UCI Biological passport

RobFowl · 08-03-2011 05:49PM #1

[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 · 08-03-2011 11:16PM

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

Lumen · 09-03-2011 06:37AM

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 · 09-03-2011 07:40AM

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 · 09-03-2011 11:57AM

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 · 13-05-2011 08:13AM

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 · 13-05-2011 08:36AM

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

The story form velonation...

Lumen · 13-05-2011 08:41AM

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 · 13-05-2011 09:06AM

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 · 13-05-2011 10:23AM

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 · 13-05-2011 10:27AM

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

Beasty · 13-05-2011 10:30AM

Threads merged

Beasty

Chips Lovell · 13-05-2011 10:45AM

@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 · 13-05-2011 10:47AM

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

cantalach · 13-05-2011 10:48AM

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 · 13-05-2011 10:59AM

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 · 13-05-2011 11:01AM

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 · 13-05-2011 11:03AM

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 · 13-05-2011 11:17AM

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 · 13-05-2011 11:35AM

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 · 13-05-2011 11:52AM

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 · 13-05-2011 11:59AM

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 · 13-05-2011 12:00PM

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

Chips Lovell · 13-05-2011 12:01PM

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 · 13-05-2011 12:02PM

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 · 13-05-2011 12:06PM

wemight have an explanation for this irrational behaviour

longn · 13-05-2011 12:45PM

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 · 13-05-2011 12:47PM

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 · 13-05-2011 12:49PM

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 · 13-05-2011 01:02PM

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 · 13-05-2011 01:04PM

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

UCI Biological passport

Comments