there are two possible conclusions. The first is that the software picked it up but somebody decided not to send it to the experts, in which case it is the UCI’s fault. Or, the software didn’t pick anything up…in which case, that’s also the UCI’s fault for deploying software that is useless.

There's only one conclusion, somebody decided not to send a suspicious sample to experts. The problem with his second conclusion is that other athletes have had cases opened with irregular passport values. So, the system works to some degree. Ashenden uses Pellozotti's (sp??) case as an example.

There are only 1000 riders so you either have to look at a bunch of them, a couple of hundred that really matter, or else you need to have software that works, that can accurately see which ones would be good to look at further.

He's not a statistician and doesn't really understand the bayesian method used as part of the APMU. You don't need to test 100% of a population to have some confidence that the test results from a small group are indicative of the population.

He dismantles the UCI very well. Will it be enough to move the story into the mainstream though? So far, it is STILL only velonation rightly claiming the bio-passport is worthless as a legitimate anti-doping system.

 

[DirtyWorks]

veloclinic summary

Veloclinic does an excellent job of filling in some of the old facts on bio-passport which makes the UCI's last statement even more ridiculous.

http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/page/3 Look for the post entitled armstrong biopassport cover up

Captain Bag (Capn' Bag???) does not understand the software that tracks and runs automated tests on completed tests. Otherwise, an excellent review.

 

[Tom375]

Moved reply from Geert Leinders thread to here

Sorry for plopping this here just seemed a more appropriate thread than the Geert Leinders thread which we were in as i don't think we mentioned him for about 4 or 5 posts - anyway mea culpa.

Originally Posted by Tom375
WRT supressed tests i'm sure its happened/happening however do we know of any for the leading current riders? - I don't know , obviously that would be positive evidence.
i think one of the problems here is that due to not wanting false positives the bar is set high this gives riders the opportunity to dope to a certain level (as before), the BP has placed a certain amount of control on this but doesn't look up to the task of dealing with microdosing which is evidently what goes on now. How do you catch that? god knows... testing in general shows to be generally floored in the last 20 years, not saying they shouldn't do it and keep working on it but they have to come up with other means aswell.

No it hasn't. Ashenden's skirmish with the UCI has blown the bio-passport scheme wide open. Positive, negative, suspicious, just doesn't seem to matter.

We now know there are suspicious samples that are analyzed as clearly positive and not passed onto experts. Rickshaw understands it well. No doping controversy.

I would agree with you if you said an athlete had to be a little bit smarter doping than prior the bio-passport. But, other than that, doping is wide open as long as the UCI favors the cyclist.

To make matters a little worse, the UCI has taken over the process of routing samples to experts. Before it was Saugy's lab's job and we know that guy met with riders to explain it all to them at the UCI's request and we know they didn't route clearly positive samples.

Bolded part - that was my inference with certain amount of control/microdosing etc. -

Part about Saugy's lab completely agree and illustrates some of your original point(i.e. that they . At the moment to me at least, its unclear whether Armstrong was a special case or whether the tip of the iceberg.