Ashenden leaves passport

squired

I think this shows how frustrating it must be for those working on the biological passport. People are generating values that clearly indicate something is going on. However, despite being convinced that they are doping, there isn't enough to charge them. All you can do is keep testing them and hope they eventually make a mistake.

An interesting note. Some people may or may not remember the index of suspicion from prior to the 2010 Tour de France that was leaked in 2011. In the index Contador had a 5.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/8426/ ... rance.aspx

Abdoujaparov

squired wrote:

An interesting note. Some people may or may not remember the index of suspicion from prior to the 2010 Tour de France that was leaked in 2011. In the index Contador had a 5.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/8426/ ... rance.aspx

Hmm, that is interesting. There were stacks of riders above five and the list must have been based largely on haemoglobin levels if that is indeed the prefered measure nowadays.

Thought that was a great article (despite Ashenden's self-importance being a touch annoying). If what he says is true, surely the evidence is strong enough for another trial.

ratsbeyfus

This thread is beginning to read like a witch hunt... here's a bit of balance:

[deleted by mod due to malware from bikereviews . com. Please DO NOT embed images from this site]

Mmmmmmmmmmmmm... shoes.

Bakunin

Abdoujaparov wrote:

squired wrote:

Thought that was a great article (despite Ashenden's self-importance being a touch annoying). If what he says is true, surely the evidence is strong enough for another trial.

Is this true?

The CAS ruling was based on an appeal by WADA/UCI to the initial Spanish Fed's ruling on the positive.

Tainted Supplements, super-charged steak, and transfusions are just possible explanations for the presence of clenbuterol. Those theories are based on some evidence -- but the issue is clen.

How can you open a new case based on the evidence to prove a theory for the presence of clen?

andrewjoseph

Bakunin wrote:

... How can you open a new case based on the evidence to prove a theory for the presence of clen?

I dunno, but seeing as they have evidence to suggest doping, they should be asking the spanish fed to investigate those aspects.

No_Ta_Doctor

andrewjoseph wrote:

Bakunin wrote:

... How can you open a new case based on the evidence to prove a theory for the presence of clen?

I dunno, but seeing as they have evidence to suggest doping, they should be asking the spanish fed to investigate those aspects.

There's a huge gap between evidence that is consistent with doping (and can therefore be used to back up the claim that the clen could have arrived that way) and evidence that is enough to sanction a rider though. The sports scientists site had a good article on how they set the probabilities in order to ensure the blood passport didn't deliver false positives. They had to be quite conservative.

sherer

I still don't buy all this he road for the Hog and all that. If he was that good then surely AC would still do the same thing the year after as well.

I still wonder if this hadn't been leaked the press would we even know any of this or would the UCI have covered this up. That and all the claims by Landis etc are what I want to see looked into

Abdoujaparov

Bakunin wrote:

Abdoujaparov wrote:

squired wrote:

Thought that was a great article (despite Ashenden's self-importance being a touch annoying). If what he says is true, surely the evidence is strong enough for another trial.

Is this true?

The CAS ruling was based on an appeal by WADA/UCI to the initial Spanish Fed's ruling on the positive.

Tainted Supplements, super-charged steak, and transfusions are just possible explanations for the presence of clenbuterol. Those theories are based on some evidence -- but the issue is clen.

How can you open a new case based on the evidence to prove a theory for the presence of clen?

If the evidence is there then bring a case - why does it matter if it has been used before?

The process clearly stinks. For example, how crap is it that Ashenden couldn't give evidence on the lack of plasticizers in typical plasma transfusions?! That's the legal process getting in the way of the truth instead of finding it. The world's gone mad.

RichN95.

Abdoujaparov wrote:

The process clearly stinks. For example, how crap is it that Ashenden couldn't give evidence on the lack of plasticizers in typical plasma transfusions?! That's the legal process getting in the way of the truth instead of finding it. The world's gone mad.

The process doesn't stink. It's the same as other just legal processes based on the idea of innocent until proven guilty. People's livelihoods are at stake. You need to be certain. For example, the plasticizer test is not fully tested and ratified, so the evidence is inadmissable. Surely it is better to let some guilty men go free than to 'hang' one innocent man. The idea of 'eliminating' anyone who rouses suspicion rather than those of proven guilt is the way of a totalitarian regime.

Ashenden knows his stuff and is sincere. He's a loss to cycling. But he also likes an interview, a bit of a gossip and his profile, and I dare say may get a few speaking engagements out of it. I have no problem with that, but some of what he says may be seen as detremental to the doping cause. Most organisations have a press office which controls what their employees and associates say to the press. I, for one, can't talk unilaterally to the media about patents (not that I have anything to say) - this is not because of cover ups or corruption, it's so there's a clear unified voice presented to the public. Now, the APMU's contract, as reported, seems to harsh, but ultimately this seems like Ashenden overeacting to potentially having his profile eroded.

Appendix: Other thoughts:

- Ashenden's interviews give me the same feeling that Wikileaks does. It's interesting, there's some good gossip and appeals a naive idea of openness, but I can't help feeling that this will hinder people trying to protect the innocent

- Why is it that when the real police discuss confidential matters with the press it's a big scandal (Leveson etc), yet when the doping police are prevented from discussing confidential matters with the press it's a corrupt cover-up?

- Note to the conspiracy theorists. Ashenden worked quite happily with UCI for many years and, while highlighting some shortcomings, was generally positive about them.

- That wasn't all in response to you Abdou. You just provided a jumping off point.

Bakunin

As interesting as the interview is -- the case is about clen, not AC's passport.

It would be fun to know whether Ashenden was arguing internally within the UCI that AC's passport was out of whack.

The Spanish fed wouldn't be policing his passport, only acting on the positive.

RIch, given what you said about process, do you think he (Ashenden) is out of line for commenting on AC's passport to the extent that he is? The UCI didn't move on it -- why is Ashenden talking about it? Should he talk about it?

richard wants a baum

I think Ashenden was fine to talk about the case and everything he discussed was in relation to the evidence he gave which is already in the public domain. If he came out and discussed these things when there was no charges being laid then i think it would be out of order.

Abdoujaparov

RichN95 wrote:

Abdoujaparov wrote:

The process clearly stinks. For example, how crap is it that Ashenden couldn't give evidence on the lack of plasticizers in typical plasma transfusions?! That's the legal process getting in the way of the truth instead of finding it. The world's gone mad.

For example, the plasticizer test is not fully tested and ratified, so the evidence is inadmissable.

Doesn't matter if a plasticizer test was ratified or not - all Ashenden had to say is that you wouldn't expect plasticizers to be in a plasma transfusion. This was hugely relevant to a key part of Contador's defence and needed to be said.

The legal process has to be very carefully controlled and I agree that its better for some guilty people to go free than one innocent person go down, but when Contador's expert legal team who had months in which to research and prepare, trot out such complete drivel, drivel that turns the case in their favour cos nothing can be done in response, then it does seem that something is wrong.

Ashenden's other comments about the legal process reflect that too - all seems pretty amateurish.

RichN95.

Bakunin wrote:

RIch, given what you said about process, do you think he (Ashenden) is out of line for commenting on AC's passport to the extent that he is? The UCI didn't move on it -- why is Ashenden talking about it? Should he talk about it?

I do think he's out of line. Either prosecute or don't prosecute, but don't conduct your own individual trial by media if you don't get your way.

('You' being Ashenden, not actually you)

No_Ta_Doctor

RichN95 wrote:

Bakunin wrote:

RIch, given what you said about process, do you think he (Ashenden) is out of line for commenting on AC's passport to the extent that he is? The UCI didn't move on it -- why is Ashenden talking about it? Should he talk about it?

I do think he's out of line. Either prosecute or don't prosecute, but don't conduct your own individual trial by media if you don't get your way.

('You' being Ashenden, not actually you)

I still think you're maybe missing the point a bit.

I agree entirely with abdou. The CAS ruling was all about how clen got into his body. They found quite specifically that it was very unlikely that it got there via a transfusion. They did that based on a lack of understanding of blood storage, having prevented Ashenden giving some basic and simple evidence based on current and recommended practice in medicine. Their ruling was fundamentally flawed because of it.

This isn't about introducing the plasticizers test to catch dopers. This isn't about proving Contador used transfusions.

The CAS ruling left a lot of confusion, and to many smacked of a "bodge job". If in doubt blame it on a supplement.

It also left WADA and the blood passport looking a bit daft. I think it's entirely reasonable for Ashenden to set the record straight. The only new evidence he presents in that interview is to describe common practice in medicine. That's knowledge the general public, and apparently CAS, weren't aware of, but it's hardly like he revealed secret new tests or a mass of blood data that wasn't available to CAS.

mfin

Like its been said, firstly, its 'lawyers fighting lawyers' and secondly the fight was Clen vs Clen Flavoured Steak.

Failure to establish any conviction or in-depth debate in CAS about Transfusion in a case where that would never be an outcome is not failure.

What does seem to be a failure, is how transfusion can be deemed 'extremely unlikely', which is great for AC's image, when 'extremely unlikely' is hardly the right phrase when simple transfusion methods were stopped from being explained. You could say 'madness', but of course, its just AC's lawyers doing their job, stopping routes of discussion/evidence as off-topic, which they would, as their sole prerogative is to get their man off scot-free... but the failure is that the 'extremely unlikely' is an unfounded vindication of Contador regarding blood transfusions. Its not. Never was.

shinyhelmut

Where's frenchfighter? What this discussion really needs is some pictures.