|
News in May
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 13-05-2011 09:46
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
As far as I've read, this is a confidential UCI list. I would have been quite sceptical if it had been made by L'Equipe, but apparently, UCI made it in order to know who to target at the Tour.
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ucis-...-de-france |
| |
|
|
| tsmoha |
Posted on 13-05-2011 09:50
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 11819
Joined: 19-07-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
CrueTrue wrote:
As far as I've read, this is a confidential UCI list. I would have been quite sceptical if it had been made by L'Equipe, but apparently, UCI made it in order to know who to target at the Tour.
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ucis-...-de-france
I wonder why Contador is only "a 5" then?
|
| |
|
|
| kumazan |
Posted on 13-05-2011 09:52
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6662
Joined: 02-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
CrueTrue wrote:
As far as I've read, this is a confidential UCI list. I would have been quite sceptical if it had been made by L'Equipe, but apparently, UCI made it in order to know who to target at the Tour.
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ucis-...-de-france
I guess they used a lottery to assign the numbers. |
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 13-05-2011 09:55
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
The cynical answer would be that he (and Cancellara - and others) are better at managing their bio passport than other riders. But the real answer is that we don't know.
It should be said, though, that 5 is also "bad":
"From five upwards, the comments associated to the rider files started to become much more precise, "even affirmative" according to L'Equipe."
"From six to ten, the circumstantial evidence of possible doping was "overwhelming"."
Edited by CrueTrue on 13-05-2011 09:56
|
| |
|
|
| kumazan |
Posted on 13-05-2011 10:05
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6662
Joined: 02-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
CrueTrue wrote:
The cynical answer would be that he (and Cancellara - and others) are better at managing their bio passport than other riders. But the real answer is that we don't know.
It should be said, though, that 5 is also "bad":
"From five upwards, the comments associated to the rider files started to become much more precise, "even affirmative" according to L'Equipe."
"From six to ten, the circumstantial evidence of possible doping was "overwhelming"."
Yeah, five is bad. But Lance is 4. Lance. And Fränk "I just wanted training plans from a gynecologist" Schleck is 2. And LL "My wife exchanges mail with Fuentes" Sánchez too.
A lot of them seem pretty spot on according to what we know, which isn't necessarily correct, but some of them are so fraggin' obviously wrong that I don't know what to think about it.
Edited by kumazan on 13-05-2011 10:06
|
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 13-05-2011 10:08
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
The list of dirty countries 
France 1.23
Netherlands 1.25
Switzerland 1.6
Portugal 2
Slovenia 2.25
USA 2.37
Belgium 2.69
Denmark 2.8
Austria 3
Germany 3.27
Australia 3.27
Spain 3.37
Great Britain 3.37
Italy 3.7
Belarus 4
Kazakhstan 4.33
Ukraine 5.33
Countries with fewer than three riders are not included
And the list of dirty teams:
Cofidis
BB Telecom
FDJ
AG2R
Garmin
Cervelo
Footon-Servetto
Rabobank
Liquigas
Sky
Milram
Saxo Bank
Euskatel
Katusha
Lampre
Quick Step
Omega-Lotto
HTC-Columbia
BMC
Caisse d'Epargne
Astana
RadioShack |
| |
|
|
| mb2612 |
Posted on 13-05-2011 10:08
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5759
Joined: 18-05-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
So why haven't Popo and Barredo been done on the Bio passport?
IF they were 10 a year ago surely the UCI has enough evidence
 [url=www.pcmdaily.com/forum/viewthread.php?thread_id=33182] Team Santander Media Thread[/url]
Please assume I am joking unless otherwise stated |
| |
|
|
| tsmoha |
Posted on 13-05-2011 10:10
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 11819
Joined: 19-07-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
mb2612 wrote:
So why haven't Popo and Barredo been done on the Bio passport?
IF they were 10 a year ago surely the UCI has enough evidence
That's exactly what I thought  I do not understand this 1-10, if it's about evidence, a 10 should be reason enough for a ban?!
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 25-11-2024 05:31
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| kumazan |
Posted on 13-05-2011 10:11
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6662
Joined: 02-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
CrueTrue wrote:
The list of dirty countries
Spain 3.37
Great Britain 3.37
Ha! Suck it ya Britz!
Edited by kumazan on 13-05-2011 10:11
|
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 13-05-2011 10:12
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Other interesting tid-bits:
On Contador, the article says he recorded a high haematocrit in May and UCI testers were advised to target him with blood tests during the Tour.
0-1 = Not suspicious
2-4 = Some remarks about the blood profile, but still not suspicious
5 = More remarks about the blood profile, is being watched carefully
6-10 = Very suspicious (the higher the worse obviously), many remarks about the blood profile which seems to have a very irregular pattern |
| |
|
|
| lagetcher |
Posted on 13-05-2011 10:12
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1513
Joined: 13-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
It's no surprise to see which teams are where on the dirty teams list.
Now, if only this kind of list could be leaked more regularly |
| |
|
|
| mb2612 |
Posted on 13-05-2011 10:20
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5759
Joined: 18-05-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
CrueTrue wrote:
HTC-Columbia
BMC
Caisse d'Epargne
Astana
RadioShack
Three American teams in the top 5, huh
[url=www.pcmdaily.com/forum/viewthread.php?thread_id=33182] Team Santander Media Thread[/url]
Please assume I am joking unless otherwise stated |
| |
|
|
| lennybernstein |
Posted on 13-05-2011 11:47
|
Domestique
Posts: 450
Joined: 19-04-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Surprised to see Geraint Thomas with a 6 rating. Maybe us Brits aren't as clean as we'd like to assume? |
| |
|
|
| mb2612 |
Posted on 13-05-2011 11:54
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5759
Joined: 18-05-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
lennybernstein wrote:
Surprised to see Geraint Thomas with a 6 rating. Maybe us Brits aren't as clean as we'd like to assume?
Hunt is a 7 and Wiggins is a 5. Then you add Rogers 7 and Pauwels 4 and Sky is starting to look suspicious
[url=www.pcmdaily.com/forum/viewthread.php?thread_id=33182] Team Santander Media Thread[/url]
Please assume I am joking unless otherwise stated |
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 13-05-2011 11:55
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Cancellara remains mostly a one day classics rider, even though he's a nice addition to a team's roster in a Grand Tour, he might have less use of blood doping, hence his lower figure.
Just guessing though...
That doesn't mean that suspicious riders with low grades don't dope (neither does it mean they do, ok ?), just that they do it better (have more control on their parameters), or rather use things that don't mess with blood values. |
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 13-05-2011 11:58
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
There are a few interesting questions related to this list.
1. Who leaked it and why?
2. If 10 and 9 are as suspicious as the explanations say they are, how come the riders are still around?
We can't answer #1 yet, but this report, which is WADA's "Report of the Independent Observers" (of the Tour de France 2010) reveals some problems:
- A rider identified as having a priority index of eight (with ten being the highest and most at risk of doping) was tested only once (urine EPO) during the Pre-Tour period with no blood sample collected for the analysis of CERA, HBT, HBOC or other prohibited substances and/or methods. During the Tour recommendations from the Laboratory related to target testing for EPO did not seem to be conducted expediently or as appropriate (ie. the EPO test was conducted 6 days later while the blood sample was only analysed for hGH). Lastly, following a significant delay in providing an early morning sample and in conjunction with the intelligence already held on this rider, there seems no evidence of more intense target testing on this rider.
- For a rider identified as having a priority index of ten, no blood samples were collected following the Laboratory recommendations after interpretation of blood passport data from the first week of the Tour, with only urine being collected and no blood as recommended by the Laboratory. Further, a recommendation to target test the rider for EPO took seven days to be executed.
- A rider identified as having a priority index of ten was not tested for either urine or blood from 3 April to the start of the Tour. Recommendations made by the Laboratory following testing in the first three days of the Tour resulted in no further blood samples being collected but rather only urine and approximately ten days later. The IO Team became aware of the remarks made by the laboratory regarding the analysis of this rider’s specific sample that raised the suspicion of the use of proteases. No further information regarding any actions taken by the UCI for further analysis of that sample was made available.
- For a rider identified as having a priority index of eight, who was recommended to be target tested for EPO by the Laboratory, the UCI did not target test the rider and in addition a sample collected five days later was not analysed for EPO. Interestingly in this case collection of follow-up samples from this rider was initiated by the AFLD via the WADA Resolution.
----
So the real question is: Is UCI using this list to avoid testing on the most probable dopers (in order to not get a doping positive = bad press)?
Obviously, this is somewhat like a conspiracy theory, but the quotes are, after all, from an independent WADA report.
Edited by CrueTrue on 13-05-2011 12:07
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 13-05-2011 12:05
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
WADA ? Damn it, won't they even blame it on ze Frenchies this time ?  |
| |
|
|
| BouBBox |
Posted on 13-05-2011 12:09
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 892
Joined: 01-06-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Haha L'Equipe finally created a cycling ranking dominated by french 
CrueTrue wrote:
0-1 = Not suspicious
2-4 = Some remarks about the blood profile, but still not suspicious
5 = More remarks about the blood profile, is being watched carefully
6-10 = Very suspicious (the higher the worse obviously), many remarks about the blood profile which seems to have a very irregular pattern
So basically 2-10 = DOPED
Edited by BouBBox on 13-05-2011 12:10
Team Europcar !!
RIP Wouter
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 13-05-2011 12:13
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
2, and to a lesser extent 3, can result from an actual sickness or fatigue at some point of the season, which would cause some fluctuation in the parameters. Nothing certain there. 4 and above is more evident.
Then again, a smaller figure doesn't mean no dope, just nothing obvious on the blood passport. |
| |
|
|
| BouBBox |
Posted on 13-05-2011 12:19
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 892
Joined: 01-06-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Aquarius wrote:
2, and to a lesser extent 3, can result from an actual sickness or fatigue at some point of the season, which would cause some fluctuation in the parameters. Nothing certain there. 4 and above is more evident.
Then again, a smaller figure doesn't mean no dope, just nothing obvious on the blood passport.
Then I guess until 8 it can be a very serious sickness , I was given EPO to heal from a tumor...
Team Europcar !!
RIP Wouter
|
| |
|
