Tour 2010 doping allegations

1235»

Comments

  • squired
    squired Posts: 1,153
    Some of the comments that have come out in the last few days have helped to clarify things a little.

    So, if a rider has improved dramatically he will get a higher score. I guess BW could have seen his score increase as a result of his 4th in the Tour the previous year, for example.

    Also, Carlos Barredo was a 10, but comments today suggest he's not been tested since 2 October 2010. Can one assume that they increased his testing last year and decided that he wasn't up to anything?

    I guess that what it has me wondering is whether the scores are extremely fluid. So, for example, a rider could go from a 0 to a 10 very quickly. They then carry out more extensive testing on him and a few months later his score could be low again. So, on that bases a "score" snapshot taken through the season could vary greatly.
  • Tom Butcher
    Tom Butcher Posts: 3,830
    PeteMadoc wrote:
    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.

    I think you misunderstand the situation. Cyclists who test positive get banned in exactly the same way as athletics - yes Contador is appealing his ban but the same thing can happen in athletics and other sports and there are sports people who have successfully appealed bans for clenbuterol in exactly the same way Contador is attempting to.

    This leaked document just shows that the UCI are targeting riders who they believe may be doping but haven't as yet got conclusive proof. What is wrong with that ? There would be much more cause for complaint if the UCI weren't using the information in the biological passports to inform their testing process.
    it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
  • sherer
    sherer Posts: 2,460
    did find it interesting that Armstrong was a 4 and Kloden and Popo were high on the list. Also on the dirty teams list RS where top.

    We've heard before how JBs teams were meant to get preferential treatment but this list sort of says otherways as they seem to have targetted Popo during the tour
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    sherer wrote:

    We've heard before how JBs teams were meant to get preferential treatment but this list sort of says otherways as they seem to have targetted Popo during the tour

    The list says they should've targetted him. The report into what happened at the Tour indicated people with 10's weren't tested.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • Cumulonimbus
    Cumulonimbus Posts: 1,730
    squired wrote:
    Some of the comments that have come out in the last few days have helped to clarify things a little.

    So, if a rider has improved dramatically he will get a higher score. I guess BW could have seen his score increase as a result of his 4th in the Tour the previous year, for example.

    Not sure about this. Chris Horner had a fantastic start to 2010 at the age of 39. Surely he would have been higher than a 0? Maybe his values during this time were not remarkable so a rise had dropped down but i still find it surprising that if a change in performance matters so much that he could have been a 0.

    Also, Carlos Barredo was a 10, but comments today suggest he's not been tested since 2 October 2010. Can one assume that they increased his testing last year and decided that he wasn't up to anything?

    I guess that what it has me wondering is whether the scores are extremely fluid. So, for example, a rider could go from a 0 to a 10 very quickly. They then carry out more extensive testing on him and a few months later his score could be low again. So, on that bases a "score" snapshot taken through the season could vary greatly.

    Just remembered something Pellizotti said when he was announced to have failed the bio--passport last May. He claimed he had not been tested since the previous August.

    http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/4640/ ... nt=Twitter

    I dont know if confirmation or an explanation was ever given for this. Maybe they had decided he had failed and decided to focus their attention elsewhere - or maybe they wanted him to think he wasnt being targetted and so people around him would continue as normal and could also be caught.

    FWIW, it seems as if the UCI decided the previous December that Pellizotti had failed the bio-passport although it wasnt until March that he was asked for an explanation.

    http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... omaly.html

    It's all a bit of a guessing game for us really. As far as i know the UCI has announced bio-passport failures in June 2009 and May 2010, ie once a year. I think they may have been waiting to see what happened in the Pellizotti appeal at CAS before deciding who they were going to open proceedings against this year.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Here's a letter from Patrick

    http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDe ... LangId%3D1
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • dougzz
    dougzz Posts: 1,833
    "But let us also examine the core issue. Why draw up a list such as this? What does it mean to be included on the list? How should the information that the list contains be interpreted?

    It is essential to understand that this is not a list that indicates degrees of suspicion of doping, but a working document that establishes an order of priority for carrying out doping tests."

    Quite so, so how about another letter explaining why the high values were not tested.
  • Cumulonimbus
    Cumulonimbus Posts: 1,730
    What i dont get is how Cancellara ends up as a 0 if they take into account

    results, ranking, race programme, ambition, objectives

    Surely he was favourite for the prologue, likely to hold the yellow jersey for a few days, do well on the Roubaix stage, do work for the Schlecks and try to win the final time trial. Surely this merits more than a 0? Maybe they assumed he would win the prologue and therefore be tested anyway? Not saying Cancellara dopes but just dont understand how the system works.
  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    iainf72 wrote:
    Here's a letter from Patrick

    http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDe ... LangId%3D1
    That's a superb sidestep, a deft move to talk about the importance of testing. I'm sure all riders agree with that and they know the UCI has intel on who to test.

    But no mention of the slapdash way the scores for the entire bunch end up ranked in a newspaper. This should be coded and done by individuals rather than a collective cribsheet from A-Z. Who ever managed the list and the data here should be in hot water, if not the job centre. It's like a bank having a piece of paper with every client and their current balance floating around or a handy alphabetical list of MI5 surveillance targets being left in a pub.
  • rdt
    rdt Posts: 869
    Good, long article here discussing the UCI's "suspicion" scores that L'Equipe leaked:-

    http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/05 ... score.html

    "The rating concept is an issue that has people asking some very pertinent questions: "How is the score calculated? What are the UCI doing with the scores? How can a rider be suspicious and not simply positive or negative? Are they targeting testing based on the ratings? Is this fair?".

    For the answers to these questions, let's go back to go forward.

    ..."
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Thomas comments

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cycling/13631345.stm?
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.

Categories