Tour 2010 doping allegations

Chris James

It is a bit gung ho to suggest that 6 upwards constitutes likely doping though.

I recalll when my wife was pregnant with our first kid then she had all kinds of blood irregulariities including weird imbalances only usually seen in chronic alcoholics (she was actually off the booze at the time too!).

The docs were foxed by it all.

Whilst I realise none of the people on the list were pregnant(!) I dare say there can be lots of reasons for blood iregularities, hence the passport only being used as a tool rather than the be all and end all.

iainf72

I think if Giovanni Thomisini went from not-very-good on Barloworld to really-quite-good on Lampre, people would raise eyebrows. Perhaps that's got something to do with it, if it's based on more than just blood.

Or he has wierd blood.

Or his values are strange for another reason.

RichN95.

Woolfie wrote:

Just regarding G Thomas (havn't read the whole thread so don't know if anyone has mentioned this before) he had a bad crash a few years back which meant removing something (spleen / pancreas??) which means he has an elevated haemocrit value which I think means he has to have a dispensation to ride above the 50% level - the UCI might view this as putting him as high risk?

It's Wegelius who has the dispensation and a missing spleen. Thomas is also spleenless, though.

deejay

Kléber wrote:

Face it, we all have our own "suspect lists" and that's before any of us analyse blood data. For many fans just wearing a [insert team name] jersey is often enough to raise eyebrows, no?

My list comes from sudden exaggerated performances.
When I ask, Where did that come from, means an addition to to my suspect list.
I was in the Ardennes last month for an addition.
I leave it to others to analyse.

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

I think if Giovanni Thomisini went from not-very-good on Barloworld to really-quite-good on Lampre, people would raise eyebrows. Perhaps that's got something to do with it, if it's based on more than just blood.

In general, riders are better at 24 than they were at 21

Woolfie

Perhaps in Geraint's case then the lack of spleen means irregular values which merit close attention from the UCI (as they may be used to hide something).

Don't agree that he has had a meteoric rise though that merits suspicion - to me he has been making ggod steady progress as a young rider and getting good results in some races (generally tough classicy style stuff) - he's hardly been dancing away on mountain stages or winning races and stages everywhere

inkyfingers

RichN95 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

I think if Giovanni Thomisini went from not-very-good on Barloworld to really-quite-good on Lampre, people would raise eyebrows. Perhaps that's got something to do with it, if it's based on more than just blood.

In general, riders are better at 24 than they were at 21

True, and to be fair he was much more focussed on the track in those days. It's a bit harsh to describe a World and Olympic Team Pursuit champion as "not-very-good". Thomasini's results in the last couple of years...good TT and strong Rouleur fit quite neatly into the kind of progress you might expect from a young trackie moving onto the road. If he suddenly popped up the the front on the Mur de Huy you'd be a bit more suspicious.

iainf72

http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/rider.asp?riderid=3891

Looks like a sudden vast improvement to me.

But I would tend to think the spleen offers the most likely explantion, if this is just the output of software.

shm_uk

If the UCI have gone to all the bother of making this doping-suspicion league table then they should at least finish the job and use it to apply a handicap system to the riders by way of a weight penalty.

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/rider.asp?riderid=3891

Looks like a sudden vast improvement to me.

Days raced: 2010 - 80, 2009 - 34.
Having a team that can dominate a national championship and decide the winner doesn't hurt the points either.

inkyfingers

iainf72 wrote:

http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/rider.asp?riderid=3891

Looks like a sudden vast improvement to me.

But I would tend to think the spleen offers the most likely explantion, if this is just the output of software.

I'm not stating that he's definitely clean (I don't trust anyone really) but I think your logic is flawed. You are companring a guy who was focussed on the track who probably rode most road races as a domestique with an older rider who has started to focus on the road and has got some decent but not earth shattering results. It's a bit like comparing Mark Cavenidish's results in 2006 and 2007 and saying that it proves he must have been doping.

iainf72

I'm not suggesting it's flawless, but at a cursory glance, you could call it suspicious. Dig deeper and it isn't. Fair enough. But if it was an eye-talian geezer, would we dig deeper? Probably not.

All it really proves is the whole thing is complex and there are many parameters we need to take into account.

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

I'm not suggesting it's flawless, but at a cursory glance, you could call it suspicious. Dig deeper and it isn't. Fair enough. But if it was an eye-talian geezer, would we dig deeper? Probably not.

The same could be said about the numbers on the infamous list itself. Maybe some other riders with high scores have extenuating circumstances.

Generally, the list should be taken for what it actually is - a guideline to who needs to be target tested, and not a probability of guilt.

iainf72

RichN95 wrote:

Generally, the list should be taken for what it actually is - a guideline to who needs to be target tested, and not a probability of guilt.

Except for Popo. Because he rides for Radioshack.

My masters in the Asylum taught me this.

squired

Looking at the description of the logic behind the points, it seems that they have looked for specific changes in parameters at certain times. Obviously there will be certain changes that are natural, due to illness, training at altitude, etc. However, it appears that the riders with greater scores are showing specific changes at key points in the season. If that is the case, one could probably discount things like having no spleen as causes.

The interesting thing is that a rider who is claimed to be whiter than white, Cadel Evans, didn't get a 0 or 1. The same with Basso. A lot has said about both being clean under Sassi, so maybe this shows how a rider who is clean can still show variations that might be considered as potentially abnormal.

It is a real shame that Gilbert wasn't in the Tour last year, as his score would have been interesting.

As for Menchov, is anyone surprised at how high he ranked? I'm certainly not.

Woolfie

lol

bradwiggins Bradley Wiggins
There's no way @geraintthomas86 's love handle is scored bigger than mine?? Bonkers

bradwiggins Bradley Wiggins
Re-test it was cold!!!

RichN95.

The UCi have released a statement. http://tinyurl.com/6aj323r

It seems these numbers are largely based on the pre-Tour test rather than the blood passport as whole. So they represent anomalies. As such they are worthy of further investigation but not indicative of anything in themselves.

I,for one, will now be ignoring everything in the list, from 0-10.

58585

Can we have an l'Equipe PTP please?

11 points each to be used, select as many riders as you want within that:
Class 0 - 1 point
Class 1 - 2 point
upto
Class 10 - 11 points

I suggest a complicated scoring system,
10 PTP points for a failed test before the end of the season plus a bonus of 2 PTP points x number of years banned.
PTP points for a second offence are halved.
Bonus for getting caught whilst wearing a grand tour leaders jersey: all PTP points x 5 for leaders jersey, all PTP points x 2 for climbers jersey, all PTP points x 10 for sprinters jersey.
Riders from old "eastern block" all PTP points halved.
Riders with English as first language all PTP points x 10.
Admitting being doped when caught no PTP points awarded

Richrd2205

Richn95's point.
This is the most sensible comment on the thread so far....
Well apart from Iain's:

I'm not suggesting it's flawless, but at a cursory glance, you could call it suspicious. Dig deeper and it isn't. Fair enough. But if it was an eye-talian geezer, would we dig deeper? Probably not.

All it really proves is the whole thing is complex and there are many parameters we need to take into account.

The lists say nothing at all without an awful lot more information. With the way the passport works and the fact that there's no certitude what the information is actually based on, it tells us absolutely nothing definite at all.
We can probably infer that the riders scoring higher had unusual blood results at some point over the previous 12 months. We certainly can't infer what this means though.
I feel happier that there is targeted testing, but feel it would be foolish to read anything into it at all, other than what is there...
There's two articles here which give background on the passport & put both my comments and the article into a greater context...

andyp

RichN95 wrote:

The UCi have released a statement. http://tinyurl.com/6aj323r

It seems these numbers are largely based on the pre-Tour test rather than the blood passport as whole. So they represent anomalies. As such they are worthy of further investigation but not indicative of anything in themselves.

I,for one, will now be ignoring everything in the list, from 0-10.

It doesn't say that though, does it? It says the numbers are based on both the pre-Tour tests and the biological passport.

RichN95.

andyp wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

The UCi have released a statement. http://tinyurl.com/6aj323r

It seems these numbers are largely based on the pre-Tour test rather than the blood passport as whole. So they represent anomalies. As such they are worthy of further investigation but not indicative of anything in themselves.

I,for one, will now be ignoring everything in the list, from 0-10.

It doesn't say that though, does it? It says the numbers are based on both the pre-Tour tests and the biological passport.

It's not clear, that's for sure, but I got the impression from the statement that list was drawn up as a snapshot of pre-Tour values when judged against rudimentary data from the rider's passport. Maybe, I'm wrong.

What is clear, to me, is that these numbers aren't the result of detailed analysis.

Scientifically speaking, the UCI have basically put forward to the testers what amounts to a hypothesis - a theory based on observed phenomena - and asked the testers to move into the experimentation phase, to see if they can provide compelling data to support it. Sometimes this is done, sometimes the data disproves the hypothesis and sometimes results are inconclusive and require further testing.

In the future, someone scored as a 3 might well be brought up on passport charges. Many will then say 'what about the 4-10s then' and think they must be doping. I won't be one of them.

andyp

I agree, I don't think these numbers are indicative of doping, rather they allow the anti-doping authorities to target test those who have shown anamolies, be that natural or not.

Given the limited tests they can conduct, I think this is a sensible approach, which is not something you can often say about the UCI.

Tusher

So the peloton appear to be roundly condemning The List via twitter. No surprise there.
I would love to hear what they're saying in private though.

But.......hypothetically, if a rider who was in early tentative negotiations for a fat juicy contract next year, and who just happens to be 100% clean and pure but for bizarre haematological reasons appears at, say, 7 on the list, and then finds that teams and agents no longer return his calls...................would he have a case of slander against L'Equippe, teh UCI or the mole?

RichN95.

Tusher wrote:

But.......hypothetically, if a rider who was in early tentative negotiations for a fat juicy contract next year, and who just happens to be 100% clean and pure but for bizarre haematological reasons appears at, say, 7 on the list, and then finds that teams and agents no longer return his calls...................would he have a case of slander against L'Equippe, teh UCI or the mole?

It's an interesting question. Is it even libel to suspect somebody? After all, in high profile murder cases, people are brought in and cleared, even in unsolved cases.

I'm not a lawyer (although I have a law diploma :roll: ), but I'd fancy the UCI would justly claim that it was an internal document, not meant for public viewing. Similarly, 'The Team' would claim that they just republished a document which is in the public interest - a valid defence - particularly has their reporting was in no way accusing, and very cautionary (apart for saying look how clean the French are).

Which leaves the mole, who we will probably never find. However, if it came out that it was deliberately leaked by the UCI (I don't think was), then there could be trouble, but nothing that would reach a court room.

As to your hypothetical 7s - Tony Martin will resign with HTC and GreenEdge will sign any Aussie they can get their hands on, so Sulzberger's OK.

knedlicky

I’m pretty sure that ‘suspicions’ of this type aren’t new in the Tour, just for the first time, the report is more public and riders are named.

Previously, what was (eventually and discretely) publicly released were estimates, by the Lausanne laboratory who did/do a lot of the (especially EPO) testing, of how many riders ‘may have’ doped, based on ‘suspicious’ but not condemning test results.
Their estimates were broken up into the 3 weeks of the Tour, so for example in 2001, the lab felt that early on in the Tour doping was negligible, but in the last week it occurred amongst the better-placed, as the possible prizes became visible (probably happens every year).

The Lausanne laboratory estimates of how many riders ‘may have’ doped vary from 80% in 1996 to 15-20% in 2001-2002, then back up to 50% in 2004-2005 then down to 20-25% in 2006-2007 (I haven’t seen any estimates since then), but I would expect/hope that in those years the lab provided more than summaries to the UCI.

takethehighroad

Is anyone else picturing the boot camp stages of The X Factor where Simon, Louis and Cheryl stand in front of a bunch of pictures and say "He's good/She's rubbish..." ?

ratsbeyfus

Perfect 10's separated at birth?


Bopovych




Po Derek

shinyhelmut

More good analysis from sportsscientists.com;

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/05/ucis-suspicion-score.html#disqus_thread

ms_tree

Cumulonimbus wrote:

Cancellara 0

What did his bike score?

petemadoc

I used to watch pro cycling as a kid but have only recently got back into following it so excuse my naivety.

but

Am I the only one who thinks the whole dope testing process in pro cycling is overcomplicated and generally seems corrupt?!? Surely it's simple, just test the riders throughout the year and during races. If they're positive then a hefty 4 year ban will do and if they get caught twice then a life ban from the sport. Simple

You don't get all this nonsense in Athletics, you get caught, you get banned, end of.

I realise it's not exactly that simple but all this "maybe doping" and "0-10" and "small traces" just sounds like BS to cover stuff up to me.