UCI hit list

[Walter]

The forum recently had a good thread over the Boonen matter with some saying the UCI is showing some common sense. Disclaimer: I started it! This latest puff piece from the UCI leaves me shaking my head at them:

Fifty targeted riders to be informed by UCI

The International Cycling Union (UCI) indicated on Sunday that it will target a list of 50 riders who have shown abnormal results under the UCI's biological passport program. The UCI had revealed on Wednesday that it would be taking disciplinary action against a previously undisclosed number of riders.

At the final stage of the Dauphiné Libéré on Sunday UCI president Pat McQuaid said that the first of the targeted riders and their teams would be informed this week. McQuaid also expressed his own reservations about riders, named in the list, being included in their team's Tour de France squads.

"We [have] targeted research on a fifty riders," said McQuaid, according to L'Equipe. "Federations, teams and riders will gradually be informed in the coming days. I can not imagine that teams [will] bring riders covered on the list to the Tour de France."

The UCI's action against riders will be a firm test of the UCI's biological passport program. However, McQuaid indicated the UCI was confident that evidence provided by the program will hold up to examination.

"We worked with experts. We are ready to defend these results before the court."

from:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2009/jun09/jun15news


They wait until two weeks before the Tour to release 50 names and are asking the teams to not bring these riders to the race...without a single positive test. All at a time when the teams are finalizing their rosters and the Tour is gearing up.

Once again the UCI wants to be in the limelight by making itself the focus, rather than the racing, the event, or the riders.

It will be interesting to see who is one the list and the drama that follows. All of this is in addition to the Valverde matter that has been percolating for years...and McQuaid now says that there will be an announcement in "6 or 7 days" ...again, on the eve of the Tour. This guy does love the spotlight.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . for the message they want to present that they are doing something about doping. This timing gives them the maximum possible positive publicity for the UCI and the hell with the teams, ASO, and others. When the names are released, any team that still sends a rider on the list to the Tour simply makes themselves look like they are not serious about fighting doping--and makes the UCI look even better. The UCI's actions make it pretty clear that their own image is far more important to them than really truly fighting doping.

BBD

[Walter]

Well said.

They want to keep the spotlight on themselves for a variety of reasons including keeping WADA from doing all sports drug testing by making it seem like the UCI are the ones leading the charge and the only ones to do the job.

McQuaid has a drive to keep himself on center stage.

The next couple of weeks should be interesting, although not good for the sport.

[jmgorman]

Would you rather some potentially dirty riders show up and the AFLD, with their far-superior tests (all 8000 of they will be performing at this year's tour), bust several riders and kick out their respective teams? Because that would be great for the sport.

Biopassport makes sense. Until there are foolproof ways to catch all cheats, this it the best they can do. I want more information, but so far it looks like they are applying it fairly and wisely.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Would you rather some potentially dirty riders show up and the AFLD, with their far-superior tests (all 8000 of they will be performing at this year's tour), bust several riders and kick out their respective teams? Because that would be great for the sport.

Biopassport makes sense. Until there are foolproof ways to catch all cheats, this it the best they can do. I want more information, but so far it looks like they are applying it fairly and wisely.

. . . of the passport program. It IS a good thing. But we have no evidence yet that they are applying it fairly and wisely because the names have not been announced, nor has whatever evidence the UCI has against yet-to-be named riders been released. We also don't know what the exact methods are of the testing or how reliable the results are or if riders will have any opportunity to mount any kind of reasonable defense. It's basically an "insinuation list" that convicts named riders in the court of media and public opinion without any kind of positive test or any real opportunity to challenge the reliability or veracity of the results mere days before they are supposed to start what, for many of them, is the race they have centered a whole year's worth of training around.

My complaint matches Walter's . . . namely that the UCI are doing it for publicity benefits to themselves. The effort to really fight doping is secondary. I feel if they REALLY were applying it fairly they would have released the names several months ago. Indications are that they had the info then and could have done so. But they didn't. Why? To me it seems obvious that it's because they are trying to make as big a publicity deal out of this as possible and make themselves look as good as possible.

BBD

[Walter]

Would you rather some potentially dirty riders show up and the AFLD, with their far-superior tests (all 8000 of they will be performing at this year's tour), bust several riders and kick out their respective teams? Because that would be great for the sport.

My druthers would be for them to use it to target the suspected riders for extra testing...like was done with the CERA testing. Until we hear a lot more about the passport and its reliability and validity, I am deeply concerned about using it as a stand-alone disciplinary trigger, especially in the absence of a single positive test.

If they have been developing questionable results all along strong enough to seek a ban behind, why have they not acted when they got them in serial fashion? Why, on the eve of the Tour, do they want to try to ban 50 riders?

Could it have anything to do with punishing the Tour and the ASO for standing against the Pro Tour (another bad idea designed to cause the teams to spend more and the UCI to make more...this is an entire other topic) last year?

[jhcakilmer]

I'd have to agree, the UCI has gone mad.

On the other hand, most of the biophysical numbers like hct, hb, VO2max....don't change dramatically just from training.

[jmgorman]

Walter, I agree with you that it seems right up the UCI's alley to do this just to f@@@ with ASO. Still, ASO should be happy that UCI has given them a list of suspicious riders who can be (legitimately?) banned. By identifying those riders who are showing some indications of doping (besides just winning or flying up hills) the UCI is perhaps lessening the cynicism among fans that everyone is doping. The UCI has to do something longitudinal to fight suspicion that the entire sport is doped - this seems like the best bet.

[edit: said another way: This isn't just insinuation, there is a method to the declarations. We need to learn exactly what that method is, but it is still better than the rumors we have to work with now.]

So far, it seems that they used Biopassport to bust Colom by analyzing his apparent ups and downs and figuring when they were most likely to catch his next doping session. Secondly, they're not sure that the biopassport will hold water in court (even the kangaroo court that they run), so they're leaving it up to the teams to decide how to deal with it, effectively putting the burden of proof and testing on the teams. Now, this won't be too bad for teams like Columbia, Garmin, Cervelo and the few others that have comprehensive, longitudinal testing of their own. But for teams that have refused to create comprehensive anti-doping programs, they are going to have a huge hurdle to getting suspected riders back into the peloton.

Granted, we need a lot more information (tomorrow! maybe!), but this seems like a good first step. I appreciate the feeling that naming names will just ruin careers, but something has to be done. Not naming names has stretched this whole fetid mess out for more than a decade.

[Charles M]

Guys,

The Tour is the most likely race to actually ask for compliance with the UCI... There are other races that just don't want to fight this properly (like the Giro).


I am no fan of the UCI generally speaking (http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=5670)

And I agree this is grand standing, but it's far less bad than it has been at any time in the past.

Frankly this is a big improvement and you want the guys they have info on to have a few weeks.


Perfect? No.

But this is an improvement to telling guys at the tour that they have to leave. And it's an improvement over knowing who the suspects are then sensationally booting them during or after.


This is the lesser of a few evils...

[rwsaunders]

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

[Auk]

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

That has never applied to cycling. And, it seems, it never will.

[jmgorman]

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

This isn't a legal proceeding, this is professional cycling. The UCI makes the rules and, if you want to ride, you play by them.

[KJMUNC]

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

It gets thrown out the window when you're trying to ensure a French rider has a shot at the podium for once in the last 25yrs. :banana:

[Avispa]

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Well... In our judicial system, you can be put in jail until proven guilty, right? So what happens when one of these guys are under suspicion? Just let them ride until they are proven guilty? Or should they be suspended WHILE they are under investigation...

If it was up to me, I would let them ride.... BUT, I would have a rule that says, that if you are proven guilty, you would be suspended for life! Period...

..A..

[Charles M]

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?


This is simply doing the job the team doctors should be doing...


The UCI are saying:


"here are the guys on your team that have wacked out blood values. Your own internal controls should have caught them but why don't you do us all a favor and bench them rather than creating another massive embarrasment for us all."


The UCI should be doing this and should be doing this several weeks ahead of the tour.




It's way better than guys getting handed Jerseys or wins after the fact, or the media circus of tossing guys at the tour.


This isn't perfect but it's absolutey better and a step in the right direction. (Of course that's unless the UCI have created some bogus accounting of blood values, but the regs in place are actually reasonable suspect screening ratios).

[paczki]

It gets thrown out the window when you're trying to ensure a French rider has a shot at the podium for once in the last 25yrs. :banana:

Uhh.. Team Garmin... an American squad will probably fare best.

[paczki]

This is simply doing the job the team doctors should be doing...


The UCI are saying:


"here are the guys on your team that have wacked out blood values. Your own internal controls should have caught them but why don't you do us all a favor and bench them rather than creating another massive embarrasment for us all."


The UCI should be doing this and should be doing this several weeks ahead of the tour.




It's way better than guys getting handed Jerseys or wins after the fact, or the media circus of tossing guys at the tour.


This isn't perfect but it's absolutey better and a step in the right direction. (Of course that's unless the UCI have created some bogus accounting of blood values, but the regs in place are actually reasonable suspect screening ratios).


I couldn't agree more.

[rwsaunders]

Well... In our judicial system, you can be put in jail until proven guilty, right? So what happens when one of these guys are under suspicion? Just let them ride until they are proven guilty? Or should they be suspended WHILE they are under investigation...

If it was up to me, I would let them ride.... BUT, I would have a rule that says, that if you are proven guilty, you would be suspended for life! Period...

..A..

You can post bail too.

[jmgorman]

You can post bail too.

But you can't leave the state and if it is a serious enough crime, you probably lost your job and had to mortgage your house to pay for your defense.

[Walter]

From 50 riders targeted before to now but 5...??

http://www.velonews.com/article/93525/former-world-road-champ-astarloa-among-5-targeted-by-uci

[Avispa]

You can post bail too.

Precisely... You will be "posting bail" by being allowed to ride. :D

But, I'd hate to hear the crying when one has indeed been proven guilty. What good is a (sport) system when previous offenders are allowed to continue, when most know that these are not capable of winning clean!* IMO, they are just a disgrace to the sport...

..A..

*just look at the results of previous "convicted" dopers... BEFORE/AFTER getting busted.