Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

WADA report on UCI at Tour

iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,774
edited November 2010 in Pro race
http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World ... 010_EN.pdf

Overall it's positive.

Which will disappoint the tinfoil hat brigade.
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.

Posts

  • It's also a bit depressing. It reveals that only 10 out of 540 samples were sent to Cologne for the testing for "new drugs or methods", apparently not in a targetted fashion.

    1 out of 540 overall looks great.
    1 out of 10 in Cologne, with a failure to test a suspicious rider thrown in, is a bit alarming.
  • Steve2020Steve2020 Posts: 133
    It's interesting.

    "a number of riders demonstrating suspicious profiles and/or showing significantly impressive performances at the Tour were tested on surprisingly few occasions and for three riders of interest did not provide a blood sample for the purposes of anti-doping in the whole Tour (instead each providing a single sample for the ABP). This was consistent with the IO Team’s view that at times more weight was given by the UCI to ABP samples than samples for the detection of the ‘presence’ of prohibited substances and/or methods"
  • Steve2020Steve2020 Posts: 133
    It is generally positive but this is the most negative section. I wonder how suspicious you have to be to be a '10'

    On detailed examination of the ABP data, the Laboratory’s recommendations and the UCI’s testing response to such data, it is the IO Team’s impression that the UCI could and should have executed a more targeted and aggressive testing strategy. Examples of this are as follows:
    TdF2010 Final IO Report 19
    • While recognising the high level of testing and a focus on targeting riders in the Pre-Tour period (i.e. April to June 2010) it was noted that there were a number of riders of significance who took part in the Tour who had either not been tested during the Pre-Tour period or who had only been tested once (with the majority of these for the ABP).
    • During the Tour, a number of riders demonstrating suspicious profiles and/or showing significantly impressive performances at the Tour were tested on surprisingly few occasions and for three riders of interest did not provide a blood sample for the purposes of anti-doping in the whole Tour (instead each providing a single sample for the ABP). This was consistent with the IO Team’s view that at times more weight was given by the UCI to ABP samples than samples for the detection of the ‘presence’ of prohibited substances and/or methods.
    • The IO Team was surprised to see that a random draw was conducted for Post-Finish testing on two stages. The IO Team did question the rationale of even conducting a random draw, and while recognising that the particular stage was a flat one (which usually finishes in a bunch sprint), it seemed a missed opportunity not to use the intelligence available to the UCI or even base the selections on the performance of the riders in the stage. This was considered by the UCI after the first random draw was conducted and the IO Team only observed one further random draw being conducted again on the Tour.
    • A rider identified as having a priority index of eight (with ten being the highest and most at risk of doping) was tested only once (urine EPO) during the Pre-Tour period with no blood sample collected for the analysis of CERA, HBT, HBOC or other prohibited substances and/or methods. During the Tour recommendations from the Laboratory related to target testing for EPO did not seem to be conducted expediently or as appropriate (ie. the EPO test was conducted 6 days later while the blood sample was only analysed for hGH). Lastly, following a significant delay in providing an early morning sample and in conjunction with the intelligence already held on this rider, there seems no evidence of more intense target testing on this rider.
    • For a rider identified as having a priority index of ten, no blood samples were collected following the Laboratory recommendations after interpretation of blood passport data from the first week of the Tour, with only urine being collected and no blood as recommended by the Laboratory. Further, a recommendation to target test the rider for EPO took seven days to be executed.
    • A rider identified as having a priority index of ten was not tested for either urine or blood from 3 April to the start of the Tour. Recommendations made by the Laboratory following testing in the first three days of the Tour resulted in no further blood samples being collected but rather only urine and approximately ten days later. The IO Team became aware of the remarks made by the laboratory regarding the analysis of this rider’s specific sample that raised the suspicion of the use of proteases. No further information regarding any actions taken by the UCI for further analysis of that sample was made available.
    • For a rider identified as having a priority index of eight, who was recommended to be target tested for EPO by the Laboratory, the UCI did not target test the rider and in addition a sample collected five days later was not analysed for EPO. Interestingly in this case collection of follow-up samples from this rider was initiated by the AFLD via the WADA Resolution.
    • Given the challenges in organising and resourcing unannounced missions, the IO Team would have expected to observe multiple riders being targeted for morning and/or evening testing. However, it was observed that when a single rider was targeted there was no consideration to testing additional riders either from the same team as the targeted rider or from teams also residing in the same hotel.
    Before any conclusions are made with respect the UCI’s testing strategy the IO Team would like to reiterate that the UCI’s ABP is an excellent programme and one the UCI should be proud. However, in the opinion of the IO Team, the UCI now needs to take the next step in designing and executing a testing strategy that is radically different to those executed in the past.
  • KléberKléber Posts: 6,842
    Some worrying points in there, "surprise" visits were not surprises and the most suspect riders were not targetted all that much. Some might fear the UCI being complicit but the report paints a picture of slightly sloppy testing procedures, of people going through the motions but not trying their hardest to go after the suspicious riders.
  • No_Ta_DoctorNo_Ta_Doctor Posts: 9,465
    Kléber wrote:
    Some worrying points in there, "surprise" visits were not surprises and the most suspect riders were not targetted all that much. Some might fear the UCI being complicit but the report paints a picture of slightly sloppy testing procedures, of people going through the motions but not trying their hardest to go after the suspicious riders.

    It's difficult to tell if it's complicity, organisational rivalry (e.g. "not another bloody request from those bloody cowboys, they think they know it all but we're the ones doing the work") or simply inefficiency ("stick it in the in-tray, I've got five reports, two visits and a test schedule to complete by Tuesday and my Facebook fish-bowl needs cleaning and restocking... Did you see the latest tweet from *******").

    I think everyone is agreed that a combination of targeted and lucky dip testing is the way forward, but draws on flat days seem a bit pointless and the targeting needs to be done by some sort of rapid response SWAT team - fast, efficient, thorough and with massive overkill (like taking all the team's riders). Preferably they should be wearing balaclavas and abseiling into the team hotel from a helicopter as well.

    Putting on the political glasses for a minute, I wouldn't expect a WADA report on the UCI testing to be particularly critical in its tone, especially not in intro or summary. There's nothing to gain from giving a public kick in the balls to an organisation you need to work closely with, in a sport the public have little faith in. If I wrote the report and wasn't looking for a major public fight with the UCI then unless I'd uncovered widespread corruption I'd bury the bad bits in the small print, with a "room for improvement" tag, a few bits of detailed critique that could be taken as "constructive criticism".

    Oh.
    “Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

    @DrHeadgear

    The Vikings are coming!
  • HibbsHibbs Posts: 291
    It's generally positive, but the negative sections are overwhelmingly negative. It's fine carrying out proper testing on the unknowns, but the apparent protection of the star names is disgraceful.
  • mididoctorsmididoctors Posts: 7,107
    hellishly complicated buisness. there are so many instances where a procedure is necessary.. EG number of people in a room, exact handling procedures and the like. Hardly surprising procedures are not followed.... the idea that protocols can cover all the bases in a scrum like the tour is a bit naive.

    the chaperon who was split from his charge by a uninformed gendarme for example

    each new incident is followed by recomandations that further complicate the testing procedure

    thanks to Steve 2020 for pulling out that section on targeted riders which does contain quite damming criticism if you read between the lines

    "IO was surprised"= "shocked and appalled and quite frankly we think you[UCI] are taking the p1ss"
    "If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 22,894
    Hibbs wrote:
    It's generally positive, but the negative sections are overwhelmingly negative. It's fine carrying out proper testing on the unknowns, but the apparent protection of the star names is disgraceful.

    If they were trying to protect the star names, then they made a right bloody mess of it.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • That is true...

    Or it was an Astana thing. Have they ridden more than one tour (2009) as a team without being one rider being busted?
  • mididoctorsmididoctors Posts: 7,107
    RichN95 wrote:
    Hibbs wrote:
    It's generally positive, but the negative sections are overwhelmingly negative. It's fine carrying out proper testing on the unknowns, but the apparent protection of the star names is disgraceful.

    If they were trying to protect the star names, then they made a right bloody mess of it.

    Fail is their middle name.
    "If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm
  • ms_treems_tree Posts: 1,405
    Not quite sure what some of you want. Nothing UCI does seems to meet with your approval. WADA says it is one of the best programmes but you still pick holes in it. Perhaps you won't be happy until you get to observe?
    'Google can bring back a hundred thousand answers. A librarian can bring you back the right one.'
    Neil Gaiman
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,774
    Ms Tree wrote:
    Not quite sure what some of you want. Nothing UCI does seems to meet with your approval. WADA says it is one of the best programmes but you still pick holes in it. Perhaps you won't be happy until you get to observe?

    Quite right. I think people are getting a bit over excited about the recommendations. Anyone who's had an external report commissioned in a corporate environment will know they always come back with a lot of recommendations - If they didn't, what would the value be?
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • Steve2020Steve2020 Posts: 133
    Ms Tree wrote:
    Not quite sure what some of you want. Nothing UCI does seems to meet with your approval. WADA says it is one of the best programmes but you still pick holes in it. Perhaps you won't be happy until you get to observe?

    I think the reasons people aren't happy are that cycling has a big drug problem (no doubt other sports do too but that doesn't make it any better) and the UCI has a poor record of dealing with it.

    There is a clear conflict of interest in it remaining in charge of testing (as is no doubt true in other sports but, again, that doesn't make it better).

    The report describes behaviours which sounds a lot like (whether by accident or design) an organisation keen to look tough on doping, but preferring to avoid a big scandal at its biggest event of the year.

    By going through the motions it still caught AC so it's not all bad, but it's far from perfect.

    So you're right, nothing the UCI ever does is likely to satisfy people - it shouldn't be involved with drug testing.
  • I can see both sides of this argument.
    Yes its easy to criticise WADA and (especially) UCI here for all the various reasons posted above, and people do have the tendancy on some occasions to go down that route at the drop of a hat

    However (he says - dropping his hat maybe) if WADA believe the UCI TdF is on one hand, a shining example of how to get things right, but prior to that it lists a significant catalogue of things-gone-wrong like they have then I too have to question their motives, i.e I agree that they maybe have a conflict of interests here and don't want to upset the applecart too much.
    Looking at the listed issues its all about consistancy - or rather lack of it. If the UCI don't know how to collect these samples in a rigerously consistant manner after all these years, and with all the media attention, then clearly they are not the right people to look after the race. But lets face it - that ain't going to change - at least not in our lifetimes.

    Just my opinion.
    Can I upgrade???
  • micronmicron Posts: 1,843
    Interesting that the headline that's being pulled from this is the night time testing proposal, yet the media has stayed silent on the contents of page 19 and it's damning criticism of lack of target testing.

    Of course if there was proper targeted testing then night time testing might be entirely unnecessary...
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,774
    micron wrote:

    Of course if there was proper targeted testing then night time testing might be entirely unnecessary...

    Or, if the tests worked better, there would be no need for night time tests.

    I've just re-read the report and I'm struck by how little it says. Yes, target riders pre-tour. So a number of risk factor 10 riders were tested and how many of them returned positives? I'm all for tightening up procedures but to think the UCI aren't nabbing people because of some of the issues raised in the report? I don't think so.

    I'm also curious how they gauged the AFLD's intelligence was good. Wouldn't good intelligence mean you get a result from it?
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • mididoctorsmididoctors Posts: 7,107
    Ms Tree wrote:
    Not quite sure what some of you want. Nothing UCI does seems to meet with your approval. WADA says it is one of the best programmes but you still pick holes in it. Perhaps you won't be happy until you get to observe?

    relative comparisons with other sports does not impress me much whether they are valid or not!

    The fact of the matter is until the riders enforce a reverse omerta themselves throu enlightened self interest the sport is going to carry on being a laughing stock..

    because it is riddled with drug taken cheats at the highest level

    RIFE

    and they have ALL FAILED to either do something about it or cover it up adequately

    there is no where left to go except a increasingly extreme draconian testing regime

    the sad fact is its is the most intensive testing regime in pro sports and its still not enough

    the tour podium is pretty much busted every year now.. the sport is a total farce

    the sport faces 4 broad answers none of which are exactly easy to implement or without problems

    1) argue in favour of legal doping

    2) enforced compliance via extreme testing

    3) enforce compliance via internal culture

    4) cover it up

    no: 4 hasn't worked so you are left with the others ..number 2 isn't exactly working yet either but could be argued it may lead to number 3

    someone should have the balls to make the case for number 1
    "If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm
  • mididoctorsmididoctors Posts: 7,107
    iainf72 wrote:
    micron wrote:

    Of course if there was proper targeted testing then night time testing might be entirely unnecessary...

    Or, if the tests worked better, there would be no need for night time tests.

    I've just re-read the report and I'm struck by how little it says. Yes, target riders pre-tour. So a number of risk factor 10 riders were tested and how many of them returned positives? I'm all for tightening up procedures but to think the UCI aren't nabbing people because of some of the issues raised in the report? I don't think so.

    I'm also curious how they gauged the AFLD's intelligence was good. Wouldn't good intelligence mean you get a result from it?

    I think they should introduce night time tests just to p1ss the riders off especially the ones who are riding clean.
    "If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm
  • ms_treems_tree Posts: 1,405
    Fine so you'd like to be woken up from a deep sleep knowing that you will have a rotten day because of it? It could be an important mountain stage or a one-day classic. Can I be a fly on the wall when someone does it to you? Tho' I will have to have ear-plugs in to stave of the swear words.
    'Google can bring back a hundred thousand answers. A librarian can bring you back the right one.'
    Neil Gaiman
  • Steve2020Steve2020 Posts: 133
    Ms Tree wrote:
    Fine so you'd like to be woken up from a deep sleep knowing that you will have a rotten day because of it? It could be an important mountain stage or a one-day classic. Can I be a fly on the wall when someone does it to you? Tho' I will have to have ear-plugs in to stave of the swear words.

    So if, say, there was a performance enhancing drug which could be taken at bed time and be undetectable by morning, would you be against night time testing?
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 22,894
    Steve2020 wrote:
    Ms Tree wrote:
    Fine so you'd like to be woken up from a deep sleep knowing that you will have a rotten day because of it? It could be an important mountain stage or a one-day classic. Can I be a fly on the wall when someone does it to you? Tho' I will have to have ear-plugs in to stave of the swear words.

    So if, say, there was a performance enhancing drug which could be taken at bed time and be undetectable by morning, would you be against night time testing?

    But does such a drug exist?

    If there was a PED that could only be detected by chopping off a finger, would you advocate the chopping off of fingers?

    An extreme (and pretty daft example), but you have to draw the line somewhere.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Steve2020Steve2020 Posts: 133
    RichN95 wrote:
    But does such a drug exist?

    Seemingly so:

    http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/6206/ ... osing.aspx
  • PokerfacePokerface Posts: 8,640
    If a tester woke me up in the middle of the night before a big race or in the middle of a big stage race he'd be risking his own life I think!

    However, I would have no problem being randomly selected to have a chaperone with me in my room, etc. At races we share anyway.
  • mididoctorsmididoctors Posts: 7,107
    Ms Tree wrote:
    Fine so you'd like to be woken up from a deep sleep knowing that you will have a rotten day because of it? It could be an important mountain stage or a one-day classic. Can I be a fly on the wall when someone does it to you? Tho' I will have to have ear-plugs in to stave of the swear words.

    No I wouldn't but that's the point.

    If one was clean and being subjected to such a regime how annoying does it get before you put 2 and 2 together?

    obviously a lot more
    "If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm
  • Don't remember there being such a fuss about the damaging effects of missing sleep when, in the days before controls, they had to get up in the middle of every night to ride the rollers.
  • calvjonescalvjones Posts: 3,850
    Steve2020 wrote:
    Don't remember there being such a fuss about the damaging effects of missing sleep when, in the days before controls, they had to get up in the middle of every night to ride the rollers.
    :lol:
    ___________________

    Strava is not Zen.
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,774
    WADA have said today there will be no overnight doping controls.

    David Howman says the recommendation was to do more controls at different hours, but not overnight checks.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
Sign In or Register to comment.