Why Tenerife?

[Dear Wiggo]

Remember: hard training, harder than anyone else, longer than anyone else, more often than anyone else, will win you races. 3 tests in 300 days of training means the chances of using whatever you like in that time is pretty safe.

 

[sniper]

It's all about Sky with you isn't it?


It has made the peloton cleaner. I'm not going to rehash how and why, you're perfecty aware of that. It has not made the peloton clean, and there are different levels of cheating the test, but it has limited the level of doping people can go to. as long as it is run properly.

Perhaps more people are now doping, less are being caught.
aided by the BP

 

[Benotti69]

It's all about Sky with you isn't it?

No it isn't. They all dope. There is no decent testing, no will to catch doping so why believe they wont dope when it is engrained in the fabric of the sport. I want to see a clean sport, but when a team comes along that tells everyone they re going to be different, transparent, anti doping, no dodgy docs and then we find out it was all bollix while winning 2 Tdfs in a row and making it look like a walk in the park, they deserve to get as much flak as possible.

It has made the peloton cleaner.

How can it when some riders were not even tested for the 1st 4 months of the season!!!!!!!

I'm not going to rehash how and why, you're perfecty aware of that.

You are not going to rehash what? All the Sky BS PR talkingpoints that have been taken apart and proven to be BS! OF course.

It has not made the peloton clean, and there are different levels of cheating the test, but it has limited the level of doping people can go to. as long as it is run properly.

Yeah, look at Froome, a nobody who can barely ride his bike, winning the TdF! Look at Piti, Contador, Gilbert, Canc, Evans, Wiggins all these rode in the dark era and now riding and winning in the so called cleanER era. All racing with f##k all testing.

When posters were asked to link the effectiveness of testing they cant.

 

[ebandit]

They all dope.

When posters were asked to link the effectiveness of testing they cant.

where there is OOC testing as long as athletes don't know beforehand the number of tests need not be high to be effective

Mark L

 

[Benotti69]

where there is OOC testing as long as athletes don't know beforehand the number of tests need not be high to be effective

Mark L

That is not how the BP works. BP is supposed to work on testing blood levels. If you are tested only tested a few times a year it means zilch.

Hincapie talks about how his partner helped beat OOC testing. We all know about the OOC tester who had to wait 20mins while Armstrong disappeared to have a 'shower'.

Testing is a joke. We have lots of evidence of that. Riders get caught because they get sloppy. Thomas Frei admitted that he was stupid and lazy and that was the reason he was caught.

 

[Will Carter]

If you have a month of no testing, you could withdraw blood and then chill for a month until parameters are back to normal. In fact you could do that 3 times in a row, on average, before your next OOC test.

This I get. But what about when its reinfused? This could be 1-2 days before a GT (or even during) - if you're tested then your parameters would be out of wack, esp. compared with before and flag things up.

Or are you / we suggesting that micro-infusing is happening : ie not 500ml back in at a time but, say, 200ml? I could see that doing this would be within parameters - I guess thats why they also look at new cell concentration, etc. Again maybe micro-infusing could get round that as well?

 

[SundayRider]

This I get. But what about when its reinfused? This could be 1-2 days before a GT (or even during) - if you're tested then your parameters would be out of wack, esp. compared with before and flag things up.

Or are you / we suggesting that micro-infusing is happening : ie not 500ml back in at a time but, say, 200ml? I could see that doing this would be within parameters - I guess thats why they also look at new cell concentration, etc. Again maybe micro-infusing could get round that as well?

I'm no expert on blood values but wouldn't re-infusing say 200ml every second day even things out?

 

[Will Carter]

where there is OOC testing as long as athletes don't know beforehand the number of tests need not be high to be effective

Mark L

This should in theory work. But, in joint reply to Benotti's post, it would only really work if random testing wasn't so random - if you see what I mean.

OOC and IC need to be looked at differently. Lets say if you get tested (OOC) on Monday - you could probably bet with very high certainty that you WOULDN'T get tested on Tuesday. Therefore you could dope - if you were unlucky to get a doorbell ring then you just hide.

Now - imagine if the testers got smart(er). Maybe sometimes its 2,3 even 4 days in a row they call - at different times of the day, maybe even twice on the same day. Now THAT should scare people more. I'm not saying it would be perfect but possibly much better than now.

Thoughts?

 

[Catwhoorg]

This should in theory work. But, in joint reply to Benotti's post, it would only really work if random testing wasn't so random - if you see what I mean.

OOC and IC need to be looked at differently. Lets say if you get tested (OOC) on Monday - you could probably bet with very high certainty that you WOULDN'T get tested on Tuesday. Therefore you could dope - if you were unlucky to get a doorbell ring then you just hide.

Now - imagine if the testers got smart(er). Maybe sometimes its 2,3 even 4 days in a row they call - at different times of the day, maybe even twice on the same day. Now THAT should scare people more. I'm not saying it would be perfect but possibly much better than now.

Thoughts?

That actually happens, doubly so IC than OOC.

At least the twice in a row. Its not exactly common, and sometimes involves different agencies (eg UCI and theN the NADO), but I have seen it pop up on various twitter feeds.

I recall one incident where an athlete had two different DCO's at the same time, one for their NADO and one from their governing body (not a cyclist). One wanted urine and one wanted blood.

Sometimes they don't have to be smarter, just dumb non-communication can have the same effect...


A better use of resources is targeted testing, which I don't think enough NADOs are doing a good job with. One test on Horner OOC is probably better bang for the buck than one on Phinney (as an example)

 

[King Boonen]

If you have a month of no testing, you could withdraw blood and then chill for a month until parameters are back to normal. In fact you could do that 3 times in a row, on average, before your next OOC test.

eg: Quintana was gone for months, no racing, then came back and finished 2nd at the Tour. No OOC testing in Colombia, but according to Ashenden that doesn't matter coz hey, limited testing is fine.

Now add in test & Hgh recovery drugs for when you're training hard. The BP provides a front, where we no longer have to test for specific drugs because we don't even have to test at all - the BP will catch all these dopers. Wait, we're only testing them 3 x OOC on average. 50 days of racing and 300 days of training. 3 tests in 300 days.

There's multiple layers of problems with this scenario.

Sorry but it seems obvious to me. Perhaps I am missing something?

If you're going to pick out specific riders then I'm afraid you need to show that for every rider.

The Ashenden paper states the ABP requires a test once a month and that on average this is happening (I'm remembering rather than reading this but I'm pretty sure that's right). This is not limited testing for the ABP, it is the correct amount of testing. Any more and it will not function properly.


you've talked about when they remove the blood. That seems perfectly reasonable, with the obvious slight risk that a tester may turn up the next day or so, but what about when they re-infuse?


Oh, I don't think anyone has ever said the ABP is a catch-all. It's designed to detect manipulations that aren't picked up in other tests, not to replace those other tests. I don't think anyone has suggested that other tests are now not necessary and I would assume that when an ABP test is carried out so is the battery of other tests.

 

[Will Carter]

That actually happens, doubly so IC than OOC.

At least the twice in a row. Its not exactly common, and sometimes involves different agencies (eg UCI and theN the NADO), but I have seen it pop up on various twitter feeds.

I recall one incident where an athlete had two different DCO's at the same time, one for their NADO and one from their governing body (not a cyclist). One wanted urine and one wanted blood.

Sometimes they don't have to be smarter, just dumb non-communication can have the same effect...


A better use of resources is targeted testing, which I don't think enough NADOs are doing a good job with. One test on Horner OOC is probably better bang for the buck than one on Phinney (as an example)

I'm glad it is happening - but I bet it isn't happening enough. Maybe, and I dont know for sure, but just maybe that dual test was coincidence.

There was a post earlier highlighting who could possibly test a rider - 5 or 6 agencies was it? What that highlights to me is how many cracks there are for riders to fall down - that could me 5/6 tests in a given period, but also could mean NO tests on the basis they all think someone else is doing it.

THAT is clearly a problem - who is coordinating to ensure that testing is happening?

 

[Benotti69]

This should in theory work. But, in joint reply to Benotti's post, it would only really work if random testing wasn't so random - if you see what I mean.

OOC and IC need to be looked at differently. Lets say if you get tested (OOC) on Monday - you could probably bet with very high certainty that you WOULDN'T get tested on Tuesday. Therefore you could dope - if you were unlucky to get a doorbell ring then you just hide.

Now - imagine if the testers got smart(er). Maybe sometimes its 2,3 even 4 days in a row they call - at different times of the day, maybe even twice on the same day. Now THAT should scare people more. I'm not saying it would be perfect but possibly much better than now.

Thoughts?

The anti doping is way under funded and UCI does not want to catch riders doping.

If anti doping was funded properly, made truly independent and run by people who want to catch dopers then maybe it might have an effect.

 

[Will Carter]

The anti doping is way under funded and UCI does not want to catch riders doping.

If anti doping was funded properly, made truly independent and run by people who want to catch dopers then maybe it might have an effect.

I agree and disagree. I dont see any huge evidence that the UCI doesn't WANT to catch people (and not wishing to start an argument here but you do come across as someone who has little / no trust in the UCI). What I have seen is that the UCI has at least tried to make it more independent*, but the funding issue will always be, well, an issue ...




* - this may be contentious with many on here and actually for me is another thread, but the fact remains the UCI have made changes.

 

[Catwhoorg]

I'm glad it is happening - but I bet it isn't happening enough. Maybe, and I dont know for sure, but just maybe that dual test was coincidence.

There was a post earlier highlighting who could possibly test a rider - 5 or 6 agencies was it? What that highlights to me is how many cracks there are for riders to fall down - that could me 5/6 tests in a given period, but also could mean NO tests on the basis they all think someone else is doing it.

THAT is clearly a problem - who is coordinating to ensure that testing is happening?

No-one apparently...

Theoretically, its the UCI, but look at the recent disagreements between the UCI and the USADA over the handing of results from any IC at the Tour of California.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The Ashenden paper states the ABP requires a test once a month and that on average this is happening (I'm remembering rather than reading this but I'm pretty sure that's right). This is not limited testing for the ABP, it is the correct amount of testing. Any more and it will not function properly.

I am sorry, but I find quite a strong negative reaction happening when I write, repeatedly, that the riders are tested, on average, 3 times OOC, for around 300 days of OOC, non-racing time. This is 1 test every 100 days, or approx 1 test every 3 months.

To then have you write:
1. Ashenden says BP is fine, software is at fault
2. Ashenden says testing should happen once a month
3. Ashenden says this is happening

kinda makes me want to look at you with a frown on my face and mutter, "<something derogatory>" under my breath.

average IC days: 60
average OOC days: 290

I am going to trust you can do maths and see that testing once per month is not occurring OOC.

If you're going to pick out specific riders then I'm afraid you need to show that for every rider.

I work more from a pattern oriented, implicit basis rather than an exhaustive, explicit basis.

eg: every single rider who was training OOC in Colombia has avoided being OOC tested since 2008 until just this last Winter. I provided an example in Quintana, but it applies across the board. Not everyone is doping to podium GTs, some will be doping just to get dropped and lose 30 minutes every day riding as a domestique.

I also have to go on the limited information available, so again, demanding examples for every rider or none at all is an interesting demand, but one you can perhaps rescind coz it's short sighted at best.

We see on average 6 IC tests, but keep in mind, this includes the IC phase of PRE-COMP, ie 2-3 days before a GT commences.

Another example of an individual rider, and you're just gonna have to suck it up because I do not have BP results from every GT winner:

in 2012, Ryder won the Giro. The BP values released by JV were analysed and given a clean bill of health via the "testing equipment poorly calibrated" police. When you look at his 5 blood tests you see:
1. he has 2 more tests than average, so someone, somewhere, is having less than 3 tests
2. one of those 5 tests was known, as all pre-comp tests are known (apparently most are tested)
3. he was tested
3.1 after being in the pink jersey for 3 days
3.2 the day before he won back the pink jersey
3.3 twice on the last day

Let's put that into context: he won the pink jersey and then held it 2 more days and was then tested. He lost the jersey and was tested again a while later, winning back the pink jersey the day after he was tested, and wasn't retested that day. JV's phone call with Hein, discussing their arrangement comes to mind... Note: he was not tested the day Garmin won the TTT.

This is the Giro and I am pretty sure the Tour works differently. Someone tweeted recently that Nacer Brouhani has been tested 6 times in the first week of competition at this 2014 Giro, so I am sure testing is different at the Giro also.

IMO, more than 3 OOC tests need to occur. 1 / month would be a marked improvement on the current 3 / year, but bump the number to 10 OOC / year for most riders.

 

[DirtyWorks]

1. he has 2 more tests than average, so someone, somewhere, is having less than 3 tests

This is the beauty of using averages. It makes lots of numbers that are descriptive, but not representative of anything.

IMO, more than 3 OOC tests need to occur. 1 / month would be a marked improvement on the current 3 / year, but bump the number to 10 OOC / year for most riders.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but keep in mind they can just ignore results from more tests as easily as they do now. It would be easiest to grant NADO's the right to open cases. Or, at least publish non-positive/suspicious/positive stats with and without sanctions.

Finally, we don't know who the anti-doping authority is for the Giro, but it doesn't matter. They just ignore the important positives while some lower-ranked rider who fails the IQ test gets the sanction. We've seen it with Horner and Armstrong in cycling.

 

[sniper]

I think Walsh quoted Ellingworth in his book about SKY. It's obvious it costs more to organize testing on the Teide than in Nice, on the French riviera. It's also more difficult to organize a surprise control if you're located here.
On the other hand you'd have a doping expert to carry out the controls on the neighbour island : Eufemiano FUENTES !
Eufe know lives in Las Palmas, as the Canarias islands are the home of his family, and he is a medical advisor for the local football club U.D. Las Palmas

Those who claim there is nothing particularly dodgy about tenerife should be addressing this post.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

This is the beauty of using averages. It makes lots of numbers that are descriptive, but not representative of anything.

Yeah. I thought King Boonen worked with stats and stuff so I was kinda weirded out by his wholesale acceptance of what Ashenden was saying.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but keep in mind they can just ignore results from more tests as easily as they do now. It would be easiest to grant NADO's the right to open cases.

More testing is going to help. As would NADO's opening cases. I don't think you can reliably do one without the other, and they support each other in this endeavour.

Finally, we don't know who the anti-doping authority is for the Giro, but it doesn't matter. They just ignore the important positives while some lower-ranked rider who fails the IQ test gets the sanction. We've seen it with Horner and Armstrong in cycling.

The UCI is still in charge - the most recent spat with USADA reinforces this notion, despite Cookson's rhetoric of independence.

 

[DirtyWorks]

More testing is going to help. As would NADO's opening cases. I don't think you can reliably do one without the other, and they support each other in this endeavour.

Using made up numbers:

#1 The uci tests each rider in and out of competition 3 times a year, sanctioning the occasional low-ranked athlete that fails the IQ test.

#2 The uci tests each rider in and out of competition 10 times a year, sanctioning the occasional low-ranked athlete that fails the IQ test.

Same system. The federation is still in control managing doping controversy. I think we agree that Cookson has changed nothing in this area. The UCI likes the power.

If a NADO is permitted to open cases even at the current low levels of testing, the doping game fundamentally changes for the federation and the dopers.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Using made up numbers:

#1 The uci tests each rider in and out of competition 3 times a year, sanctioning the occasional low-ranked athlete that fails the IQ test.

#2 The uci tests each rider in and out of competition 10 times a year, sanctioning the occasional low-ranked athlete that fails the IQ test.

Same system. The federation is still in control managing doping controversy. I think we agree that Cookson has changed nothing in this area. The UCI likes the power.

If a NADO is permitted to open cases even at the current low levels of testing, the doping game fundamentally changes for the federation and the dopers.

I won't check now, but I think the ADAMs system is not open to NADOs, is that correct? So they cannot do their own targeted testing. Change that and I think things might improve.

Chance of that happening: 0%

 

[neineinei]

The Ashenden paper states the ABP requires a test once a month and that on average this is happening (I'm remembering rather than reading this but I'm pretty sure that's right). This is not limited testing for the ABP, it is the correct amount of testing. Any more and it will not function properly.

In 2012 all cyclists on World Tour teams and Pro Continental teams were ABP tested. There were 18 World Tour teams with up to 30 riders on each team = 540 World Tour riders. And there were 22 Pro Continental teams with at least 14 riders = at least 308 pro continental riders. If they all were tested once a month it would require more than 10,000 tests.*

In 2012 6,424 ABP samples were collected in cycling in total. (p. 142)

* And that is not counting any female riders, or MTB, track etc. etc, which the Russians or the Portugese might have spent some of their testing on.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I won't check now, but I think the ADAMs system is not open to NADOs, is that correct? So they cannot do their own targeted testing. Change that and I think things might improve.

Chance of that happening: 0%

You are missing my point. All of the tests, regardless of the anti-doping authority (ex. ASO, UCI, BC) are entered into the APMU. NADO's don't have to order more tests.

The scores are all online. NADO's only need to check scores and most importantly open cases on their own. This won't be expensive to implement and doesn't need more tests.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

You are missing my point. All of the tests, regardless of the anti-doping authority (ex. ASO, UCI, BC) are entered into the APMU. NADO's don't have to order more tests.

The scores are all online. NADO's only need to check scores and most importantly open cases on their own. This won't be expensive to implement and doesn't need more tests.

So they do get access to ADAMS?

So what was that USADA vs UCI argument about then?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

You are missing my point. All of the tests, regardless of the anti-doping authority (ex. ASO, UCI, BC) are entered into the APMU. NADO's don't have to order more tests.

The scores are all online. NADO's only need to check scores and most importantly open cases on their own. This won't be expensive to implement and doesn't need more tests.

If all of the tests are entered online, and the NADOs have access to that data, why is the following an issue?

"We hoped to conduct the in-competition program as well, but the UCI Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation (CADF) would not agree to share with us the results of all the samples we would have collected, which made it impossible for us to implement the type of independent, transparent and robust in-competition program this event deserves."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-and-the-uci-confirm-drug-testing-plan-at-tour-of-california

I won't check now, but I think the ADAMs system is not open to NADOs, is that correct? So they cannot do their own targeted testing. Change that and I think things might improve.

Chance of that happening: 0%

Good post, Dear Wiggo.




Like I said: give NADOs access to ADAMs and they can do their jobs better.
Do more tests, and they can do their jobs better.

I am not missing your point at all, but there's less likelihood of having any cases to open if there's no data (no OOC tests) or NADOs cannot access it and use it.

 

[Franklin]

Okay... amazing hopscotching around the real issue. You know, a daily test, now that would be effective

Slight issue though that is registered and then immediately shoved aside as it's more fun to speak about how much testing should be enough:

Who is going to pay for all of this?

I see a ton of indignant remarks about how they do not want people to be caught, even how anti-doping is underfunded, but not a squawk where the money has to come from.

Perhaps someone can answer this one? As that's a much more important issue than the amount of tests.