• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

What is going on in Cologne?

Help a brother out. A number of questions:

1) The CN story, "Contador: Food contamination or political victim?", is contradictory. On one hand it alleges strife between the UCI and the AFLD has resulted in the Châtenay-Malabry lab not being used to test Tour samples. On the other hand the last paragraph says that the Paris lab cannot test for a WADA controlled event, implying that only a WADA run or cetrtiied lab can test a WADA controlled event. Which is it?

2) Why is the Cologne lab using an experimental blood doping test on samples that they know to whom they belong? After the bogus stink that was raised by Vrijman, you would think that any experimental testing would use an additional anonymization process beyond the UCI control numbers.

3) Who in the Cologne lab thought it would be a good idea to talk about experimental results on individual riders?

4) The CN story "L’Équipe raises new doubts over Contador" says that investigators are at Cologne looking into Contador's blood passport. Investigators for whom? The UCI? Contador? As I understand it the blood passport values are looked at by an independent panel that meets infrequently. Some of the members on that panel are currently in Australia at the anti-doping meeting. So who is "investigating" and why do they need to be at Cologne to do it? It seems like they would only need the test results.
 
Bro. You are asking way too many questions and I am not sure that anybody in this forum will be able to answer them.

I just want to comment on number 3). I can bet you a dollar that towards the end they knew who the sample belonged to. Remember the reporter calling Pat and asking him about Contador. That was before the public announcement of the positive. This has been discussed in one other thread in particular. Besides even if they did not know they could have just performed the plasticizer test after they saw that the B sample was being tested and the rider in question was already preparing his pack of lawyers, so they did it just in case to have more ammunition for the fight. Just my two cents
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
Bro you are guilty of owning a clear and logical mind.

hope i had more time, but i’m going to give it a shot. also, the best way to get answers is to shoot a quick e-mail to the author, Jean-François Quénet (or if he reads this thread, hopefully he’ll contact you)

answer 1. the article’s last sentence is simply incorrect or an improperly expressed thought by a non-native english speaker.. wada does not ‘govern’ any sporting events or cycling races. i think the author meant: ‘wada provides a set of anti-doping rules which are the basis for the uci as a signatory to wada code’. the author is also misinformed (or improperly expressed) the fact that only a wada certified lab can service a cycling event where wada-based rules apply. as such any, again ANY, wada-certified lab is qualified to service a uci-sponsored (as opposed to afld-sponsored as the 2008 tour) event. however, it is the uci’s sovereign right to chose a lab they prefer. Obviously, they chose cologne to spite the afld but could have given some bs technical reason that the author of the article misinterpreted. i'm 100% sure that the paris lab is still wada certified. hence the origin of the wada mediated testing at the tour this year. that’s the truth some cycling journo’s don’t bother researching. regarding the other lab that serviced the tour this year, lousanne lab, it has a long term contract with the uci to process most, if not all, blood samples in europen events. they always processed 90% of tour blood.

answer 2:
you are absolutely correct. But we still don’t know the whole story and what actually took place. You could be again a victim of sloppy journalism because you own logical head and more knowledge than the average reader. However, there could be legitimate cases where an actual anti-doping testing is conducted in parallel with some sort of research or substance monitoring for the purposes of being included in the future banned list (for example caffeine). The logistics of such research are very easy b/c it takes only one additional 2 ml aliquot or urine. A typical screening test will take 5x2 ml aliquots. The a-sample is at least 70 ml iirc.

answer 3. again we don’t know if the leak originates in the cologne lab. It’s a speculation. my hunch is, the source of some sort of leak was the uci and the journos again twisted the story due to their usual technical incompetence. then the rumour got more distorted with additional reprints, as usual.

answer 4. again, you are dealing with sloppy journalism. I am the least surprised. the investigators may very well be looking at berto’s blood passport, but they don’t need to be in cologne or the lab physically. All data is available on any internet-connected computer that has the p/w into the wada adams system.

i don’t know what’s going on with contador’s samples, but the typical procedural review of blood passport is done as follows (this is all over the public sources but yet again sloppy journos don’t bother learning this).
1st the data from samples is automatically reviewed by the computer software developed by the lusanne lab. then if there any flags, it goes to the uci expert panel. it’s popular misconception that the 9 are needed. only 3 are required by wada and they can be working from anywhere in the world.. Only in very serious cases all 9 get together at the same table (in the uci swiss headquarters typically)

hope this helps.