Caruso + for EPO
Comments
-
Because I'm too lazy to look myself, does anyone have info on how UCI go about choosing which sample to retest? Are there data points which have been flagged as suspicious on the BP which they use as a starting point, do they just go random, or is there some other method?
It will be scientific and logical. A sample taken that is even slightly unusual would be the most obvious one to go for.0 -
Because I'm too lazy to look myself, does anyone have info on how UCI go about choosing which sample to retest? Are there data points which have been flagged as suspicious on the BP which they use as a starting point, do they just go random, or is there some other method?
From further up thread.(*) As per the World Anti-Doping Code and the UCI ADR, the UCI has established a Storage and Reanalysis Strategy. The strategy, implemented by the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation (CADF), provides that samples from the leaders of the Grand Tours, UCI World Championships and general rankings of all cycling disciplines will be stored for potential retesting. Other samples, based on risk assessment carried out by the CADF, laboratory recommendations, Athlete Biological Passport data, new detection methods and scientific developments, will also be retained for retesting. The standard time of storage and further reanalysis under this strategy is up to 10 years.
So I'd say winners and anyone who looks dodgy.0 -
Am I the only one who thinks such retrospective testing is wrong?0
-
Probably (other than dopers themselves)Am I the only one who thinks such retrospective testing is wrong?Twitter: @RichN950 -
Am I the only one who thinks such retrospective testing is wrong?
Perhaps. In my view this is an excellent development and I hope that there are loads more retrospective testing and bans.0 -
Am I the only one who thinks such retrospective testing is wrong?
Go on?
So long as the drug they're testing for was banned at the time the sample was given, I don't see the problem. Surely will help to act as a deterrent as well if there's the chance you'll get caught a few years down the line when technology improves.0 -
Am I the only one who thinks such retrospective testing is wrong?
It seems harsh - but if I had my ambition to be a pro-cyclist dashed because I wasn't quite making the grade yet two, three, five years later found that the guys who replaced me were cheating I would want some form of payback.
If I had missed out on that one podium finish...
If the team I managed had lost sponsorship and folded..
The way to stop cheating is to offer no safe hiding place, no respite from the testing, and no statute of limitations. Most testing is retrospective - we are now just increasing the time lag; and it makes taking the new wonder drug which is currently undetectable very dangerous because in two years time it may well be detectable and if you cheat you will be caught0 -
I read somewhere that this may be a new test developed to detect a previously undetectable variant of EPO. So we may see more current riders popped for it also if that's the case.0
-
Katusha will not be suspended. UCI say that it is due to the sample being from 2012 rather than the announcement. Makes sense.Contador is the Greatest0
-
Am I the only one who thinks such retrospective testing is wrong?
It seems harsh - but if I had my ambition to be a pro-cyclist dashed because I wasn't quite making the grade yet two, three, five years later found that the guys who replaced me were cheating I would want some form of payback.
If I had missed out on that one podium finish...
If the team I managed had lost sponsorship and folded..
The way to stop cheating is to offer no safe hiding place, no respite from the testing, and no statute of limitations. Most testing is retrospective - we are now just increasing the time lag; and it makes taking the new wonder drug which is currently undetectable very dangerous because in two years time it may well be detectable and if you cheat you will be caught
^This.0 -
Retrospective testing is good if it is a further preventative measure from stoping riders considering doping today. If they are offered a drug that is currently undetectable - they are potentially more likely to take it if there is no retrospective testing. But throw int he possibility that if/when a test IS developed their old samples can be tested for it... and it MIGHT just make some of them think twice about it.
Sure - it won't prevent all of them, but if it stops some, then it's worth it.
Carusso - another rider who will no doubt came this was a one-time thing. And then went on to have WAY better results afterwards whilst riding clean.0 -
Definitely, this guy is still competing, it's not as if they are testing samples from the 1970s. Isn't the received wisdom that perceived chance of being caught is a greater deterrent than ever increasing punishments. Retrospective testing means even the most sophisticated dopers can't be sure that technology wont catch up with them in the near future, it increases the fear of being caught.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
Am I the only one who thinks such retrospective testing is wrong?
Perhaps. In my view this is an excellent development and I hope that there are loads more retrospective testing and bans.
I completely agree.0 -
Where do they keep all this p1ss?
Must be lakes of it in Aigle0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19682901#p19682901]TakeTheHighRoad[/url] wrote:Where do they keep all this p1ss?
Must be lakes of it in Aigle
McQuaid was taking the p1ss for years, so needed a lot.Napoleon, don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day. Besides, we both know that I'm training to be a cage fighter.0 -
Would you also be against new testing methods being used to catch those who have committed crimes in the past. Say a new DNA testing method that was used to catch a serial rapist, would that be wrong as well?Am I the only one who thinks such retrospective testing is wrong?
They broke the rules, surely what matters is that they were caught, not how or when they were caught?0 -
I can't see retrospective testing can be a bad thing. Quite the opposite.Napoleon, don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day. Besides, we both know that I'm training to be a cage fighter.0
-
I'd say retro testing is one of the best tools we have. It's one thing to take the chance that they won't catch you now, it's quite another to take the chance they won't catch you ever. Catching someone today that cheated 3 years ago? That can only be a good thing.0
-
Would you also be against new testing methods being used to catch those who have committed crimes in the past. Say a new DNA testing method that was used to catch a serial rapist, would that be wrong as well?Am I the only one who thinks such retrospective testing is wrong?
They broke the rules, surely what matters is that they were caught, not how or when they were caught?
Hardly the same is it? The point is retrospective testing will not be complete, it will be random. They are not going to test every sample ever given every time a new technology arrives are they? So they are selecting samples randomly, which is inherently unfair.0 -
Would you also be against new testing methods being used to catch those who have committed crimes in the past. Say a new DNA testing method that was used to catch a serial rapist, would that be wrong as well?Am I the only one who thinks such retrospective testing is wrong?
They broke the rules, surely what matters is that they were caught, not how or when they were caught?
Hardly the same is it? The point is retrospective testing will not be complete, it will be random. They are not going to test every sample ever given every time a new technology arrives are they? So they are selecting samples randomly, which is inherently unfair.
But it's not random - is it? They are testing those most likely to have cheated. Top-ranked riders in GC and rankings. And lower-ranked riders with suspect values. If you're a low-ranked rider with stable values, you're not exactly on the high0risk list for doping. Not immune, but much lower risk.0 -
Very similar actually. You're not going to use that new DNA testing method to try and catch someone who half inched a six pack of Stella back in the day but will to try and solve a bunch of the most serious crime or might use to convict known serial offenders of other crimes. In the same way targeting those who gained the most out of the sport, GT & WC winners and those who have suspect BP's, etc. It's not guaranteed to catch all the dopers granted but then not every crime gets solved either.
Would you also be against new testing methods being used to catch those who have committed crimes in the past. Say a new DNA testing method that was used to catch a serial rapist, would that be wrong as well?Am I the only one who thinks such retrospective testing is wrong?
They broke the rules, surely what matters is that they were caught, not how or when they were caught?
Hardly the same is it? The point is retrospective testing will not be complete, it will be random. They are not going to test every sample ever given every time a new technology arrives are they? So they are selecting samples randomly, which is inherently unfair.0 -
Fear of being caught is the best deterrent. So this is a very good thing all round.
I gather from some of the tweets by some journo's that it wasn't a surprise at all that Caruso got nabbedFckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Presumably retrospective testing only tests for drugs which were prohibited at the time of testing?
So if some wonder drug is banned today and then a rider is found to have used it in prior to the date of prohibition then should we a.) never test for it, b.) never be told about positives or c.) be told that the rider failed the test but it wasn't prohibited at the time thus no sanction?
Personally I think mandatory retrospective testing after 2, 5 and 10 years for all GC/Stage/Points winners with hefty penalties for teams and individuals would be a big step forward.0 -
If they're doing a raft of back testing, I wondering if Froome has more chance of winning the 2011 Vuelta than the 2015 one.
No love for Cobo? I remember he got the 'out of nowhere' tag at the time but it seemed a little unfair.0 -
More his history with the 2008 Saunier Duval team. One of the three standouts at that Tour with Ricco and Piepoli.If they're doing a raft of back testing, I wondering if Froome has more chance of winning the 2011 Vuelta than the 2015 one.
No love for Cobo? I remember he got the 'out of nowhere' tag at the time but it seemed a little unfair.Twitter: @RichN950 -
More his history with the 2008 Saunier Duval team. One of the three standouts at that Tour with Ricco and Piepoli.If they're doing a raft of back testing, I wondering if Froome has more chance of winning the 2011 Vuelta than the 2015 one.
No love for Cobo? I remember he got the 'out of nowhere' tag at the time but it seemed a little unfair.
Umm. So what's your opinion on Horner? Or are you just happy to slander Cobo due to him being Spanish and riding for dodgy teams?
Not saying I think Cobo is clean (even if he has zero to connect him with doping) but just thought I would pull you up on it.Contador is the Greatest0 -
More his history with the 2008 Saunier Duval team. One of the three standouts at that Tour with Ricco and Piepoli.If they're doing a raft of back testing, I wondering if Froome has more chance of winning the 2011 Vuelta than the 2015 one.
No love for Cobo? I remember he got the 'out of nowhere' tag at the time but it seemed a little unfair.
I wonder how many of them would've got busted if they'd stuck it out 'til the end of the '08 tour!0 -
Presumably retrospective testing only tests for drugs which were prohibited at the time of testing?
So if some wonder drug is banned today and then a rider is found to have used it in prior to the date of prohibition then should we a.) never test for it, b.) never be told about positives or c.) be told that the rider failed the test but it wasn't prohibited at the time thus no sanction?
Personally I think mandatory retrospective testing after 2, 5 and 10 years for all GC/Stage/Points winners with hefty penalties for teams and individuals would be a big step forward.
If a drug wasn't banned at the time, they won't retest for it and the rider can't be sanctioned for it. And even if a retro-test (say for something else), picked it up - it wouldn't be mentioned.
You can look for a pseudo-parallel to the case of Marcel Kittel - who underwent UV light blood treatments. At the time he did it, it was legal - and it was later banned. Despite him admitting he used the treatment, because it was legal at the time, they could not sanction him.0 -
If they're doing a raft of back testing, I wondering if Froome has more chance of winning the 2011 Vuelta than the 2015 one.
Retired, no? I'd have thought they'd be focusing on active riders.Team My Man 2018: David gaudu, Pierre Latour, Romain Bardet, Thibaut pinot, Alexandre Geniez, Florian Senechal, Warren Barguil, Benoit Cosnefroy0
