WADA 2010 tour report

[JRTinMA]

WADA report on the 2010 tour. (Title should read independent observer report)

First thing I saw, WADA believes that riders who should have been targeted due to suspicious results leading up to the tour were not targeted. Go figure.

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...endent-Observer/WADA_IO_Report_TDF2010_EN.pdf


"During the Tour, a number of riders demonstrating suspicious profiles and/or showing significantly impressive performances at the Tour were tested on surprisingly few occasions and for three riders of interest did not provide a blood sample for the purposes of anti-doping in the whole Tour (instead each providing a single sample for the ABP). This was consistent with the IO Team’s view that at times more weight was given by the UCI to ABP samples than samples for the detection of the ‘presence’ of prohibited substances and/or methods."

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Some ironic reading...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-refuses-aflds-request-for-tour-de-france-tests

Between the article title and it's convoluted content, it's pretty hard to figure out who really wants anything done...

 

[sniper]

Incredible, pages 19-20. madre mia.
Hope this report gets some media attention, cuz this mascerade needs to be unmasked.

 

[sniper]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-refuses-aflds-request-for-tour-de-france-tests

Between the article title and it's convoluted content, it's pretty hard to figure out who really wants anything done...

"The World Anti-Doping Agency today issued the Independent Observers report from the Tour de France, describing the UCI's anti-doping control programme as "of good quality""

Indeed, who wants anything done? Check out the report (link in other thread), pages 19-20. Wicked. If that's good quality...

 

[hektoren]

The report gives us more info on the case against Contador: "WADA acknowledged that the AFLD had access to intelligence gathered from French police and customs agents which helped pinpoint riders who should be subjected to additional testing.

It reached a compromise by agreeing to receive the request from AFLD, analyze the intelligence, and order additional testing by the UCI based on the information "if deemed appropriate".

The provision was used nine times during the Tour, and resulted in 33 "missions" to collect blood and urine samples from riders. Yet even with the targeted controls, only one "adverse analytical finding" was issued, that of Tour winner Alberto Contador for the stimulant Clenbuterol."

I fear the "French conspiracy against Contador-clan" will find all the confirmation they need for their conspiracy-theories. Regardless of the fact that they're unaware of any intel on Conta garnered from the AFLD.

 

[Race Radio]

"For a rider identified as having a priority index of ten, no blood samples were collected following the Laboratory recommendations after interpretation of blood passport data from the first week of the Tour, with only urine being collected and no blood as recommended by the Laboratory. Further, a recommendation to target test the rider for EPO took seven days to be executed"

 

[roundabout]

I can't wait to hear/read what McQuaid has to say.

 

[JRTinMA]

Cologne

The IO report points out that the relationship between the UCI and Cologne lab should have been better documented but it seems the arrangement was made hastily with a single email. Only 10 samples were sent to Cologne lab throughout the whole tour. One can only speculate but that seems like evidence of targeted testing actually working. Then again with the whole report in context they may have just been lucky.

(top of page 31)

 

[hrotha]

Reading the report, it looks like the tools to effectively fight doping are already there to a large extent, and we only need money and someone willing to go all the way into the fight. Kohl said he beat the tests routinely, but did he, or were his samples just not really looked at for anything meaningful? I suppose it's a little bit of both.

 

[washedup]

How many of those 10 samples were Alberto's? It sounds like we will not see additional +'s for plastic. What a bum deal.

Not a big enough budget? Do I recall correctly that the AFDL would have funded its own tests?

 

[Kodiak]

Seems not enough testing was done and what was done was of good quality? That and the crying about having to put in long days. Wah... Wake the targeted riders up at 4 am and get it over with. Sorry if thier feelings were hurt with an early wake up. That's part of playing in the big leagues. And if getting cursed at by a rider is so hard on the testers let them find someone else with thicker skin. I managed a testing program for the US Army and we would bring people in at 430 for a test and there was no leaving the holding area until a sample was given. There was no oportunity to drop anything in the bottle either as we would have eyes on the bottle during the entire process.

 

[laura.weislo]

The report gives us more info on the case against Contador: "WADA acknowledged that the AFLD had access to intelligence gathered from French police and customs agents which helped pinpoint riders who should be subjected to additional testing.

It reached a compromise by agreeing to receive the request from AFLD, analyze the intelligence, and order additional testing by the UCI based on the information "if deemed appropriate".

The provision was used nine times during the Tour, and resulted in 33 "missions" to collect blood and urine samples from riders. Yet even with the targeted controls, only one "adverse analytical finding" was issued, that of Tour winner Alberto Contador for the stimulant Clenbuterol."

I fear the "French conspiracy against Contador-clan" will find all the confirmation they need for their conspiracy-theories. Regardless of the fact that they're unaware of any intel on Conta garnered from the AFLD.

I revised the story based on this post: there is nothing in the report that suggests Contador was the subject of any AFLD intelligence. If his sample was tested in Germany it suggests he was targeted for additional testing for "new substances or methods", but there's nothing in there that comes out and says that.

 

[hektoren]

I revised the story based on this post: there is nothing in the report that suggests Contador was the subject of any AFLD intelligence. If his sample was tested in Germany it suggests he was targeted for additional testing for "new substances or methods", but there's nothing in there that comes out and says that.

So, where did you get the info that's still looming large on cyclingnews' frontpage, from which I got my quote?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Finally got around to finishing the IO/WADA release...

I only have one question. How in the h*ll do they actually catch ANYBODY?

 

[laura.weislo]

So, where did you get the info that's still looming large on cyclingnews' frontpage, from which I got my quote?

I'm not sure what you mean. You said "I fear the "French conspiracy against Contador-clan" will find all the confirmation they need for their conspiracy-theories. Regardless of the fact that they're unaware of any intel on Conta garnered from the AFLD."

I'm not sure where you got the idea that AFLD had intel on Contador, but if it was from the two sentences which should have been separate, ie.

It reached a compromise by agreeing to receive the request from AFLD, analyze the intelligence, and order additional testing by the UCI based on the information "if deemed appropriate".

The provision was used nine times during the Tour, and resulted in 33 "missions" to collect blood and urine samples from riders.

-->Yet even with targeted controls, only one "adverse analytical finding" was issued, that of Tour winner Alberto Contador for the stimulant Clenbuterol."

Meaning, yes there were targeted controls. But we don't know for certain that the AFLD provided information on Contador to WADA which then triggered additional controls.

Contador was controlled plenty of times as race leader, so presumably additional controls wouldn't be needed.

 

[Anonymous]

"For a rider identified as having a priority index of ten, no blood samples were collected following the Laboratory recommendations after interpretation of blood passport data from the first week of the Tour, with only urine being collected and no blood as recommended by the Laboratory. Further, a recommendation to target test the rider for EPO took seven days to be executed"

that one stood out for me, along with...

For a rider identified as having a priority index of eight, who was recommended to be target tested for EPO by the Laboratory, the UCI did not target test the rider and in addition a sample collected five days later was not analysed for EPO. Interestingly in this case collection of follow-up samples from this rider was initiated by the AFLD via the WADA Resolution

So a rider considered high priority for testing was not even tested by the UCI, and the test that was taken on request of the AFLD was not tested for EPO. What are the UCI trying to hide?

A rider identified as having a priority index of ten was not tested for either urine or blood from 3 April to the start of the Tour. Recommendations made by the Laboratory following testing in the first three days of the Tour resulted in no further blood samples being collected but rather only urine and approximately ten days later. The IO Team became aware of the remarks made by the laboratory regarding the analysis of this rider’s specific sample that raised the suspicion of the use of proteases. No further information regarding any actions taken by the UCI for further analysis of that sample was made available.

That is simply unfathomable.. definate protection of star riders by the UCI

One example of this was the arrival of a rider at the Station at the conclusion of a stage who assumed that because of his position in the race he would be required for testing, whereas in fact the UCI had not identified him for testing.

lol

the whole of pages 18 an 19 are pretty damning

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

I bet Andy Schleck and Menchov are tens.

As a way of illustrating this, during the Tour it leaked in the media that the authorities of the country of one of the competing riders had just initiated an investigation against the rider to examine doping allegations. Information which appeared on the media linked the rider with the use of a new drug, which is prohibited in sport. The IO Team did not observe any attempt to target test this rider for the new prohibited substance.

Any idea who this might be?

 

[roundabout]

They can be twelves as long as UCI doesn't care.

As for the second point, i wondered about it myself, since i don't remember anything of this kind in the media.

 

[JRTinMA]

A rider identified as having a priority index of ten was not tested for either urine or blood from 3 April to the start of the Tour. Recommendations made by the Laboratory following testing in the first three days of the Tour resulted in no further blood samples being collected but rather only urine and approximately ten days later. The IO Team became aware of the remarks made by the laboratory regarding the analysis of this rider’s specific sample that raised the suspicion of the use of proteases. No further information regarding any actions taken by the UCI for further analysis of that sample was made available.

That is simply unfathomable.. definate protection of star riders by the UCI

The part in bold is confusing to me. I understand a high risk rider was not tested for three months before the tour. To the bold, does it say that the rider was tested in the first three days and the lab requested additional testing and it was never performed. Then when it finally was it was urine only, and I assume proteases are run on a blood test. Its a circus if this is the case.

 

[hrotha]

But why would the UCI have accepted the WADA observers if McQuaid & co. didn't think the subsequent report would look good? In other words, how could they have done such a poor job intentionally when the observers were right there among them the whole time? Did the UCI have a choice about accepting or rejecting the observers in the first place?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

But why would the UCI have accepted the WADA observers if McQuaid & co. didn't think the subsequent report would look good? In other words, how could they have done such a poor job intentionally when the observers were right there among them the whole time? Did the UCI have a choice about accepting or rejecting the observers in the first place?

I think it's solely more of an indication of just how far the UCI has its head up it's own *ss... Well, that and a bit of outright incompetence mixed in for good measure.

 

[luckyboy]

Only 8 riders tested every day, and only 15% of tests were unannounced (and the unannounced tests were 'almost expected' by riders). The only expected testing should be on the guy in yellow and whoever wins the stage.


Wonder who the guys with suspicious profiles were.

But yeah, this is pretty damning, but not really surprising.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

during the Tour it leaked in the media that the authorities of the country of one of the competing riders had just initiated an investigation against the rider to examine doping allegations. Information which appeared on the media linked the rider with the use of a new drug, which is prohibited in sport. The IO Team did not observe any attempt to target test this rider for the new prohibited substance.

I can't believe these reports flew under the radar. Must be a small country.

 

[luckyboy]

I can't believe these reports flew under the radar. Must be a small country.

Talking about Asthma-Jet aren't they?

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Talking about Asthma-Jet aren't they?

Oh, right. Of course it's Petacchi!