WADA 2010 tour report

[lean mean &green]

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.

proteases are often added to urine samples by dopers to destroy evidence they've used synthetic EPO. they're a masking agent for lack of a better term. evidence of protease use can lead to sanctions all by itself so it would raise suspicion and SHOULD lead to more frequent and thorough testing of the individual that would include both urine and blood analysis, something it sounds like didn't happen in a timely fashion or at all in some cases.

 

[luckyboy]

Oh, right. Of course it's Petacchi!

Don't know about the 'new drug' though, unless it's a new type of PFC.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Don't know about the 'new drug' though, unless it's a new type of PFC.

Yes, PFC has been around since at least the 90's, right?

Anyway, the report clearly states that synthetic 02 carriers can be tested for, contrary to what has been claimed in this forum, so that's encouraging.

 

[luckyboy]

Yeah, PFCs are what Gianetti almost died from using.

Wonder what happened to HGH testing. Some rugby player and Kirk O'Bee (was it HGH or EPO?) got busted, haven't heard about it since.

 

[lean mean &green]

Tour testing clearly insufficient

i'm a little angry reading the IO/WADA report so maybe i'm jumping to conclusions but it sounds to me like the UCI is more than happy to collect samples at predictable times or athlete biological passport (ABP) samples because they are non-specific and rarely lead to positives/sanctions/bad press etc etc. the UCI can make blanket statements about the frequency of tests that most will accept without realizing that specific testing for the presence of prohibited substances isn't being done concurrently with the ABP's. both testing methods must be done for either to be really effective. WADA's stance seems to be one of ignorance in that they don't know if further analysis is being done on ABP samples but isn't the ABP system performed with close cooperation between the two organizations? i'm willing to retract these statements if it is later found out that the ABP's are also more deeply analyzed for prohibited substances but it seems almost certain they're not.

WADA is being very prudent. they're calling for more aggressive measures in a sly way in my opinion. there are a few small complements peppered into the document to not look like they're completely calling out McQuaid/UCI before throwing haymakers on pages 18 thru 20.

 

[mtb Dad]

The bit I liked was where they gently suggest the UCI not post suspicious ABP results immediately to the ADAMS sytem where the riders can see them, before doing follow-up tests, even on high risk riders.

No kidding the riders are using the passport to fine tune their blood levels. The UCI is sending them red flag data, before any f/u tests can be done!

Recommendation 15: The UCI and WADA should consider the timing of releasing ABP date to riders to ensure that the UCI has time to review and act accordingly on any profiles that warrant further investigation and/or testing prior to the rider being afforded the same opportunity to look at their own profiles.

Just realized that means Pellizotti must be a complete idiot. ('Looking at his laptop: "How do you turn this thing on again?")

 

[washedup]

What a flipping mess. Would someone (Velonews, CN, etc.) please do a real story about this scandal.

I always used to hear "those riders are so tested. They could have WADA show up any minute." We are so far from that. Matter of fact, it is all a show. I have lost all of my faith in the UCI. I just wish WADA would stand up more for the truth.

If I wasn't working, I would start a petition to oust Patty McQuaid. He is really driving this sport into the ground.

 

[meandmygitane]

I bet Andy Schleck and Menchov are tens.

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.

Any idea who this might be?

Haha, probably Chris Horner, he strikes me as a genuine person and probably believes in clean cycling AND "miracles". I believe he had nothing to fear (except maybe his own naivety). Top notch guy anyway.

 

[washedup]

Haha, probably Chris Horner, he strikes me as a genuine person and probably believes in clean cycling AND "miracles". I believe he had nothing to fear (except maybe his own naivety). Top notch guy anyway.

HA. All I have to say.

 

[python]

Yes, PFC has been around since at least the 90's, right?

Anyway, the report clearly states that synthetic 02 carriers can be tested for, contrary to what has been claimed in this forum, so that's encouraging.

if you were referring to synthetic haemoglobin-based oxygen carriers (like chicken's in the shoe box), the test has been introduced in 2003 - they measure free plasma haemoglobin. i recall zorzoli report mentioned it.

a more recent development:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...9c2b915474d799354b404f7fb780dcee&searchtype=a

a test for pfc's has also been around for a while.

 

[Anonymous]

On the whole the report is damning. The UCI will jump on the headline contained in the report that overall testing at the Tour De France was "Good", as will the various media outlets that do their best to avoid rocking the boat.

There is no doubt that the UCI is grossly incompetant, the question is, at what point does incompetance become corruption.

Is receiving data to show that a certain rider is doping and has his priority index at 10/10 and then failing to test him for four months in the run up to the tour, and then failing to test his blood at all and failing to test his urine for EPO incompetance, or corruption? Is making the visit of random testers so obvious and open to delay a measure of their incompetance, or corruption. The more I read the document, the more I think that there is an active policy within the UCI to protect the riders as far as they possibly can. Fail to test them, fail to test them for EPO, warn them of random tests, and punish a few small time, no name domestiques and claim the sport is cleaner than it ever has been.

 

[Anonymous]

Im a little confused about one part of the CN report.

The report also indicated that a number of riders with suspicious blood profiles and significantly impressive performances at the Tour were tested on surprisingly few occasions

can someone point me to where in the report it sugggests that the suspicious riders did "significantly well" at the tour

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Night controls are insane.

They would make the competition unfair actually, that's the opposite of what an anti-doping control should do.

If athletes are woke at night and don't get the rest they need, then they will be worse than athletes who did sleep the same night. Should never, ever, ever be allowed.

This is the point were WADA became idiots and didn't use their ****ing head

 

[pedaling squares]

Night controls are insane.

They would make the competition unfair actually, that's the opposite of what an anti-doping control should do.

If athletes are woke at night and don't get the rest they need, then they will be worse than athletes who did sleep the same night. Should never, ever, ever be allowed.

This is the point were WADA became idiots and didn't use their ****ing head

Depends on what they mean by night. Waking an athlete and his roommate up in the wee hours would be unfair. Waiting for Andy to walk out of the pub wouldn't be abusive at all.

 

[MacRoadie]

Gotta love this though:

The third observation was that following the individual time trial the majority of the riders had trouble providing a urine sample. One of the team doctors brought some beers to the Station but was not allowed to enter with them as his rider already had a team representative. The doctor then gave a Chaperone several beers to give to his rider which the team doctor opened. The rider was in the processing room at the time and the Chaperone came into the station and handed the rider two opened bottles of beer. The rider accepted them without asking where they came from or who opened them, potentially exposing them to unnecessary risk.

Musta been Andy...

 

[maltiv]

Night controls are insane.

They would make the competition unfair actually, that's the opposite of what an anti-doping control should do.

If athletes are woke at night and don't get the rest they need, then they will be worse than athletes who did sleep the same night. Should never, ever, ever be allowed.

This is the point were WADA became idiots and didn't use their ****ing head

In my opinion it should be allowed outside competition at least.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Yeah, PFCs are what Gianetti almost died from using.

Wonder what happened to HGH testing. Some rugby player and Kirk O'Bee (was it HGH or EPO?) got busted, haven't heard about it since.

I remember that at least one tosser was caught not long ago.

if you were referring to synthetic haemoglobin-based oxygen carriers (like chicken's in the shoe box), the test has been introduced in 2003 - they measure free plasma haemoglobin. i recall zorzoli report mentioned it.

a test for pfc's has also been around for a while.

So did the UCI just not bother to test for it or what? Because Jörg Jachskhce (sp? ) claimed it was used at the Tour and that you could take it 4-5 times in a GT, but no more because it's toxic. And obviously, the chicken ordered it.

 

[Anonymous]

The UCI incompetant v corrupt argument. .Ive come down on the side of corrupt. A rider considered 10 on the danger list for doping not .being tested for four months prior to the tour, and only once during the tour is beyond incompetance.. nobody serious about combatting doping can possibly be that incompetant. Corruption and protection of key riders can be the only conclusion.

 

[Cobblestoned]

On the whole the report is damning. The UCI will jump on the headline contained in the report that overall testing at the Tour De France was "Good", as will the various media outlets that do their best to avoid rocking the boat.

There is no doubt that the UCI is grossly incompetant, the question is, at what point does incompetance become corruption.

Is receiving data to show that a certain rider is doping and has his priority index at 10/10 and then failing to test him for four months in the run up to the tour, and then failing to test his blood at all and failing to test his urine for EPO incompetance, or corruption? Is making the visit of random testers so obvious and open to delay a measure of their incompetance, or corruption. The more I read the document, the more I think that there is an active policy within the UCI to protect the riders as far as they possibly can. Fail to test them, fail to test them for EPO, warn them of random tests, and punish a few small time, no name domestiques and claim the sport is cleaner than it ever has been.

Congrats ! You have just discovered professional sports.
Just replace "UCI" with "all federations of all professional sports".

To be fair to cycling and UCI you should read reports about other sports, too. But don't get upset like here right now. You will possibly explode.
About the olympics or FIFA....endless list. Cycling does its best, always in mind not to bury this sport completely, but don't avoid banning big names anyway. You can't say that about other sports. Most of them just don't care.

And, just as a reminder: It is not only the UCI who do mistakes. AFLD didn't do any tests at the french national TTs, and if I remember it right they didn't get a perfect rating too !
Keep cool. Nobody is perfect, and you'll always find something to improve. Everywhere and everytime.

What I don't really understand too, is this big trust in WADA by many posters.

People, this was set up by IOC. Just a small hint. It's all connected and dirt and corruption is everywhere.

 

[Race Radio]

Congrats ! You have just discovered professional sports.
Just replace "UCI" with "all federations of all professional sports".

To be fair to cycling and UCI you should read reports about other sports, too. But don't get upset like here right now. You will possibly explode.
About the olympics or FIFA....endless list. Cycling does its best, always in mind not to bury this sport completely, but don't avoid banning big names anyway. You can't say that about other sports. Most of them just don't care.

And, just as a reminder: It is not only the UCI who do mistakes. AFLD didn't do any tests at the french national TTs, and if I remember it right they didn't get a perfect rating too !
Keep cool. Nobody is perfect, and you'll always find something to improve. Everywhere and everytime.

What I don't really understand too, is this big trust in WADA by many posters.

People, this was set up by IOC. Just a small hint. It's all connected and dirt and corruption is everywhere.

The excuse that "Everyone sucks so it is OK for us to suck" has never worked.

 

[Cobblestoned]

The excuse that "Everyone sucks so it is OK for us to suck" has never worked.

You understood nothing.
We do not suck as much as others. That's what I mean.
Is this good or is this bad ?
Yes, I wrote WE.
Sometimes, attacking each other when you love the same sport, is a little bit boring and sucks.

 

[Race Radio]

You understood nothing.
We do not suck as much as others. That's what I mean.
Is this good or is this bad ?
Yes, I wrote WE.
Sometimes, attacking each other when you love the same sport, is a little bit boring and sucks.

Oh.....so others suck more so it is ok for us to suck. Nope, that does not work either.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Oh.....so others suck more so it is ok for us to suck. Nope, that does not work either.

Did I write anywhere that it is ok to do bad things ?

Go, do some rumours and don't waste my time.

 

[Race Radio]

Did I write anywhere that it is ok to do bad things ?

Go, do some rumours and don't waste my time.

You made it clear that you would prefer that people ignore the issue and not question. The "Bury your head in the sand" approach never works but is often embraced by the clueless.

 

[Cobblestoned]

You made it clear that you would prefer that people ignore the issue and not question. The "Bury your head in the sand" approach never works but is often embraced by the clueless.

Great again what someone can read into others posts.

People don't have to ignore or keep quiet. But they shouldn't exaggerate and still have a view to the proportionality.

btw, here is your official last-word-card and I give you another gift.
please make a photo of yourself when you wear them