Tour 2010 doping allegations
Comments
-
Something like that without context is meaningless and very dangerous. How often do they calculate these scores? If so, how much do they vary? What time period are they based on?
People will see the list and naturally jump to conclusions. Anyone with a low score will be assumed to be clean (any low scorers in the Mantova list?) and anyone with a 5 or above will be seen as suspicious by the masses.
Taking team Sky as an example. Supposedly they carefully look at a rider's bio data before signing him (I've no reason to not believe this), yet they hired Jeremy Hunt and Michael Rogers, who are both high up on the list. The average person will now assume that they hired two dopers, or at least two riders with dodgy bio data.0 -
Would be nice to know on what it was based. As a Brit, I don;t like it that Wiggins and Thomas are thought surprisingly suspicious. But then we criticise the Spanish for their defence of Contador. Let us know on what the suspicions are based, and we'll all be happier.
Robbie Hunter's tweet was a bit stupid.0 -
Is Pat attempting to "b!tch-slap" the breakaway league? He had threatened to release data if teams didn't stop getting stroppy.
Of the 11 possible breakaway teams, five of them are in the top 7 places of the new "Axis of Evil" (RadioShack, Movistar / CdE, HTC. Omega and Quickstep). For the other teams which are more securely nestled in the middle / lower end of the list, several of them had high-scoring individual riders.'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
From Cyclingnews. On this basis the likes of Geraint Thomas were viewed at that time as being dirty:
As explained by the newspaper, only the scores of zero and one meant that the riders had a very clean record. Ratings from two to four were based on stable passports which nevertheless showed a rare abnormality at a precise time. From five upwards, the comments associated to the rider files started to become much more precise, "even affirmative" according to L'Equipe.
From six to ten, the circumstantial evidence of possible doping was "overwhelming". According to the paper, some of the riders located to the top of list have already been singled out by the biological passport and evaluated by the panel of nine experts, even if no procedure was opened. "Still, some of the files' commentaries are damning. Recurrent abnormal profiles, enormous fluctuations, identification of the used doping product and means of administration..." wrote L'Equipe's anti-doping expert journalist Damien Ressiot.0 -
RichN95 wrote:inkyfingers wrote:Just out of interest, why would Alex Dowsett's be all over the place?
He's a haemophiliac
Ahh, thanks. Didn't know that."I have a lovely photo of a Camargue horse but will not post it now" (Frenchfighter - July 2013)0 -
It's become clear to me looking at the list they've forgotten to factor in the "they speak english" parameter.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
No doping expert me, but 1st impressions are this is a totally arbitrary.
Its not taken over a full season so some riders will be in peak form for the event and their blood values will wobble a bit surely.
whether there taking O2 booster drugs or blood top ups or not,its an art form I think.
Its embarrassing for any clean riders who may be high up the list.
As stated we don't know the full details of this as its just a list thats leaked with some names on.
Doubt Wiggins is on a program, if he is then the drugs don't work!.
And this of course how can any one be sure that any rider is clean,0 -
Dgh wrote:As a Brit, I don;t like it that Wiggins and Thomas are thought surprisingly suspicious.
Wiggins went from a self confessed "fat pursuiter" to a GT contender in the space of a season. Granted, he lost some weight, but that is always a bit simple in my eyes.
Plus didn't he work with Allen Lim at Garmin?
As for Fabu being 0. Really? Just, really?"A cyclist has nothing to lose but his chain"
PTP Runner Up 20150 -
It's a list for targetted testing, the UCI has long used intel to target particular riders. Some riders will have weird values just because that's the way they're born. But of course quite a few are worth testing very hard.
Presumably Pellizotti did a Spinal Tap and scored 11?0 -
I thought Wiggins published all his passport results for the year he went from being a fat pursuiter to a top 5 at the tour? If he has gone on drugs since they arent doing much0
-
As others have probably pointed out, without detailed explanations about how these numbers were calculated, this whole list is complete and utter farce.
It's like some kind of UCI game of 'doping bingo'...0 -
rickyrider wrote:As others have probably pointed out, without detailed explanations about how these numbers were calculated, this whole list is complete and utter farce.
It's like some kind of UCI game of 'doping bingo'...
But.... the description given for the higher scores marks out those riders scoring 6 or above as being dodgy:
"From six to ten, the circumstantial evidence of possible doping was "overwhelming".
Even the fives don't come out well:
"From five upwards, the comments associated to the rider files started to become much more precise, "even affirmative" according to L'Equipe."
No doubt these scores are the result of some detailed analysis. It isn't going to be someone sitting in a room saying, "I think I'll give Popo a 10 because I don't like the look of him", or "Cancellara doesn't need to dope because he has the electric motor fitted inside his frame, so I'll give him a 0".0 -
rickyrider wrote:As others have probably pointed out, without detailed explanations about how these numbers were calculated, this whole list is complete and utter farce.
It's like some kind of UCI game of 'doping bingo'...
Well it seems like the mole ( :evil: ) has confirmed the list is the internal assessment of the passport data which makes it a lot more interesting. WADA seems to like the passport scheme based on the report which was discussed recently, so we have to presume the list is a reasonably good indicator of the likelihood of riders being clean or otherwise. It's quite positive that there are a lot more 1 to 4 than 5 to 10, no?0 -
I think it is healthy to know that the UCI are as cynical as us with regards to riders performances.
However, it makes you wonder what is missing to enable them to bring the '10's to justice.Half man, Half bike0 -
squired wrote:rickyrider wrote:As others have probably pointed out, without detailed explanations about how these numbers were calculated, this whole list is complete and utter farce.
It's like some kind of UCI game of 'doping bingo'...
But.... the description given for the higher scores marks out those riders scoring 6 or above as being dodgy:
"From six to ten, the circumstantial evidence of possible doping was "overwhelming".
Even the fives don't come out well:
"From five upwards, the comments associated to the rider files started to become much more precise, "even affirmative" according to L'Equipe."
No doubt these scores are the result of some detailed analysis. It isn't going to be someone sitting in a room saying, "I think I'll give Popo a 10 because I don't like the look of him", or "Cancellara doesn't need to dope because he has the electric motor fitted inside his frame, so I'll give him a 0".
These scores might very well be valid, but my point is that without the detailed analysis you refer to above, the numbers as they stand are completely meaningless. In my mind there is plenty of doubt until solid evidence is provided. Also, the phrase 'circumstantial evidence of possible doping' equating to 'overwhelming' is absolutely absurd!0 -
I'm a bit surprised that anyone is a 0.0
-
Interesting bit from the article
In the article, Ressiot also stated that some of the UCI experts were "surprised by certain much too 'normal' blood parameters" and advocated to prohibit the riders from accessing their blood passport data for the last three months, so that they cannot align their blood parameters to the values recorded previously.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Cavendish has a low opinion of the scores according to his twitter"I get paid to make other people suffer on my wheel, how good is that"
--Jens Voight0 -
Over on the cyclingnews site the clinic loons and they are loons there-well some are at least.
Are claiming that you only dope if you speak english or hold an british or US passport
Whats that all about, Britain the world power of procycling!!
In other parts there saying that if you have a large cranium then your also a prolific user/abuser of H.G.H its total rubbish. L'equipe is a tabloid.0 -
So, lets take a 5!
Alessandro Ballan (under investigation)
Matti Breschel
Alberto Contador (nearly nabbed)
Cyril Gautier
Inaki Isasi
Sergei Ivanov (history)
Vladimir Karpets (under investigation via Italian raids?)
Alexandr Kolobnev (under investigation via Italian raids?)
Karsten Kroon
Steve Morabito
Benjamin Noval
Jose Rojas
Nicki Sörensen
Alexander Vinokourov (previously banned)
Bradley WigginsFckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
rickyrider wrote:Also, the phrase 'circumstantial evidence of possible doping' equating to 'overwhelming' is absolutely absurd!
Have to agree with this.0 -
nikle wrote:
In other parts there saying that if you have a large cranium then your also a prolific user/abuser of H.G.H its total rubbish. L'equipe is a tabloid.
What makes you say l'equipe is a tabloid. It's the UCI / WADA's list they just published it.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:nikle wrote:
In other parts there saying that if you have a large cranium then your also a prolific user/abuser of H.G.H its total rubbish. L'equipe is a tabloid.
What makes you say l'equipe is a tabloid. It's the UCI / WADA's list they just published it.
Well, the story involves some outrageous allegations against some Britons, the French play a major role and there is a European-based bureaucratic institution behind it. Sounds like standard tabloid fare.'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
iainf72 wrote:nikle wrote:
In other parts there saying that if you have a large cranium then your also a prolific user/abuser of H.G.H its total rubbish. L'equipe is a tabloid.
What makes you say l'equipe is a tabloid. It's the UCI / WADA's list they just published it.
Indeed. There's no blame on L'Equipe here. It's a great scoop for them. Although, the tone of the full printed version does have a bit of a 'look what us poor French are up against' feel to it.
The whole list reminds be of when papers give footballers or rugby players marks out of ten after a game and then fans get angry saying "Why did you give him a four, haven't you been paying attention, he's worth at least a six".Twitter: @RichN950 -
Do we know the full context though. the list may be a first draft or something which then needed refining.
We know that the passport is nor a precision instrument, I have read that the U.C.I didn't target the higher scoring riders with more testing, to prove or disprove either way.
I know the UCI are plonkers and the political wing is corrupt. But L'equipe is a tabloid and will have jumped at this regardless.0 -
P_Tucker wrote:Dgh wrote:Would be nice to know on what it was based. As a Brit, I don;t like it that Wiggins and Thomas are thought surprisingly suspicious.
Excellent. Can I interest you in membership of the BNP?
I read this as "being British, I am concerned and worried about the fact that two of our cycling "stars" are so high up the list. I am surprised by this fact and hope that there is a good reason for it, so more detail would be welcomed".
NOT
"That list is a load of old tosh - it has a couple of Brit riders on it and that can't be right".http://www.georgesfoundation.org
http://100hillsforgeorge.blogspot.com/
http://www.12on12in12.blogspot.co.uk/0
