Fire up the Witchsmeller Pursuivant!

[Chuffy]

So, McQuaid is promising names....

Any guesses who they might be? My money is on a handful of second-leaguers with maybe a stage winner or two in there. No big names though....

 

[Noodley]

I bet he names me just cos I buggered off up the road on the last climb of last weekend's audax.

 

[Crackle]

I bet he names me just cos I buggered off up the road on the last climb of last weekend's audax.

Your blood will be a cocktail of pies and beer, mostly pies. Maybe someone's spiked your pies: Chuffy

 

[Noodley]

Your blood will be a cocktail of pies and beer

I think you'll ind it's mostly bridies as I rarely drink beer...

 

[yello]

I predict mayhem...

As well as a question mark over who is suspected of cheating, it remains to be seen how the UCI deals with the riders involved - none of whom have, as yet, tested positive.

...this is going to be a legal minefield I reckon. My feeling is that UCI will have to have some pretty darned convincing support/evidence for the validity of their passports system to make the accusations stick.

 

[John the Monkey]

The Michael Ashenden interview on NYVelocity suggests that the real advantage of longitudinal testing lies in targeting doping control efforts NOT in finding dopers per se.

As I understand it the UCI system will;

1) Inform riders that they are suspicious.
2) Inform teams that the riders from (1) are suspicious
3) Inform national federations
4) Leave all the above to take action as they see fit.

Trying to look on the bright side (and leaving aside the fact that some teams/feds will undoubtedly do nothing at all) assuming the info is in the public domain, WADA/AFLD &c may be able to target their testing on, say 50 sus. riders than attempting to control every rider.

 

[yello]

Okay, that clarifies it for me JtM, thanks. Something like a yellow card then. It'll be interesting to see how the riders/teams respond. Take it on the chin or bluster and plead inequity??

 

[John the Monkey]

I have a mental list of teams that will do precisely bugger all in my head already.

It'll be interesting to see whether I really am as cynical as I think I'm becoming about all this.

 

[Keith Oates]

The Michael Ashenden interview on NYVelocity suggests that the real advantage of longitudinal testing lies in targeting doping control efforts NOT in finding dopers per se.

As I understand it the UCI system will;

1) Inform riders that they are suspicious.
2) Inform teams that the riders from (1) are suspicious
3) Inform national federations
4) Leave all the above to take action as they see fit.

Trying to look on the bright side (and leaving aside the fact that some teams/feds will undoubtedly do nothing at all) assuming the info is in the public domain, WADA/AFLD &c may be able to target their testing on, say 50 sus. riders than attempting to control every rider.

That seems to be a sensible way to move ahead with this information but it also suggests that the testing being carried out for the passport is not yet at a level where riders can be proven to have taken substances!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[John the Monkey]

That seems to be a sensible way to move ahead with this information but it also suggests that the testing being carried out for the passport is not yet at a level where riders can be proven to have taken substances!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Longitudinal testing is problematic because there's no "A-ha!" value as such. As I understand it, it can indicate that there may be something untoward going on, but it's exceptional that it can produce undoubtable evidence of rEPO use, for example.

Michael Ashenden: So I think the passport will take us a big step forward, not necessarily because it will be where sanctions are suddenly imposed, but because it tells the agencies which athletes are suspicious and which are not, or for all accounts clean. So you can focus your tests accordingly. Rather than having a pool of a thousand athletes, suddenly you narrow it down to a pool of say, fifty, and you focus your testing on those. And I think that indirect benefit of the passport, plus the continued police involvement, are going to be the conerstones of the anti doping efforts. At least in the foreseeable future.


NYVelocity: So the passport may not catch someone, but someone might find himself subject to more 'random' tests?


MA: Exactly. And when you've shown these unusual variations then you can expect the federations will continue to pursue you until your values came back to normal and stopped deviating, or you're caught and sanctioned. It's an element of the passport that perhaps wasn't emphasized as much as it could've. There are some people who believe that's what the passport is best suited to do, to highlight the athletes who are doping so that you can then follow up with targeted testing.

Whole interview is here; http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden , excerpted from section headed "The Bio Passport" et seq.

 

[ACS]

I bet he names me just cos I buggered off up the road on the last climb of last weekend's audax.

and I thought you where just trying to get a signal on the mobile

 

[John the Monkey]

I bet he names me just cos I buggered off up the road on the last climb of last weekend's audax.

Sign with Liquigas, quick!

 

[ufkacbln]

I have a real problem with this.

If there is a proven and positive test with confirmation form a B sample, then name and shame, but this is simply accusing riders without proof, and that should be unacceptable.

It needs a few teams to sue the UCI for damages.

 

[Dayvo]

I bet he names me just cos I buggered off up the road on the last climb of last weekend's audax.

What, in last place!