30 cyclists under suspicion for blood doping

iainf72

The long drawn out process of the passports gives us a bit more of a tease, this time from someone working on analysing the data

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news ... -7pkj.html

finchy

Thirty?!?! Please please please, no Brits.

colint

only 3% though, that's probably not bad all things considered. Lets hope it's resolved quickly whoevers involved

Kléber

It depends who the 3% are. Is this a team-wide practice? Obviously those using performance enhancing measures are likely to deliver good performances so are these riders known winners? It also takes some resources to use blood doping, transporting chilled blood around Europe.

No wonder the UCI is sitting on the list and trying to ensure no one can escape. Still, given their track record under Pat "Chief Wiggum" McQuaid, I'm concerned many will slip through the net.

DaveyL

Are they sitting on the lists? Or are they "getting all their ducks lined up"?

blazing_saddles

They'll all be French. :roll:
Most likely from non-monitored teams.

micron

Interesting that the UCI spokesman is the same Robin Parisotto who recently declared the 99 samplepositives to be valid because the science was valid - and as he's one of the people who developed the EPO test. you'd think he might know.

stagehopper

More than anything I think it's about getting it legally correct. Useless announcing "positives" from blood profiling and suspending cyclists if the sport lawyers are able to drive a cart and horse through the results. We already have enough hassle from challenges on traditional drug tests where there's definitive evidence of a drug being present before we even get into the new positives where there's no drug found.

Kléber

I'm having trouble with what I see as inconsistency.

Look, the UCI could easily catch people at the drop of a hat if it retro-tested the samples from the Giro, but it doesn't want to. At the same time, we hear it's trying to nail 30 riders on a watertight basis, taking up many months and no doubt many Swiss francs. Why wash your hands of one chance to catch riders but spend so much effort on another?

skavanagh.bikeradar

One involves 'rewritting the results' the other doesn't. In the mad world of Chief Wiggum this means one OR the other rather than doing BOTH.

DavMartinR

Wasn't Sella caught after the Giro? And shouldn't all the riders in the Giro have been test on the passport program?

I think the UCI are trying to build up a strong a case as possible against the riders in question before they move on it.

What if some of the riders where already on the Damsgaard program? :shock: We could see long drawn out court cases. With doping the only headline grabber for the sport of cycling. But there again its only a what if? :twisted:

micron

Riders under suspicion will be targeted with more tests - time to check the twitter and see whether they're still allegedly testing Armstrong wirth great frequency.

The report I read said they wanted everything to be watertight - and I presume they've leaked the info to give the potential wrongdoers time to clean up their collective acts?

steve2021

Kléber wrote:

I'm having trouble with what I see as inconsistency.

Look, the UCI could easily catch people at the drop of a hat if it retro-tested the samples from the Giro, but it doesn't want to. At the same time, we hear it's trying to nail 30 riders on a watertight basis, taking up many months and no doubt many Swiss francs. Why wash your hands of one chance to catch riders but spend so much effort on another?

Good point. It all adds to the impression that PR is their main objective. Fancy technology gives some positive anti-drugs PR for the UCI as if they are at the forefront whereas good old fashioned testing makes the sport seem corrupt.

Vivid

Is that all, wonder how many have managed to get away with it?

iainf72

UCI says doctor analysing results is wrong

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/UCI ... 75838.html

blazing_saddles

A 'small number' of profiles are now under scrutiny, according to the UCI, but action will only be taken if the evidence stands up to high scientific and legal examination.

Good to see they've got their excuses in, nice and early. Maybe a sacrificial lamb or two.
No names, please.

Kléber

Is 30 a small number?

leguape

Kléber wrote:

Is 30 a small number?

Out of 1000 samples, yes.