Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped
Comments
-
The President of the International Cycling Union Pat McQuaid has been deceitful and deliberately misled the public and media about Lance Armstrong’s suspicious blood values during his comeback in 2009 and 2010.
During the last 24 hours the UCI have been forced to admit that they never sent Armstrong’s suspicious blood values to their expert panel for scrutiny. This admission flatly contradicts an interview Pat McQuaid gave to the website Velonews five days ago, in which he gave assurances that all of Armstrong’s blood values had been reviewed by the experts and found to be normal.
Today the UCI sought to dodge accountability by putting forward the limp excuse that Armstrong’s profile had not been shared with the experts because it was not flagged by the passport software. The UCI also sought to shift responsibility by claiming that the decision on which passports to share with experts were made by the Lausanne laboratory, not the UCI. However, Pat McQuaid has previously stated that the UCI do themselves also examine the raw data from passports (for example in Pat McQuaid’s Open Letter to cyclists on 17 May 2011). The UCI have also repeatedly claimed to target test their riders based on information gleaned directly from their blood profiles. Therefore, because the UCI inspects the raw data themselves, and because they use that information to conduct targeted testing, it is simply untenable to believe that the UCI did not examine the passport profile of the podium finishers from the 2009 Tour de France.
If the UCI failed to examine Armstrong’s raw data when he placed third at the 2009 Tour de France, the UCI were derelict in their obligations to faithfully run the passport on behalf of the riders, teams and race organisers who contribute 85% of the costs of running the passport program. Those stakeholders deserve to know that their program is being run by competent and diligent managers.
If on the other hand the UCI did examine Armstrong’s raw data but failed to recognise that flat line blood values in tandem with suppressed bone marrow activity in the third place getter of a major Tour was consistent with the possible use of blood transfusion, they have proven themselves to be biologically illiterate. This immediately puts into question the veracity of the UCI’s repeated statements that their interpretation of the peleton’s blood values indicates a decrease in the extent of doping since 2008. There could be fifty cyclists doping
Latest press release from Ashenden issued a few hours ago
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/l1a43r0 -
Think we all agree with whoever it was who said that if you fail an in-competition dope test, you're failing an IQ test
However, a few cyclists who WERE caught in-comp/ooc just in 2012:
Victoria Baranova (Russian trackie, caught at London Olys)
Frankie S - in-comp
David George - ooc
Denis Galimzyanov - ooc
Ivailo Gabrovski (Mr Tour of Turkey) - in-comp (now THERE's someone whose crit level is higher than his IQ)
Rasa Leleivyte - ooc
Steve Houanard - ooc
Amongst the amateurs, the ones that got media coverge inc 2 at the NY Gran Fondo, including NYVelocity's mate David Anthony - in-comp
and
Soren Svenningse - board member of Danish cycling Union - in-comp at amateur race
Vast majority of amateur race organisers wont fund the additional money to bring in the testing - this level would be massive if that were to change/they were forced to
Drop in the ocean, I'm sure0 -
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.
He has bleated: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13932 ... sults.aspx
The software doesn't detect "flat" parameter values, but rather picks up spikes... not being flagged by the software is no impediment to pursuing a doping case (e.g., Franco P)... again, he's made McQuaid look hasty and poorly-informed and ill-advised in picking a fight with people that know what they are talking about0 -
bipedal wrote:
He has bleated: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13932 ... sults.aspx
The software doesn't detect "flat" parameter values, but rather picks up spikes... not being flagged by the software is no impediment to pursuing a doping case (e.g., Franco P)... again, he's made McQuaid look hasty and poorly-informed and ill-advised in picking a fight with people that know what they are talking about
So the WADA implementation of the passport says the software flags up anomalies and then they're escalated to a panel. There are also some random ones chucked in.
Did Ashenden flag his concerns to WADA? If not, why not? And if he did and they didn't do anything, who's at fault? Or perhaps WADA believe in obeying their own rules. Who knows.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
So, exactly what I said, then."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0
-
iainf72 wrote:bipedal wrote:
He has bleated: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13932 ... sults.aspx
The software doesn't detect "flat" parameter values, but rather picks up spikes... not being flagged by the software is no impediment to pursuing a doping case (e.g., Franco P)... again, he's made McQuaid look hasty and poorly-informed and ill-advised in picking a fight with people that know what they are talking about
So the WADA implementation of the passport says the software flags up anomalies and then they're escalated to a panel. There are also some random ones chucked in.
Did Ashenden flag his concerns to WADA? If not, why not? And if he did and they didn't do anything, who's at fault? Or perhaps WADA believe in obeying their own rules. Who knows.
I agree, it's a mess... however I am surprised that they don't routinely inspect the profiles of the podium, jersey winners, etc.0 -
Hmm, the trouble is ofr every expert who would want a closer look at..ooh, say Armstrong's values, there is an...ooh say, Spanish expert that would want to swiftly pass...ooh, say, Contador's values.
The only way such a process, which has an awful lot of subjectivity involved, can work fairly is to keep it totally anonymousWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
ddraver wrote:Hmm, the trouble is ofr every expert who would want a closer look at..ooh, say Armstrong's values, there is an...ooh say, Spanish expert that would want to swiftly pass...ooh, say, Contador's values.
The only way such a process, which has an awful lot of subjectivity involved, can work fairly is to keep it totally anonymous
But isn't it just part and parcel of their targetted testing approach (which as far as I know WADA approve of)?
It sounds to me that the expert screening is surprisingly light touch... I had perhaps naively expected that all profiles would be periodically reviewed0 -
bipedal wrote:ddraver wrote:Hmm, the trouble is ofr every expert who would want a closer look at..ooh, say Armstrong's values, there is an...ooh say, Spanish expert that would want to swiftly pass...ooh, say, Contador's values.
The only way such a process, which has an awful lot of subjectivity involved, can work fairly is to keep it totally anonymous
But isn't it just part and parcel of their targetted testing approach (which as far as I know WADA approve of)?
It sounds to me that the expert screening is surprisingly light touch... I had perhaps naively expected that all profiles would be periodically reviewed
Well yeah you can target the "number" but the expert reviewing the values of a particular rider should not know who the rider is.We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
ddraver wrote:Well yeah you can target the "number" but the expert reviewing the values of a particular rider should not know who the rider is.
One would think that Person A (at the independent doping agency responsible for testing in the shiny post-UCI world) would decide who to test, how frequently and when, and Person B (at the lab) would then test and report on a "no-names" basis.0 -
ah....Verbruggen helping things along as usual
http://www.insidethegames.biz/sports/su ... g-cover-up0 -
ddraver wrote:Person A has a highly confidential list of names and numbers that no one (epsecially Person
knows....yes. Person A should in no way be linked to the Sport and especially not the UCI! Agreed even more...
Should person B ever, after leaving the organisation, have the number and be happy to publish it?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
If the suspicious patterns the sorting algorithm doesn't pick up are quantifiable then the algorithm should be rewritten to cover them, reasonably simple. If they aren't then no expert opinion is worth a damn anyway as they're just looking at pictures.
A system where the experts received a monthly batch of anonymous profiles, including winners, random selections with no suspicion and flagged values would cover for pretty much every eventuality. Experts could tag profiles to keep an eye on and target test.
That experts can effectively work out a rider from an anonymous profile is unfortunate but inescapable, if they really wanted to they could probably have a good guess already now. About the only aid to anonimiszing them further would be to replace actual dates of samples with time intervals, so they can't see a rider was tested the day of a finish on alpe dhuezWarning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Point would be that they got the info that test A was carried out 5 days before test B, but not that test A was a TdF mountain top finish and test B the TT. They'd get the timescales, just not they dates.
Of course, if they need context info like "this was during a GT" then that should be there well, but it makes it V difficult to obscure the rider's identity.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
OK, maybe I don't know enough about this, I thought that they looked at blood values over a year or so and how they relate to races (particularly GT's), so the crucial data is the blood values and the date of the test, Presumably that could be laid over a "montage" of the years cycling calender, I suppose the problem with that i that they need to say what sort of race a rider was riding...
hmmmWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Surely the obvious solution is to use a different reference for each test - then the person with the codes can chart them - then anonymise the chart and have that assessed by experts.
Clearly the last few years have shown that the current system of anonymity is flawed.I'm left handed, if that matters.0 -
I think the Docs* point is that by knowing the race program (available from when the tests were run) somebody could work out who the rider in the particular profile was. One would assume that they would nt try and work it out, just check if the profile is suspicious or not, but who knows..?
*supposed to be cross out because he's Not a Doctor, see...?We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
ddraver wrote:I think the Docs* point
*supposed to be cross out because he's Not a Doctor, see...?
So how do you think that worked out then?Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
ddraver wrote:I make no apologies for not knowing enough forum nerdspeak to write something crossed out :P
I think you've crossed out my point there.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Why isn't the software able to pick up 1 in a million variation in someone's blood? The people who had input to the software development must have been careless or maybe it is not an exact science? LA can deny under oath as things stand with expert opinion at moment. LA doesn't fear eyewitness to 2009-2010 doping?0
-
“I am very pissed at Armstrong and others who have played us for fools,” Hushovd told nrk.no. “I have cried going over the mountains because it hurt so much”.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hushovd ... for-dopingContador is the Greatest0 -
ddraver wrote:See now THAT Bradley, Fabian, Cadel, Jens etc etc is a f**king answer!!
As opposed to Brad terming him a lying bastard?0 -
Is it? The poor innocent who has suddenly had all his dreams and illusions shattered? Can anybody in pro cycling be so naive as to be surprised and disappointed at this stage?ddraver wrote:See now THAT Bradley, Fabian, Cadel, Jens etc etc is a f**king answer!!0
