Ashenden leaves passport

iainf72

Oo-er, trouble at the mill

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report- ... port-panel

Yellow Peril

Another nail in the coffin for the UCI's credibility. This sport will never get cleaned up as long as the UCI continue to sweep the truth under the carpet.

He's better off out of it.

TMR

We either need a credible alternative to the UCI, or for a complete change in UCI management. I think the latter would be less harmful to cycling.

symo

Or a new organisation altogether, which bases itself somewhere not famed for lack of transparent accounting or corruption.

rick_chasey

I think we should let FF decide who gets tested and who doesn't.

RichN95.

This isn't really the UCI's fault. The passport has been outsourced to APMU, a WADA funded group which run the passport for several sports. They are the ones who have insisted on confidentiality, not the UCI.

TMR

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think we should let FF decide who gets tested and who doesn't.

LMAO - I'm staying out of this one

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think we should let FF decide who gets tested and who doesn't.

No, it's simple - we just test the bad guys, but not the good guys. We'll know who the good guys are because they'll be the ones who aren't failing any tests.

shinyhelmut

bompington wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think we should let FF decide who gets tested and who doesn't.

No, it's simple - we just test the bad guys, but not the good guys. We'll know who the good guys are because they'll be the ones who aren't failing any tests.

Do you work for the UCI?

mfin

I know it will be seen by some as dig-up, but just in case anyone never read it who would find it informative, this was an interesting Ashenden interview (of course, one he is known for amongst those of us who read a lot on this) http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Doobz

mfin wrote:

I know it will be seen by some as dig-up, but just in case anyone never read it who would find it informative, this was an interesting Ashenden interview (of course, one he is known for amongst those of us who read a lot on this) http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

This just surfaced.. new shiny 2012 interview on the bertie case and other stuffs

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden

BikingBernie

RichN95 wrote:

This isn't really the UCI's fault. The passport has been outsourced to APMU, a WADA funded group which run the passport for several sports. They are the ones who have insisted on confidentiality, not the UCI.

I am sure that the UCI were very specific about how they wanted the scheme to be run when they were looking for someone to take over the testing...

BikingBernie

P.s. It would appear that Ashenden does not think that continuing to work for WADA means that he is barred from passing comment on doping related issues, so it seems that it cannot be WADA that wants to keep everything behind closed doors.

I will not be an expert on Lausanne's Athlete Passport Management Unit (APMU). I do intend however to remain a member of WADA's Expert Panel.

Ashenden also says:

Dan Eichner at the Salt Lake City lab has also convened their own APMU with a truly formidable panel of experts, and I've accepted their offer to participate on that panel.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ashende ... port-panel

Given this, the eight-year gagging order imposed by the panel that the UCI has teamed up with is very specific to the Swiss outfit, which is based only just up the road from the UCI headquarters... a very 'cozy' relationship all round it seems.

RichN95.

If there was some sort of UCI lead conspiracy, you would have thought that Ashenden, with his desire for free speech, would mention it. Yet he puts no blame on them the UCI, doesn't even mention them in his explanation. How can that be? Maybe it slipped his mind, or he's self censoring. Or maybe he's not as well informed as internet forum people.

iainf72

RichN95 wrote:

If there was some sort of UCI lead conspiracy, you would have thought that Ashenden, with his desire for free speech, would mention it. Yet he puts no blame on them the UCI, doesn't even mention them in his explanation. How can that be? Maybe it slipped his mind, or he's self censoring. Or maybe he's not as well informed as internet forum people.

He's clearly an enabler. You can tell because he never mentioned Armstrong once.

iainf72

Anyway, the Contador stuff is really interesting. Didn't realise he had an exception for high 'crit (alarm bells) and I wonder why he changed his system in 2010.

Ashenden's bit about why people dope was quite revealing too.

andyp

A very interesting read, especially on the subject of the WADA code and what Contador's case was about, i.e. just the clenbuterol positive.

Ashenden is quite clear in his view that there is enough evidence from Contador's biological passport data to convict him of blood doping from his 2010 Tour values.

No_Ta_Doctor

Excellent interview, shone a lot of light on exactly what the arguments were in Contador's CAS hearing.

dave_1

agree. This Ashenden interview shows Alberto should really be subject to action for a second doping offence of transfusion...should be 2014 before we are seeing him again in races!

RichN95.

That interview (the full version is at nyvelocity) is on one hand interesting, and on the other a very good illustration as to why APMU rightly want some confidentiality (even if they have been too draconian). He's made unilateral accusations against Contador, against which he has no opportunity to defend himself, then told him were he was going wrong (he can correct that, maybe) and he's mentioned what the weak points of the passport are and what riders should be doing to try and cheat it.

Generally, if you want to catch an offender in any walk of life, it's best not to tell them how you're going to do it. The man means well, but he does love an interview and that's probably the real issue here.

sherer

a very strange interview with Ashenden as he claims Contador has higher than normal values from previous tours but we all know he wasn't the usual attacking Contador we have seen before.

Not sure if the 2006 values would be a good baseline though. He had his operation post then didn't he and was a lot younger and not at the level he is now and the past few years.

Bakunin

iainf72 wrote:

Anyway, the Contador stuff is really interesting. Didn't realise he had an exception for high 'crit (alarm bells) and I wonder why he changed his system in 2010.

Ashenden's bit about why people dope was quite revealing too.

Didn't Ricco have an exception for a high 'crit as well?

Birds of a feather...

mfin

Doobz wrote:

mfin wrote:

I know it will be seen by some as dig-up, but just in case anyone never read it who would find it informative, this was an interesting Ashenden interview (of course, one he is known for amongst those of us who read a lot on this) http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

This just surfaced.. new shiny 2012 interview on the bertie case and other stuffs

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden

Thanks for that. I'd saved reading that since you posted it so I had a bit of time to read it thoroughly and take it all in. A very informative interview, and of course interesting too the references to the 'spin' put on the result of the hearing by AC and is PR team which is at odds with the facts one minute and extremely selective at others.

dave_1

In Contador's defence you could ask why was he so good at managing his blood 2007-2009 and then suspect in 2010?? Also, why was he so good when with not suspect blood and then in poorer race form in 2010 TDF when evident he has transfusion. Also, the plasticzer test-not yet validated and plasticizer can enter bloodstream by other means.

Alberto should be brought back to a panel to explain his blood results and face sanction if he can't explain without credible evidence

Steve2020

Richn95: Why can Contador not defend himself against those accusations? He could release all the data with his own explanation. He could sue Ashenden for libel if what he says is wrong. However I imagine hewill refuse to answer any questions abot it.

I think Ashenden's explanation for giving interviews is convincing. He has disclosed nothing that is not already in the public domain. He has shed light on a process which Contador continues to cloud with misinformation.

dave_1

Steve2020 wrote:

Richn95: Why can Contador not defend himself against those accusations? He could release all the data with his own explanation. He could sue Ashenden for libel if what he says is wrong. However I imagine hewill refuse to answer any questions abot it.

I think Ashenden's explanation for giving interviews is convincing. He has disclosed nothing that is not already in the public domain. He has shed light on a process which Contador continues to cloud with misinformation.

I was unaware of Alberto C's suspect blood results. What I had thought was that plasticizer was the only evidence Ashenden and co had, aside from Clen, as proof of Alberto C perhaps transfusing blood but nyvelocity has now educated me..reported that Ashenden considers Contador's blood at 2010 TDF shows strong evidence of transfusion when compared to his previous profiles. There are now 3 pieces of evidence against Alberto. Alberto should not to be allowed back so soon into racing with this serious evidence to be looked into..a case should be opened against him for a separate offence

No_Ta_Doctor

RichN95 wrote:

That interview (the full version is at nyvelocity) is on one hand interesting, and on the other a very good illustration as to why APMU rightly want some confidentiality (even if they have been too draconian). He's made unilateral accusations against Contador, against which he has no opportunity to defend himself, then told him were he was going wrong (he can correct that, maybe) and he's mentioned what the weak points of the passport are and what riders should be doing to try and cheat it.

Generally, if you want to catch an offender in any walk of life, it's best not to tell them how you're going to do it. The man means well, but he does love an interview and that's probably the real issue here.

steve2020 wrote:

I think Ashenden's explanation for giving interviews is convincing. He has disclosed nothing that is not already in the public domain. He has shed light on a process which Contador continues to cloud with misinformation.

Totally agree with Steve here. The argument presented by Ashenden is only that which he presented to CAS, there's really very little new - other than that he was able to answer some of the questions that CAS wouldn't let him answer (e.g. different types of bags - the CAS report made it seem ridiculous that Contador might have used two different types of bag, Ashenden tells us that it's actually standard and recommended medical practice). He gives nothing away about future tests, nor about how to cheat the passport system - that's already common knowledge, he just explains what it is that cheats are already doing.

What we get is a clear and accurate layman's guide to the argument, pointing up the flaws in the hearing that we were fairly sure were there but maybe didn't have the best understanding of.

The culture of secrecy re the blood passport/doping in general is a problem. We know we cant tell the riders and the doctors everything but at the same time it opens the system up to allegations of cover-ups and conspiracies (I'm looking at Berni here....). We're left with blind faith that the system works, or a lack of it.

Even worse, if the secrecy clause is used to stifle criticism (remember Ashenden's criticism of the frequency of testing and the gaps in data for some riders) then we could quite easily be left with a blood passport that functions only as a PR plaster for the UCI. If it hinders open scientific debate of the sort that could produce new or better tests then that's even more problematic.

Yes, Ashenden is a little fond of the limelight, but essentially he's one of the good guys.

No_Ta_Doctor

Dave_1 wrote:

Steve2020 wrote:

Richn95: Why can Contador not defend himself against those accusations? He could release all the data with his own explanation. He could sue Ashenden for libel if what he says is wrong. However I imagine hewill refuse to answer any questions abot it.

I think Ashenden's explanation for giving interviews is convincing. He has disclosed nothing that is not already in the public domain. He has shed light on a process which Contador continues to cloud with misinformation.

I was unaware of Alberto C's suspect blood results. What I had thought was that plasticizer was the only evidence Ashenden and co had, aside from Clen, as proof of Alberto C perhaps transfusing blood but nyvelocity has now educated me..reported that Ashenden considers Contador's blood at 2010 TDF shows strong evidence of transfusion when compared to his previous profiles. There are now 3 pieces of evidence against Alberto. Alberto should not to be allowed back so soon into racing with this serious evidence to be looked into..a case should be opened against him for a separate offence

It was in the report. The validity of the data is contested, of course, by Alberto's lawyers. The data, according to Ashenden, is consistent with blood doping, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily strong enough on its own to support a charge. Ashenden does point out though that CAS's downgrading of that evidence on the basis that no charge had been brought on its basis is wrong - as bringing that charge would be procedurally difficult or impossible.

blazing_saddles

Dave_1 wrote:

In Contador's defence you could ask why was he so good at managing his blood 2007-2009 and then suspect in 2010?? Also, why was he so good when with not suspect blood and then in poorer race form in 2010 TDF when evident he has transfusion. Also, the plasticzer test-not yet validated and plasticizer can enter bloodstream by other means.

Be careful what you wish for, Dave. I think we all know the answer to that one.
Who was he riding for during 2007-2009, again? :roll:

Dave_1 wrote:

Steve2020 wrote:

Richn95: Why can Contador not defend himself against those accusations? He could release all the data with his own explanation. He could sue Ashenden for libel if what he says is wrong. However I imagine he will refuse to answer any questions abot it.

I think Ashenden's explanation for giving interviews is convincing. He has disclosed nothing that is not already in the public domain. He has shed light on a process which Contador continues to cloud with misinformation.

I was unaware of Alberto C's suspect blood results. What I had thought was that plasticizer was the only evidence Ashenden and co had, aside from Clen, as proof of Alberto C perhaps transfusing blood but nyvelocity has now educated me..reported that Ashenden considers Contador's blood at 2010 TDF shows strong evidence of transfusion when compared to his previous profiles. There are now 3 pieces of evidence against Alberto. Alberto should not to be allowed back so soon into racing with this serious evidence to be looked into..a case should be opened against him for a separate offence

The case has run it's full duration and has been closed. He's had his sanction.
I don't think a new case can be opened based upon just Asheden's theory of probability.
Hard to convict on a "gut" feeling.

There was a time Dave, when you only believed in sanctioning through a positive test and with confirmation of the "A" with "B" sample, only.

What changed?

dave_1

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

In Contador's defence you could ask why was he so good at managing his blood 2007-2009 and then suspect in 2010?? Also, why was he so good when with not suspect blood and then in poorer race form in 2010 TDF when evident he has transfusion. Also, the plasticzer test-not yet validated and plasticizer can enter bloodstream by other means.

Be careful what you wish for, Dave. I think we all know the answer to that one.
Who was he riding for 2007-2009, again? :roll:

Dave_1 wrote:

Steve2020 wrote:

Richn95: Why can Contador not defend himself against those accusations? He could release all the data with his own explanation. He could sue Ashenden for libel if what he says is wrong. However I imagine hewill refuse to answer any questions abot it.

I think Ashenden's explanation for giving interviews is convincing. He has disclosed nothing that is not already in the public domain. He has shed light on a process which Contador continues to cloud with misinformation.

I was unaware of Alberto C's suspect blood results. What I had thought was that plasticizer was the only evidence Ashenden and co had, aside from Clen, as proof of Alberto C perhaps transfusing blood but nyvelocity has now educated me..reported that Ashenden considers Contador's blood at 2010 TDF shows strong evidence of transfusion when compared to his previous profiles. There are now 3 pieces of evidence against Alberto. Alberto should not to be allowed back so soon into racing with this serious evidence to be looked into..a case should be opened against him for a separate offence

The case has run it's full duration and has been closed. He's had his sanction.
I don't think a new case can be opened based upon just Asheden's theory of probability.
Hard to convict on a "gut" feeling.

There was a time Dave, that you only believed in sanctioning through a positive test and with confirmation of the "A" with "B" sample, only.

What changed?

Blaze, yes ..who managed Contador pre-2010,..the hog.. so clearly he's missed the expertise if his profile of 2010 at Astana shows blood doping. Perhaps the French should investigate what happened in Astana between Monday and Wednesday of that week and explain who came and went as it looks very much like Bert had visitors or drove off the race some distance to get stuff put into him.

The bio passport's longitudinal analysis of a rider allows repeated tests of same persons blood so surely guarantees procedure/instruments used and parameters showed are sound and results repeatable..functions as an A and B counter analysis.

Just heard on BBC 24 that Alberto will not appeal again on the 2 year ban,.,he's realised he just dodged a bullet with what Ashenden has shown on nyvelocity..escaped a double sanction.

Given that Bert looks to have been blood doping and using clen..is there anything else? Hamilton's schedule show 5 types of doping over 2003. Wonder how many things Bert has actually used?

dave_1

No tA Doctor wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Steve2020 wrote:

Richn95: Why can Contador not defend himself against those accusations? He could release all the data with his own explanation. He could sue Ashenden for libel if what he says is wrong. However I imagine hewill refuse to answer any questions abot it.

I think Ashenden's explanation for giving interviews is convincing. He has disclosed nothing that is not already in the public domain. He has shed light on a process which Contador continues to cloud with misinformation.

I was unaware of Alberto C's suspect blood results. What I had thought was that plasticizer was the only evidence Ashenden and co had, aside from Clen, as proof of Alberto C perhaps transfusing blood but nyvelocity has now educated me..reported that Ashenden considers Contador's blood at 2010 TDF shows strong evidence of transfusion when compared to his previous profiles. There are now 3 pieces of evidence against Alberto. Alberto should not to be allowed back so soon into racing with this serious evidence to be looked into..a case should be opened against him for a separate offence

It was in the report. The validity of the data is contested, of course, by Alberto's lawyers. The data, according to Ashenden, is consistent with blood doping, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily strong enough on its own to support a charge. Ashenden does point out though that CAS's downgrading of that evidence on the basis that no charge had been brought on its basis is wrong - as bringing that charge would be procedurally difficult or impossible.

I think I didn't download a copy of the arbitration report..just went on news websites so sorry I missed that info. Am up to speed now. Bert's blood shows 3 different signs of manipulation rtaher than 2 I had originally thought.