50 riders to be named?
by humbug1 on Jun 14, 2009 8:03 PM EDT
41 comments
Haven't seen this anywhere on here yet so thought I would post link to cyclingnews story here .
Essentially, McQuaid says fifty riders and their teams will be notified that their passports show abnormal results and that he expects the riders listed will not be able to take part in the TdF, though only an undisclosed amount of riders will have action taken against them right now.
Fifty? Are you freaking kidding me? We all knew there would be a few names, 5, maybe 10, right? Fifty could be 1/4 of all potential Tour riders...probably not all 50 are slated for the tour, but still.
The UCI has stated in other outlets that the Katusha cases were born from targeted testing from these values and that suspect riders were tested more than normal. One can assume that these two were the only ones actually caught with the juice in them from these tests. Regardless, it seems the UCI have dotted the i's and crossed the t's. Should be an interesting few weeks for sure.
0 recs |
41 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Yeah, I seem to remember something about this
but I don’t recall it being anything like 50 riders. Heck, that’s more than a quarter of the peloton!
by Le Comte on Jun 14, 2009 8:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm waiting to see if that gets clarified
since 50 was the number of potential TdF GC/stage winners + riders with suspicious values who were going to be targeted for extra testing in the days before the Tour. Makes me wonder if there’s a bit of confusion between the targeted for testing group and the ones that they’re going to proceed against now.
I can't understand why people cheat--Mark Cavendish
by majope on Jun 14, 2009 8:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Confusion
Makes me wonder if there’s a bit of confusion between the targeted for testing group and the ones that they’re going to proceed against now.
Yeah there seems to be confusion here. At lest on my part.
by ursula on Jun 14, 2009 8:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yep. I seem to recall statements that mention this number as riders to be tested at the tour...
…but in no way suggest that these riders are dirty or should be excluded. A different set of riders were, in the earlier statements, said to be the ones suspected on the basis of blood values.
by Ed K on Jun 14, 2009 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except
McQuaid said
“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.”
That’s a damn bold statement – assuming he’s being quoted correctly, and in context- blah blah blah.
It’s also a naive statement, as Tifosa points out below.
He’s quoted as saying:
“We worked with experts. We are ready to defend these results before the court.”
Which make me think this is going to be very ugly. Why make that statement unless you know you’re going to meet resistance. To me, that means big fish.
This is going to suck.
"I get paid to hurt other people. How good is that? How good is that?
I get paid to make other people suffer on my wheel, that's good." Jens!
by jsallee00 on Jun 14, 2009 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent assessment I think, major suckage.
I totally agree that there are going to be some big fish named.
by sminer on Jun 14, 2009 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll be surprised if there are any big names
among the first few riders to have disciplinary action taken against them. In the 50 targeted riders, probably yes, but in the first few actual “prosecutions,” I’d guess no.
Judging from past behavior by the UCI, I’m guessing the decision about which cases to prosecute first was made by lawyers and politico-types, rather than by scientists. They’ll want the test cases to be those that they think will be the easiest to win, and that means not only solid data, but also limited resources for resistance by the named riders.
by Tifosa on Jun 14, 2009 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Damn, I like your assessment too.
Because, I think so much of this naming process is political too. But I would be prepared to be surprised, it’s something about McQuaid’s statements that sounds like he’s trying to prep people for some (maybe big, but definitely) TdF riders to be named.
by sminer on Jun 14, 2009 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
50 sounds like a reasonable number to me.
It sounds like McQuaid is saying that 50 riders will be targeted for additional testing after showing “abnormal” results in the passport test. That doesn’t mean that disciplinary proceedings will eventually be initiated against all 50, just that they’ll be subject to increased testing, which may or may not lead to positive dope tests (as in the case of Colom), or disciplinary action based on the passport results (as in the case of the presumably smaller number of riders against whom action will supposedly be taken soon).
I seem to recall reading that somewhere around 800 riders are participating in the passport program, so 50 riders is only about 6% of the riders in the program. My guess is, the percentage of riders on the passport who are doing some sort of doping is a good deal higher than 6%. It makes sense that some of that doping would not be detectable under the passport. It doesn’t surprise me a bit to hear that 6% of the riders on the passport show irregularities that warrant further, targeted testing. Actually, the number sounds a bit low to me.
Bit disingenous of McQuaid to say he “cannot imagine” that the teams will bring any of the 50 targeted riders to the Tour. After all, Caisse is racing Valverde even after he’s already been suspended. Most of the teams will do whatever they can get away with when it comes to their star riders.
by Tifosa on Jun 14, 2009 9:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This also makes sense...
…though I still think that the 50 number being passed around in various contexts is a bit confusing.
by Ed K on Jun 14, 2009 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's going to get fugly real soon. What a way to build up for the Tour.
The timing of this mess is diabolical.
by sminer on Jun 14, 2009 9:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Better before the Tour than after
don’t want a bunch of guys who performed great at Le Tour to be on that list and then suspended.
by Phil H. on Jun 14, 2009 9:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
True, but it still highlights the ugly side of the sport going into the biggest event of the season.
I’m thinking of potential fans and what a turn off it is going into the TdF. And it’s not likely we’ll come away with a clean Tour. For me yea, I want them weeded out, sooner would have been better.
by sminer on Jun 14, 2009 10:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm guessing the Lance effect will be stronger than the passport effect
and they will still watch….this year. Wish they would do this in off-season as well but I’m guessing they got most of these levels in races held this year.
by Phil H. on Jun 14, 2009 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another good point.
And hopefully people will see the cleansing effort in the sport to be effective and a positive.
by sminer on Jun 14, 2009 10:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would be great, if those type of fans actually realized that cycling does a lot to clean the sport
but those same fans also probably believe that baseball is doing all it can. We’ll see, if those 50 riders are at the Pfannberger level than the casual fan probably will never hear of this.
by Phil H. on Jun 14, 2009 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Shifty Fifty?
I wonder what sort of bias said list shows…
Mon coeur appartient à les forçats de la route.
by Josenka on Jun 14, 2009 10:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Bias?
It seems there would be bias in determining their results to be bias, no?
by sminer on Jun 14, 2009 10:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Someone will sue over the results since cyclists have been so litigous [sic].
Mon coeur appartient à les forçats de la route.
by Josenka on Jun 14, 2009 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very few French . . .
. . . because they are the only generally non-doping cycling nation — as proved by their utter lack of results in recent years. The Spaniards and Italians should light up the boards, with odd GC riders from various countries.
The one-day men won’t be as frequent, as doping is more necessary to complete the ridiculously fast- paced contemporary Grand Tours.
by DeathBredon on Jun 15, 2009 2:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ridiculously fast-paced contemporary Grand Tours?
Well, a bit, but it really started in the early 80’s in the Giro:
by tedvdw on Jun 15, 2009 7:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i had to re-read the 50 piece a few times...
but this story, and the assumed correct quote, does make it clear that riders on the “list” would be outed as well as those who are going to be disciplined.
As for the timing – Always happens before the tour, whether it is the UCI, Walsh, OP…
by humbug1 on Jun 14, 2009 10:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I am certain that at least 50 riders in the pro peleton are doping . . .
. . . especially considering that this includes Pro Tour and major Continental Teams.
We have to remember (1) the amazing average speeds for stage races; (2) the almost utter lack of “bonk days” among the GC contenders anymore, and (3) the large number of riders that have been implicated in doping only by result to using extra-control policing — Operation Puerto, Confessions (Barjne Riis, etc.)
In short, only the very naive doubt that the peleton long ago learned how to evade the doping controls. The positives are usually just a result of dosing mistakes and only catch a small percentage of the cheats. Also, we know that the culture of the peleton accepts doping as part of the routine and intimidates anyone who speaks out — for instance Armstrong “policing” and certain honest Italian rider.
In sum, I think 50 is a conservative number of cheats.
by DeathBredon on Jun 15, 2009 2:21 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Bit naive to think that any testing regimen will catch all dopers...
with no false positives, either…
Can’t draw a venn diagram with slash marks, but I’m not sure how closely the circle of “suspect values” overlaps the circle of “dopers.” Nor am I convinced that the size of circle A equals the size of circle B.
However, I have to say that the controls sound like they used to be totally laughable / really careless and pro-forma. (You’re pee-shy? Sure, we’ll look the other way while you pee in the cup…from the bag strapped on your leg.) I don’t think they (mostly) play it that way anymore.
by JFS_PGH on Jun 20, 2009 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I wonder is...
How reliable are the “abnormal levels” as an indicator of actual doping? (And conversely, how reliable are “normal” levels as an indicator of innocence?)
I don’t doubt that a lot of the riders are doping. And the more testing, the better. It’s just that the UCI doesn’t really impress one with their competence, and I’m afraid that the biological passport may end up muddying the waters even further.
by tgartner on Jun 15, 2009 3:19 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
How reliable are the "abnormal levels" as an indicator of actual doping?
I think the issue here is how you detect/deal with the problem of autologous transfusion, isn’t it, which is probably the biggest problem in that it isn’t detectable as ‘doping’ per se. I suppose the hope would be you could look at someone’s levels & identify when they had had blood taken out, but whether other factors could cause a similar result, I don’t know. Thing is, if you identify someone for further testing on that basis, but the testing doesn’t exist to prove anything beyond what you already suspect, what good does it do? Or is the theory that, like Kohl (or like what seemed to come out of the Balco affair, for instance), people who dope use a variety of methods & eventually something definite will come up? Whereas if nothing can be proved for autologous transfusion short of catching you in your hotel room/finding the blood bags, surely a suspect rider has no incentive to stop however much they’re tested unless action can be taken on the basis of “abnormal levels”?
by civetta on Jun 15, 2009 5:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unless of course the teams stop them.
Which seems to be what we’re depending on here.
by civetta on Jun 15, 2009 5:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"abnormal levels" ARE the way to detect autologous transfusion
As well as the hematocrit variation itself, stored blood has components that break down, so the level of the precursor and the breakdown product is out of balance when you’re blood-doping.
by JFS_PGH on Jun 20, 2009 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Abnormal results in 'clean' teams should worry
They will be fired on the spot probably. Riders in teams with a less strict stance on doping will probably escape with the team speaking some stern words in the media.
"Where there’s a will, there’s a way.": Alberto Contador, shortly after waking up from brain surgery.
by Lopex on Jun 15, 2009 5:03 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Lionel Birnie
(Via Twitter) is interesting on this. According to him, the confusion stems from L’Equipe misunderstanding/mistranslating the distinction between the 6/7 or however many & the 50 who have been identified for further testing. He also says that it seems likely the shorter list will be of riders who have already been banned…
by civetta on Jun 15, 2009 5:16 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The suspicion that something like this is happening...
…is why I, and probably majope and ursula, are holding off on getting all worked up about this.
by Ed K on Jun 15, 2009 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder if teams that are very vocal anti-drug advocates
will see any of their riders on the list. I suspect that all teams will be represented, but that a smaller proportion of named riders will come from those teams. Not because the riders have bought into the anti-doping message, but because the UCI, being an international body and thus very politicized, will want to target teams that aren’t doing as much to ensure their riders are clean. In other words, they want to send a message to the teams that they bear responsibility.
by pigilito on Jun 15, 2009 10:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
International Cycling Union (UCI) President Pat McQuaid, quoted in French newspaper L’Equipe yesterday, said that the UCI is doing increased testing on 50 riders in the run up to the Tour de France. Amid speculation about the amount of ‘positive’ biological passport cases the UCI will announce this week, the Irishman stressed that the first number is unrelated to the second.
from the new cn website… http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-clarifies-50-targeted-riders
"Wizard's first rule. People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true." -- Terry Goodkind
by umwolverine on Jun 15, 2009 11:10 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
“I emphasised that there weren’t 50 suspicious riders,” he told Cyclingnews Monday morning. “The 50 refers to a selection from the long list for the Tour de France.”
"Wizard's first rule. People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true." -- Terry Goodkind
by umwolverine on Jun 15, 2009 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you snooze, you lose
"Wizard's first rule. People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true." -- Terry Goodkind
by umwolverine on Jun 15, 2009 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Aww, I came here to post that ):
the irony
by Jens on Jun 16, 2009 3:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
