Uci / WADA agreement for Tour

iainf72

http://tinyurl.com/397vozo

so we are sure to hear from Bordry tomorrow

Hibbs

"This agreement was reached in response to a request by the UCI last October for the presence of such observers with a view to ensuring the total transparency of the UCI’s activities in the fight against doping at the most important race on the calendar. "



Pat sure knows how to crack a good one. :roll:

Doobz

what a load of balls...

The agreement means that independent observers will have the right to observe all phases of the anti-doping tests conducted by the UCI, from the selection of riders to be tested to the management of the results of the analyses conducted, with access to all related documentation.

No one cares if they watch. The riders/teams still could be notified when the testers are coming etc if there is a pre arranged list. Leaks always happen

What I want to see is WADA turning up to a race, gripping a few riders and testing them out of the blue. Names in a hat styleeee..

I would also like to see two different organisations do tests on the same samples to see if their results match up..

It seems to me that the UCI is trying to over-complicate a really simple exercise in order to create some sort of smoke and mirrors type of situation..

iainf72

I think, this time, we've actually got a very sensible result

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/4650/ ... tests.aspx

Doobz

It seems fair enough but that is for targeted doping based on evidence and suspicion and not the pre-arranged UCI riders tests that are picked out randomly even before the tour has started.

The AFLD Suspicion/evidence requests still needs to go through one of the IO reps first and thats more time for others to get wind of whats going on..

Still from reading that article it seems UCI have had some pretty shifty goings on in the past and WADA are well aware of it.

Especially the points about cutting off the communication from the UCI may raise some eyebrows in the Pat McQuaid-led cycling organization. WADA is well aware of it and has added the following section: "If for whatever reason(s) the above mentioned conditions are not acceptable to UCI, or are not respected during the Tour de France, WADA will grant the AFLD the permission to perform such tests itself."

micron

WADA are basically telling them to test entirely above board or they'll let AFLD in to do their police evidenced tests. Now, question is, why are the UCI so obviously desperate to avoid AFLD conducting those targeted tests?

Kléber

Tests, schmests. Few riders get caught these days by the tests, who gets to conduct them doesn't matter too much. Although it is sad to see the UCI and AFLD locked in this petty turf war, although there are legal reasons as to why they are both right.

dave_1

Having seen my number hanging off the back of a motoribike-no radios, I can imagine it is handy in the current age of communication to know and get to the rider. The scrutiny will be immense this year. Good

Edit- not everyday but pro+ 10 in a bread wrapped in foil, and plenty dodo soft tabs full of pseudoepedrhine might have shown me up..being a nobody helped

micron

I presume the police evidence for targeted testing comes via OCLAESP (investigating TdF syringes) as they're tied in to the Gendarmerie/Police??

LangerDan

I'd like to see the proposed number of tests before getting too excited about this. A couple of years ago, they made a big hoo-hah about nearly 500 tests over the Tour. When you take out the pre-tour tests, performed on the Thursday / Friday before the Grand Depart and the mandatory tests carried out on the stage winners / classification leaders, the balance allowed for one random test per rider over the three weeks. In other words, not much more than they'd usually do.

It would be nice if they could have one blood test per rider per week. Apart from the increased possibility of detection, it would give more data on how the body responds to 3 weeks of racing.

calvjones

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/no-addi ... ld-at-tour


AFLD: Test Lance

UCI: What?

AFLD: test Lance

UCI: Um.. sorry.. bad line.. can you repeat the..

AFLD: TEST LANCE NOW!

UCI: [brrrrrrrrrrrrr]

BikingBernie

With the UCI in charge of the samples it will be easy for them to replace the 'Shack samples with a shot of 'baby piss', should the need arise...

Hibbs

BikingBernie wrote:

With the UCI in charge of the samples it will be easy for them to replace the 'Shack samples with a shot of 'baby piss', should the need arise...

Exaclty what I was thinking. Doesn't matter if WADA or the AFLD are there to ensure proprietory, or surprise tests. As long as the UCI do the lab work not much will change. Except the UCI may become a little richer.

iainf72

Hibbs wrote:

Exaclty what I was thinking. Doesn't matter if WADA or the AFLD are there to ensure proprietory, or surprise tests. As long as the UCI do the lab work not much will change. Except the UCI may become a little richer.

The UCI never do lab work.

They use WADA accredited labs to do their tests and it's indepedent of the UCI.

Doobz

iainf72 wrote:

Hibbs wrote:

Exaclty what I was thinking. Doesn't matter if WADA or the AFLD are there to ensure proprietory, or surprise tests. As long as the UCI do the lab work not much will change. Except the UCI may become a little richer.

The UCI never do lab work.

They use WADA accredited labs to do their tests and it's indepedent of the UCI.

This is why WADA should just pull in and take some samples of their own so comparisons can be made -

iainf72

Doobz wrote:

This is why WADA should just pull in and take some samples of their own so comparisons can be made -

Isn't this why WADA are observers? To cut out any nonsense.

WADA's role is exactly what they should be doing. Setting the standards and making sure they're adhered to.

DaveyL

BikingBernie wrote:

With the UCI in charge of the samples it will be easy for them to replace the 'Shack samples with a shot of 'baby piss', should the need arise...

Why would they need to do that if they cover up positive results anyway?

Hibbs

iainf72 wrote:

Hibbs wrote:

Exaclty what I was thinking. Doesn't matter if WADA or the AFLD are there to ensure proprietory, or surprise tests. As long as the UCI do the lab work not much will change. Except the UCI may become a little richer.

The UCI never do lab work.

They use WADA accredited labs to do their tests and it's indepedent of the UCI.

Oh, ok.

But then wasn't one of FLandis's accusations that a rogue WADA lab had agreed a cover up?

BikingBernie

iainf72 wrote:

The UCI never do lab work.

They use WADA accredited labs to do their tests and it's indepedent of the UCI.

But they can only test whatever it is that the UCI supplies them with...

Doobz

iainf72 wrote:

Doobz wrote:

This is why WADA should just pull in and take some samples of their own so comparisons can be made -

Isn't this why WADA are observers? To cut out any nonsense.

WADA's role is exactly what they should be doing. Setting the standards and making sure they're adhered to.

yea I hear what your saying but if we are to get the cheats caught and the UCI tests done accurately we need to make sure that the results and the samples are tested and cross tested to remove any suspicion that the UCI are up to no good.

If two samples are taken and tested separately in different WADA labs then we will have a level of satisfaction that things are making progress.

At the moment it seems like tests are being taken and the results are being falsified to protect the image of the sport.

iainf72

Doobz wrote:

If two samples are taken and tested separately in different WADA labs then we will have a level of satisfaction that things are making progress.

At the moment it seems like tests are being taken and the results are being falsified to protect the image of the sport.

Playing devils advocate for a second : Athletes can be tested by their national federation or the UCI. Most positives come out of the UCI testing rather than anything else.

If there is corruption in the labs, that's an issue for WADA to deal with.

blazing_saddles

Most positives come down from the UCI, yet everybody is convinced that the UCI are as dodgy as a seven pound note.
Hardly reassuring.
Not sure how a proper chain of custody can be established.
Still, hopefully WADA can make sure that Armstrong's samples don't get a sun tan, this year.

dave_1

BikingBernie wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

The UCI never do lab work.

They use WADA accredited labs to do their tests and it's indepedent of the UCI.

But they can only test whatever it is that the UCI supplies them with...

have you ever been at a control? I have, lids and zipper bag are sealed by the rider....any tampering can't be undone easily.