UCI Biological passport

RobFowl

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/pellizotti-banned-for-two-years-by-the-court-of-arbitration-for-sport
[/FONT]"Verdict boosts validity of the UCI Biological Passport
Italy’s Franco Pellizotti has been suspended for two years by the Court of Arbitration for Sport after it upheld an appeal by the UCI."


Hope Pellizotti enjoys his pancakes tonight, especially now he doesn't have to watch the weight for a few years

crumliniano

Nice precedent if the UCI have the balls to appeal the Contador ruling

Lumen

That's interesting. Did he get done on blood scores alone, without the detection of any doping products?

Seems a bit circumstantial. I thought the passport programme was just intended to identify riders to be targetted with further testing?

Chips Lovell

No, it was always intended to do this. They just seemed to take their time about bringing the first "pure" passport cases, probably because they wanted to be sure it couldn't be challenged. Essentially they're saying there is no way your blood can naturally change like this, therefore you must have been doping.

Chips Lovell

I wonder if the UCI have been holding off on more Bio Passport cases until these appeals went through? Was an important legal test to the system. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

spokeydokey

Leaked to L'equipe from before TdF 2010

We're not allowed speculate about who's doping but the UCI can



http://www.flickr.com/photos/49195174@N00/5714862867/in/photostream

RobFowl

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/8426/Doping-UCI-Index-of-Suspicion-leaked-from-2010-Tour-de-France.aspx

The story form velonation...

Lumen

I wonder how widely distributed that list was last year.

It would be interesting to work out who amongst the top half (6-10) had a big drop in form subsequently that wasn't accounted for by injury.

RobFowl

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ucis-suspicious-list-leaked-from-2010-tour-de-france

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.
From six to ten, the circumstantial evidence of possible doping was "overwhelming". According to the paper, some of the riders located to the top of list have already been singled out by the biological passport and evaluated by the panel of nine experts, even if no procedure was opened. "Still, some of the files' commentaries are damning. Recurrent abnormal profiles, enormous fluctuations, identification of the used doping product and means of administration..." wrote L'Equipe's anti-doping expert journalist Damien Ressiot.


:eek:

corkchef

it shows how seriously the UCI want to target doping in cycling. i would imagine this goes on for all big multi stage races. interestingly only one positive from that tour. contador for clenobuterol. sounds good for cycling if they pre organize themselves like that and come up with nothing else. i wonder if there is a list somewhere that shows how many times individual riders were tested and how that list compares with the UCI's pre race target list?

velo.2010

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/ucis-suspicious-list-leaked-from-2010-tour-de-france-30202

Beasty

Threads merged

Beasty

Chips Lovell

@RobFowl

Would I be right in assuming that while a high score is grounds for suspicion, a low score isn't necessarily proof of innocence, i.e. some of those guys could just have doctors who are very good at managing blood profiles?

velo.2010

Fans of Geraint Thomas must be saying to themselves,
'What the Clanyddyttldyylllrrleefffrrllllyy'?

cantalach

Fabian: 0, Tony Martin: 7. I'm just sayin'...

The scores of Aussie boys Mick Rogers (7) and Matt Lloyd (8) are interesting given the stellar performances they both put down in May 2010 at the ToC and Giro respectively.

Popovych and Barredo got a 10...but is anyone really surprised?

n-dawg

Great to see Roche got a 0... I always hoped he was clean

And its nice to see one of the greats in Cancellara also get a 0

I'm a little shocked that Wiggens got a 5 though, would have thought with all his talk that he'd be 0,1 or 2

velo.2010

Not one French rider in the 6-10 range(unless I'm mistaken) and most are 0-2. It backs up just how strict the French authorities are re. doping and just how seriously their riders adhere to the anti-doping policy in france.

Inquitus

velo.2010 wrote: »

Fans of Geraint Thomas must be saying to themselves,
'What the Clanyddyttldyylllrrleefffrrllllyy'?

Indeed, whilst not a particular fan, I would have thought he'd be 0-2.

cantalach

velo.2010 wrote: »

Not one French rider in the 6-10 range(unless I'm mistaken) and most are 0-2. It backs up just how strict the French authorities are re. doping and just how seriously their riders adhere to the anti-doping policy in france.

Nice theory but unfortunately Moreau got a 7...

Chips Lovell

While I realise that this is more "grounds for suspicion" rather than "smoking gun" I find myself surprised more by some of the people who scored lowly rather than the ones who appeared high on the list. There's one rider in particular who got a zero that I find utterly bizarre given his reputation as one of the biggest chargers in the peloton.

ROK ON

n-dawg wrote: »

Great to see Roche got a 0... I always hoped he was clean

And its nice to see one of the greats in Cancellara also get a 0

I'm a little shocked that Wiggens got a 5 though, would have thought with all his talk that he'd be 0,1 or 2

Given that Nico has won very little he would arouse very little in the way of suspicion.
Some of the riders in cats 3-5 beggar belief.

Would be interesting to see where some of my favourite riders like Vockler, Chavenel, Gilbert and D Martin would rank.
Given what I heard a few weeks back from another boardsie I would like to see where some Vacansol riders would score.

cormpat

el tonto wrote: »

While I realise that this is more "grounds for suspicion" rather than "smoking gun" I find myself surprised more by some of the people who scored lowly rather than the ones who appeared high on the list. There's one rider in particular who got a zero that which I find utterly bizarre given his reputation as one of the biggest chargers in the peloton.

Ahh come on! You gotta tell us with a statement like that. Everyone loves a bit of gossip....

ullu

It's the first time I've wished Ricco had been taking part last year

Chips Lovell

cormpat wrote: »

Ahh come on! You gotta tell us with a statement like that. Everyone loves a bit of gossip....

Libel laws apply to the web as well.

TinyExplosions

ROK ON wrote: »

Given that Nico has won very little he would arouse very little in the way of suspicion.
Some of the riders in cats 3-5 beggar belief.

Would be interesting to see where some of my favourite riders like Vockler, Chavenel, Gilbert and D Martin would rank.
Given what I heard a few weeks back from another boardsie I would like to see where some Vacansol riders would score.

Thomas Voeckler was a 0, Chavenel a 1

spokeydokey

wemight have an explanation for this irrational behaviour

longn

el tonto wrote: »

Libel laws apply to the web as well.

Seems like a dodgy thread to have started if we can't give our opinions...

Chips Lovell

longn wrote: »

Seems like a dodgy thread to have started if we can't give our opinions...

You can give your opinions, but you can't make assertions that aren't backed up by evidence.

Beasty

longn wrote: »

Seems like a dodgy thread to have started if we can't give our opinions...

From the charter:

No speculation over potential doping offenders - Comment on information (including press articles) in the public domain is OK, but allegations must be verifiable with information that is in the public domain.

The list provided is not actually accusing anyone of doping, simply indicating riders considered higher risk than others for the purpose of targetting testing

longn

el tonto wrote: »

While I realise that this is more "grounds for suspicion" rather than "smoking gun" I find myself surprised more by some of the people who scored lowly rather than the ones who appeared high on the list. There's one rider in particular who got a zero that I find utterly bizarre given his reputation as one of the biggest chargers in the peloton.

Surely then, if this rider has such a reputation, did the media give him this reputation? Wouldn't that mean we can mention his name given Beasty's comment?

"Comment on information (including press articles) in the public domain is OK, but allegations must be verifiable with information that is in the public domain".

Beasty

longn wrote: »

Surely then, if this rider has such a reputation, did the media give him this reputation? Wouldn't that mean we can mention his name given Beasty's comment?



"Comment on information (including press articles) in the public domain is OK, but allegations must be verifiable with information that is in the public domain".

To be clear you cannot suggest someone is guilty of doping unless there is clear proof (normally in the form of a positive test) in the public domain

This does not stop you commenting on press articles, but do not make any unsupported allegations here

Thanks

Beasty

jiffybag

<snip>

Chips Lovell

Great. After several posts outlining why people can't post unfounded allegations, someone's gone and done just that. I really don't want to have to close this thread, so can we please exercise a bit of common sense.

longn

Must say that given Floyd Landis' much publicized accusations last year towards his and his former team mates use of ped's, including Dave Zabriskie, I'm surprised he's been given a zero...

Hows that..?

RobFowl

el tonto wrote: »

@RobFowl

Would I be right in assuming that while a high score is grounds for suspicion, a low score isn't necessarily proof of innocence, i.e. some of those guys could just have doctors who are very good at managing blood profiles?

That would be correct. That said to maintain stable blood parameters while doping would require fairly intensive medical interventions and monitoring. Not something that could be done during a race like the tour.

The high levels are often explainable due to illness but repeated ones get harder and harder to take at face value.

I see the French are gloating a bit that they are the lowest risk as a nation and per team.....

I share surprise at some of the 0 scores !!! At least 1 has had TUE "issues" in the recent past...

RobFowl

longn wrote: »

Must say that given Floyd Landis' much publicized accusations last year towards his and his former team mates use of ped's, including Dave Zabriskie, I'm surprised he's been given a zero...

Hows that..?

English speaker
Doping is only done by Johnny Foreigner

Chips Lovell

longn wrote: »

Must say that given Floyd Landis' much publicized accusations last year towards his and his former team mates use of ped's, including Dave Zabriskie, I'm surprised he's been given a zero...

Hows that..?

Considering Landis's allegations pre-date the introduction of the biological passport and that a.) people can choose to stop doping or b.) a clear result could be as much a result of a careful doctor as not doping at all, the information doesn't necessarily clash.

There are several riders who are widely regarded as having stopped, unprompted.

Beasty

longn wrote: »

Must say that given Floyd Landis' much publicized accusations last year towards his and his former team mates use of ped's, including Dave Zabriskie, I'm surprised he's been given a zero...

Hows that..?

Presumably it's because they used all available technology to determine the best way of identifying the highest risks ....

...possibly even based on something like this:



Mmmm... cake

...is it Friday yet?

Chips Lovell

Are you sure that picture's big enough Beasty? I'm having trouble seeing the donkey.

Beasty

el tonto wrote: »

Are you sure that picture's big enough Beasty? I'm having trouble seeing the donkey.

Take the bleedin' blindfold off then ...

cantalach

Being the nerd that I am, I fed all that data into Excel and put a country against each rider in an effort to work out a suspiciousness score for each country. See attached spreadsheet. The raw data is in the table on the left and the 'analysis' is in the pivot table on the right.

Chips Lovell

L'Equipe did that actually too. They also did a table of teams. Radioshack was highest. Cofidis lowest.

cantalach

el tonto wrote: »

L'Equipe did that actually too. They also did a table of teams. Radioshack was highest. Cofidis lowest.

Doh! There's an hour wasted on my part.

manwithaplan

cantalach wrote: »

Being the nerd that I am, I fed all that data into Excel and put a country against each rider in an effort to work out a suspiciousness score for each country. See attached spreadsheet. The raw data is in the table on the left and the 'analysis' is in the pivot table on the right.

With apologies to Billy Bragg:

In the former Soviet Union,
Their riders demand,
To know why they are the target,
Of UCI commands.
And they shake their fists in anger,
And respectfully suggest
That we take the money from the testing
And spend it on the prizes instead.

Beasty

cantalach wrote: »

Doh! There's an hour wasted on my part.

No it's not - I'm going to use your speadsheet as a basis for placing bets on the Eurovision Song Contest, on the basis there may similar "risks" of dodgy goings on there

Unfortunately this means Jedward will not be getting my support this weekend...

Hermy

Is anyone surprised that Menchov scored a 9?

Diarmuid

Hermy wrote: »

Is anyone surprised that Menchov scored a 9?

Me. I was expecting a 10

Hermy

Diarmuid wrote: »

Me. I was expecting a 10

Really. I mean I'm a total cynic about it all but he wouldn't have been the first person I'd have thought of in the 8, 9, 10 end of the scale.

Chips Lovell

Hermy wrote: »

Really. I mean I'm a total cynic about it all but he wouldn't have been the first person I'd have thought of in the 8, 9, 10 end of the scale.

He was questioned in the Human Plasma investigation. Not sure if that one is still ongoing or what.

petethedrummer

And given the way he comfortably covered Di Luca's moves in the 2009 Giro, its not surprising.

Beasty

petethedrummer wrote: »

And given the way he comfortably covered Di Luca's moves in the 2009 Giro, its not surprising.

Let's just be clear - this is not evidence of anything - just a measure used to assess risk. Whatever anyone's personal views, AFAIK he did not test positive in the Tour