Why is Menchov a 9 on suspicion list?

donrhummy
donrhummy Posts: 2,329
edited May 2011 in Pro race
I saw the UCI's list had him at a 9. They say:
From six to ten, the circumstantial evidence of possible doping was "overwhelming".
What's the overwhelming evidence on him? I haven't heard of anything.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ucis-su ... -de-france

BTW, Contador's only a 5.

Comments

  • cougie
    cougie Posts: 22,512
    It's the blood tests isn't it ? Something to do with erratic readings.
  • Buckled_Rims
    Buckled_Rims Posts: 1,648
    This is an internal documentation between the UCI and WADA. Like most internal documentation we don't have the full raison d'etre nor are we likely too either. You are seeing one document from probably loads of other related items. If you were to see them in the full context it would probably make much more sense.
    CAAD9
    Kona Jake the Snake
    Merlin Malt 4
  • shinyhelmut
    shinyhelmut Posts: 1,364
    We don't know why he's a nine, we don't know what being a 9 means, but is anyone really surprised?
  • inkyfingers
    inkyfingers Posts: 4,400
    The only surprise to me is that there aren't less guys scoring a 9 or 10!
    "I have a lovely photo of a Camargue horse but will not post it now" (Frenchfighter - July 2013)
  • saintdracula
    saintdracula Posts: 232
    Geraint Thomas!
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    'Overwhelming' circumstantial evidence of possible doping
    What is that supposed to mean? As a phrase, it's utter nonsense.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • GroupOfOne MkII
    GroupOfOne MkII Posts: 1,289
    Does it mean he's a frequent visitor to Vienna. Menchov was one of the Rabos mentioned as having been going to that Viennese clinic a couple of years ago.
  • samiam
    samiam Posts: 227
    RichN95 wrote:
    'Overwhelming' circumstantial evidence of possible doping
    What is that supposed to mean? As a phrase, it's utter nonsense.

    It means he has cheated before, they know that he cheated but they simply can't outright prove it. :)
  • pottssteve
    pottssteve Posts: 4,069
    Millar gets a four! :)
    Head Hands Heart Lungs Legs
  • Buckled_Rims
    Buckled_Rims Posts: 1,648
    saintdracula wrote:
    Geraint Thomas!

    Again we don't know how the list is formulated to include his medical problem. I'm not a doctor so I don't know what drugs Thomas needs for his missing spleen, so that might account for his high score.
    CAAD9
    Kona Jake the Snake
    Merlin Malt 4
  • Richrd2205
    Richrd2205 Posts: 1,267
    There's a whole thread devoted to this subject. Richn95 & Iainf72 wrote some fairly pertinent things in there. For my part, I wrote:
    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...
    So to answer your question:
    -No-one outwith the relevant organisations actually knows;
    -Speculation is pointless without more knowledge....
  • B3rnieMac
    B3rnieMac Posts: 384
    surprised at cuddles' 4, thought he was cleaner than clean. especially if mr battery bike gets a 0....
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    samiam wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    'Overwhelming' circumstantial evidence of possible doping
    What is that supposed to mean? As a phrase, it's utter nonsense.

    It means he has cheated before, they know that he cheated but they simply can't outright prove it. :)

    But it doesn't really. If you actually study that statement, it basically says "we're really sure something happened, and there's a chance that it's something bad". It's BS.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • chrisbonnie
    chrisbonnie Posts: 55
    that list is absolutely ridiculous

    Geraint Thomas is rated at 6, while Contador, is only a 5

    you really have to wonder how thick the UCI actually are
  • mr_poll
    mr_poll Posts: 1,547
    chrisbonnie wrote:
    that list is absolutely ridiculous

    Geraint Thomas is rated at 6, while Contador, is only a 5

    you really have to wonder how thick the UCI actually are

    Apparently the UCI have said that the list composes a number of factors - including a dramatic improvement in results from previous years. Therefore G will score highly using these criteria especially after all his days in white during the TdF.
  • sherer
    sherer Posts: 2,460
    GroupOfOne MkII wrote:
    Does it mean he's a frequent visitor to Vienna. Menchov was one of the Rabos mentioned as having been going to that Viennese clinic a couple of years ago.

    yes he was linked to this a few years ago, not sure if anyone ever got banned over it though.

    Based on that alone I would have him high on the list, assume that is what the UCi thought too
  • shinyhelmut
    shinyhelmut Posts: 1,364
    Speculation is all a little pointless really until we find out exactlywhat the scores are based on. Are they purely on bio passport? Do they include intelligence (Vienna visits)? Speculation (rider x has improved a lot therefore he's under suspicion)? Or some combination of all those.

    What is worrying though is that having been given this data the UCI chose not to test several of the high scoring riders at all in last year's tour.
  • ozzzyosborn206
    ozzzyosborn206 Posts: 1,340
    ShinyHelmut wrote:
    Speculation is all a little pointless really until we find out exactlywhat the scores are based on. Are they purely on bio passport? Do they include intelligence (Vienna visits)? Speculation (rider x has improved a lot therefore he's under suspicion)? Or some combination of all those.

    What is worrying though is that having been given this data the UCI chose not to test several of the high scoring riders at all in last year's tour.

    how do you know who got tested during the tour?
  • dougzz
    dougzz Posts: 1,833
    ozzzyosborn206 wrote:
    ShinyHelmut wrote:
    Speculation is all a little pointless really until we find out exactlywhat the scores are based on. Are they purely on bio passport? Do they include intelligence (Vienna visits)? Speculation (rider x has improved a lot therefore he's under suspicion)? Or some combination of all those.

    What is worrying though is that having been given this data the UCI chose not to test several of the high scoring riders at all in last year's tour.

    how do you know who got tested during the tour?

    Check the link in this post
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    Fuentes Frank and Junior Schleck combined total score equal "Bad" Bradder's

    So, Chris Horner won the Tour, then?

    I posted this a while back.
    Page 19 of WADA's report on the testing, or rather lack of, for certain riders scoring 8-10.
    http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World ... 010_EN.pdf
  • Cumulonimbus
    Cumulonimbus Posts: 1,730
    edited May 2011
    chrisbonnie wrote:
    that list is absolutely ridiculous

    Geraint Thomas is rated at 6, while Contador, is only a 5

    you really have to wonder how thick the UCI actually are

    ? How are you so sure that Geraint Thomas is a clean rider?
    mr_poll wrote:

    Apparently the UCI have said that the list composes a number of factors - including a dramatic improvement in results from previous years. Therefore G will score highly using these criteria especially after all his days in white during the TdF.

    The list was compiled before the tour de france so his days in white during the tour could not be a factor.
  • P_Tucker
    P_Tucker Posts: 1,878
    Cumulonimbus wrote:
    mr_poll wrote:
    [that list is absolutely ridiculous

    Geraint Thomas is rated at 6, while Contador, is only a 5

    you really have to wonder how thick the UCI actually are

    ? How are you so sure that Geraint Thomas is a clean rider?

    He's British, obviously.
  • mr_poll
    mr_poll Posts: 1,547
    Cumulonimbus wrote:
    mr_poll wrote:
    [that list is absolutely ridiculous

    Geraint Thomas is rated at 6, while Contador, is only a 5

    you really have to wonder how thick the UCI actually are

    ? How are you so sure that Geraint Thomas is a clean rider?
    chrisbonnie wrote:

    Apparently the UCI have said that the list composes a number of factors - including a dramatic improvement in results from previous years. Therefore G will score highly using these criteria especially after all his days in white during the TdF.

    The list was compiled before the tour de france so his days in white during the tour could not be a factor.


    Firstly my quote has been mixed with someone else's - however you are right the list was drawn up for the TdF, apologies my error. However the sentiment is still the same G's early season performances will have marked him out on the improvement rationale - same with Wiggins his 2009 TdF will have marked him too.

    I am in no way saying these people did or didn't dope - just adding info to the debate.
  • Cumulonimbus
    Cumulonimbus Posts: 1,730
    mr_poll wrote:
    Cumulonimbus wrote:
    mr_poll wrote:
    [that list is absolutely ridiculous

    Geraint Thomas is rated at 6, while Contador, is only a 5

    you really have to wonder how thick the UCI actually are

    ? How are you so sure that Geraint Thomas is a clean rider?
    chrisbonnie wrote:

    Apparently the UCI have said that the list composes a number of factors - including a dramatic improvement in results from previous years. Therefore G will score highly using these criteria especially after all his days in white during the TdF.

    The list was compiled before the tour de france so his days in white during the tour could not be a factor.


    Firstly my quote has been mixed with someone else's - however you are right the list was drawn up for the TdF, apologies my error. However the sentiment is still the same G's early season performances will have marked him out on the improvement rationale - same with Wiggins his 2009 TdF will have marked him too.

    I am in no way saying these people did or didn't dope - just adding info to the debate.

    Oops, sorry about that, one day will learn how to quote people! will go back and edit my post.

    G's early season performances werent that impressive, the Dauphine beforehand coupled with his win in the british championship might have triggered something. Other guys who did better in the Dauphine than some might have thought would be VDB, Brajkovic and Vogondy who are all four or above. Probably some counter examples though. As far as the previous year's tour goes then Le Mevel should have been higher than a 0 i would have thought. Horner had a great start to the season and was a 0. At the end of the day its all largely guesswork on our part as to what has caused someone to be a specific number. Hopefully the coming few weeks will provide more details.
  • sherer
    sherer Posts: 2,460
    still can't understand how a Horner at 39 having one of his best seasons didn't raise a few suspicions to be higher than a 0. Kind of makes a mokery of all the other 0s they have in there
  • AndyRubio
    AndyRubio Posts: 880
    chrisbonnie wrote:
    that list is absolutely ridiculous

    Geraint Thomas is rated at 6, while Contador, is only a 5

    you really have to wonder how thick the UCI actually are
    Yeah cos Brits never cheat huh.
    My hour on the plinth

Categories