Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped

blazing_saddles

ThomThom wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

So Ashenden has called LAs blood normal when he did not know whose it was then said + once knew name of bb? Fahey already says LA wont admit USADA's 2009-10 allegation

The giro blood. Not the Tour De France.

Not even the Giro, it appears:

First, the UCI hit out with this:

Enrico Carpani, the UCI’s communications director. “First of all, I would like to point out that Dr. Ashenden’s claims that the UCI never submitted Lance Armstrong’s profile is not only untrue, but it shows that he would appear to have little knowledge or an astonishingly inaccurate knowledge of how the whole system works.”

Then, drop the ball, with this:

In an e-mail to VeloNews, Carpani wrote: Having said that, the UCI wishes to confirm that on May 4, 2009 Dr. Ashenden and two other experts on the Biological Passport panel received the profiles of eight riders. These profiles were selected randomly and included that of Lance Armstrong.

“This profile was based on nine results of analyses carried out in 2008 (Oct. 16, Nov. 26, Dec. 3, Dec. 11 and Dec. 18) and 2009 (Jan. 16, Feb. 4, Feb. 13, March 11)."

So, as outlined in that video link, Armstrong produced blood values in the normal range until post Giro, but immediately after, things went a bit ET.

dennisn

bockers wrote:

Lance has been quite quiet of late and that does not suit him. He wants attention and to be centre stage, hence using Oprah as his confessional stage.

How do you know that he used Oprah? Maybe she used him??? Here again I think you, and others, make the mistake of assuming that LA is a sort of evil, all powerful Wizard of Oz. Problem with that is that even Toto the dog knows that he's simply a man behind a curtain. Learn from Toto. :roll:

bompington

Argghhh, the mockers! I was just going to post that...

dennisn has been quite quiet of late and that does not suit him. He wants attention and to be centre stage, hence using BR as his confessional stage

dennisn

bompington wrote:

Argghhh, the mockers! I was just going to post that...

dennisn has been quite quiet of late and that does not suit him. He wants attention and to be centre stage, hence using BR as his confessional stage

Attention??? Sure who doesn't want and need attention??

I would ask a question though. Just what am I confessing to??? :? :?

TimB34

In the cyclingnews.com story : http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-rel ... ing-claims
The UCI are quoted:

“In their responses (in the case of Dr Ashenden, on May 5 2009), it is interesting to note that of the three experts, Dr Ashenden was the only one to have defined this profile as “normal” without making any other remarks, comments or reservations (of the eight profiles submitted, Dr Ashenden was the expert who most often used the definition “normal” with no further comment).”

The UCI appear to be saying that two out of three experts defined Armstrong's blood profile as something other than normal.

But they didn't take any subsequent action? I must be missing something.

micron

Yes, excellent point - if Ashenden was the only one who marked it 'normal' what the hell did the others say? As ever, the UCI can't resist shooting themselves in the foot with their own 'smoking gun'

bompington

Ashenden does appear a bit fond of the sound of his own voice - but to me at least, he has always come across as a) competent and b) honest. I'm not sure anyone believes the same of the UCI, so what is going on here?

Cumulonimbus

micron wrote:

Yes, excellent point - if Ashenden was the only one who marked it 'normal' what the hell did the others say? As ever, the UCI can't resist shooting themselves in the foot with their own 'smoking gun'

I think the tour de france suspicion list dealt with this?

As explained by the newspaper, only the scores of zero and one meant that the riders had a very clean record. Ratings from two to four were based on stable passports which nevertheless showed a rare abnormality at a precise time. From five upwards, the comments associated to the rider files started to become much more precise, "even affirmative" according to L'Equipe.

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

So, someone could flag something as being a bit suspicious and that could result in a 2, 3 or 4. The UCi have only taken action AFAIK where there is a lot of evidence of doping. Banning someone would not stand up legally if the only basis for the ban was that something was a bit dodgy, especially if one of their experts marked it as normal.

bipedal

Yet again, McQuaid picks a fight with someone cleverer than him with time on his hands... I'm no fan of Ashenden but he's tied them in knots!

What's worrying is this part of the process:
"When a profile is sent forward for examination, three members of the nine-member UCI biological passport panel are provided the data and asked to make an assessment. However the UCI – or, more recently, the Athlete Passport Management Unit in Lausanne – makes the initial decision about which passport profiles are sent to the experts.

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13926 ... z2KhCYcvCW"

Richmond Racer

and now we will have a situation where everyone thinks they know all about the bio passport, understand it and how it works....

mr_poll

TimB34 wrote:

In the cyclingnews.com story : http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-rel ... ing-claims
The UCI are quoted:

“In their responses (in the case of Dr Ashenden, on May 5 2009), it is interesting to note that of the three experts, Dr Ashenden was the only one to have defined this profile as “normal” without making any other remarks, comments or reservations (of the eight profiles submitted, Dr Ashenden was the expert who most often used the definition “normal” with no further comment).”

The UCI appear to be saying that two out of three experts defined Armstrong's blood profile as something other than normal.

But they didn't take any subsequent action? I must be missing something.

Re-read the quote - Ashenden was the only one to define the profile as normal without making any other remarks - nothing here to say they didn't pass the profile as normal too but made remarks. Admittedly it would be nice to know what those remarks were but the UCI are not saying that 2/3 experts defined LA's blood profile as something other than normal.

rob churchill

Richmond Racer wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

It seems at the Walsh / Kimmage rallys for the faithful last night, they said that Steve "Inner Chimp" Peters evaluated Armstrong as a psychopath when watching him on Oprah

Which is helpful.

Off to Rampton then....

Peters is a Consultant forensic psychiatrist, he does sports psychology as a sideline. Psychopaths are actually much more his field than cyclists.

rob churchill

Richmond Racer wrote:

and now we will have a situation where everyone thinks they know all about the bio passport, understand it and how it works....

Not sure about that. Have a look at Mad_Malx's link in the Frank Schleck thread. I know enough to be able to get the gist of it, but I sure as hell don't have the expertise to put it into practice. You'd need a doctor for that, but then a doctor would have no problem accessing this kind of info.

thomthom

Richmond Racer wrote:

and now we will have a situation where everyone thinks they know all about the bio passport, understand it and how it works....

But, Rich, didn't you have an opinion about it yourself just yesterday when the article was posted..?

Richmond Racer

ThomThom wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

and now we will have a situation where everyone thinks they know all about the bio passport, understand it and how it works....

But, Rich, didn't you have an opinion about it yourself just yesterday when the article was posted..?

Nope. Opinion on Ashenden himself.

Cumulonimbus

Appears that Armstrong's data from the tour in 2009 or 2010 for that matter was not passed to anyone for analysis. The program which decides if a sample warrants further examination did not flag it up. Raises the question of why it wasnt flagged when other people have said they believe it shows he was doping. Also, assuming the profile was suspicious, it raises the question of whether anyone else has slipped through the system.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13931 ... -2009.aspx

Crankbrother

iainf72 wrote:

It seems at the Walsh / Kimmage rallys for the faithful last night, they said that Steve "Inner Chimp" Peters evaluated Armstrong as a psychopath when watching him on Oprah

Which is helpful.

Well, going by the actual definition a stressed mother driving at 25mph in a 20 zone in order to get her kids to school on time is also a psychopath ...

Or, for example, anyone using this site http://www.cyclingtorrents.nl/login.php?returnto=%2F

At least Steve Peters get's a new conservatory ...

ddraver

Starting to think.this bio-passport is such an inexact science it make geology look about as certain as astrophysics! Something else that you to be so blatently doping that you may as well have an epo syringe hanging out of your arm

iainf72

Cumulonimbus wrote:

Appears that Armstrong's data from the tour in 2009 or 2010 for that matter was not passed to anyone for analysis. The program which decides if a sample warrants further examination did not flag it up. Raises the question of why it wasnt flagged when other people have said they believe it shows he was doping. Also, assuming the profile was suspicious, it raises the question of whether anyone else has slipped through the system.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13931 ... -2009.aspx

Surely if Ashenden is going to bleat on about things, he should be bleating on about the statistical analysis software and why it didn't work. I'd hate to think it was because he had something to do with defining the parameters.

Richmond Racer

ddraver wrote:

Starting to think.this bio-passport is such an inexact science it make geology look about as certain as astrophysics! Something else that you to be so blatently doping that you may as well have an epo syringe hanging out of your arm

Its a bummer, chap. Really, all dopers should be made to wear badges or summat

In Ashenden's own words: '“It won’t catch every single rider who had doped. A large part of this is due to the margins of tolerance we must allow to ensure that riders are not wrongly accused of doping – which means that there are riders who we suspect are doping after we’ve reviewed their profile, but these riders are not sanctioned via the Passport because we must allow a large margin of tolerance. They are however closely targeted, which increases the likelihood that they will be caught in the future.”

Cumulonimbus

iainf72 wrote:

Cumulonimbus wrote:

Appears that Armstrong's data from the tour in 2009 or 2010 for that matter was not passed to anyone for analysis. The program which decides if a sample warrants further examination did not flag it up. Raises the question of why it wasnt flagged when other people have said they believe it shows he was doping. Also, assuming the profile was suspicious, it raises the question of whether anyone else has slipped through the system.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13931 ... -2009.aspx

Surely if Ashenden is going to bleat on about things, he should be bleating on about the statistical analysis software and why it didn't work. I'd hate to think it was because he had something to do with defining the parameters.

Yes, it will be interesting to see why it apparently didnt work. If it is anything to do with him then surely the UCI will say something about that soon.

blazing_saddles

iainf72 wrote:

Cumulonimbus wrote:

Appears that Armstrong's data from the tour in 2009 or 2010 for that matter was not passed to anyone for analysis. The program which decides if a sample warrants further examination did not flag it up. Raises the question of why it wasnt flagged when other people have said they believe it shows he was doping. Also, assuming the profile was suspicious, it raises the question of whether anyone else has slipped through the system.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13931 ... -2009.aspx

Surely if Ashenden is going to bleat on about things, he should be bleating on about the statistical analysis software and why it didn't work. I'd hate to think it was because he had something to do with defining the parameters.

While it's all about parameters, same as it every was, it does seem like it boils down to naff software.
It seems that as long as a rider doesn't post a figure outside a given range, the software won't pick it up.
Which is pretty useless when it comes to GT's, where the name of the game is maintaining levels
elevated prior to the big race.

So, the bio passport is only as good as the programme, which isn't much good at all.

ddraver

Richmond Racer wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Starting to think.this bio-passport is such an inexact science it make geology look about as certain as astrophysics! Something else that you to be so blatently doping that you may as well have an epo syringe hanging out of your arm

Its a bummer, chap. Really, all dopers should be made to wear badges or summat

In Ashenden's own words: '“It won’t catch every single rider who had doped. A large part of this is due to the margins of tolerance we must allow to ensure that riders are not wrongly accused of doping – which means that there are riders who we suspect are doping after we’ve reviewed their profile, but these riders are not sanctioned via the Passport because we must allow a large margin of tolerance. They are however closely targeted, which increases the likelihood that they will be caught in the future.”

But "testing" also does nt catch cheats!

This stuff is just making me depressed now, even two dull as dishwater rugby matches at the weekend were vastly preferable!

Richmond Racer

No cheating in rugger is there, eh? Never mind PEDs or 'roids, Bloodgate anyone?

Come on chap, you know you love cycling.

Richmond Racer

I'd also like to apologise, just realised over-use of winking emoticons in last few posts. Soz.

ddraver

A hell of a lot less bullsh1t about it though, Bloodgate people were banned swiftly and harshly - Teams are also starting to realise that having behemoths at 12 and 13 does not result in a lot of tries, just a lot of penalties for holding on when they get isolated...

wallace_and_gromit

ddraver wrote:

But "testing" also does nt catch cheats!

Not sure if this is an ironic comment or not, but a distinction needs to be drawn between in-competition and out of competition testing.

Under in-competition testing, it's easy to avoid positive tests, as the doctors know when the events are, and how long their riders remain "glowing" (or whatever the term is!) for a given dose. Thus they stop or reduce doses at a specific point prior to competing.

The only way to guarantee not failing out of competition tests is to not take the test, assuming that ooc testing is initiated at random. Thus, targeted ooc testing on those with suspicious passport readings is the way to go. One part of the problem is that there isn't enough ooc testing undertaken. The other part of the problem is that without ooc testing being the responsibility of an independent body, there's a massive incentive for the UCI to not undertake ooc testing (or to tip riders off that they're about to be tested) as it will ask questions to which they don't want the answer being made public!

ddraver

fully ironic...

Have festina girls tactics removed the significance of the winking smiley now?

Macaloon

Winking: :arrow: Please don't make me get Sarah P out of Room 101.
Rugby: Ireland v England - Boat race without the tension of possible sinking.

wallace_and_gromit

ddraver wrote:

fully ironic...

Have festina girls tactics removed the significance of the winking smiley now?

That's the problem with Festinagirl. She's part of the the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful conspiracy to subvert the traditional meaning of smilies in the history of the internet.

I thought it might be a double-bluff on your behalf!