or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Professional Cycling ›  The Index of Suspicion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Index of Suspicion - Page 2

post #16 of 21



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sitzmark View Post

In itself, the idea of a list is of little concern. 

 


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/belgian-rider-agent-could-sue-uci-for-defamation

 

I wonder if these athletes agree with your non-concern...
 

 

post #17 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyzackery View Post

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/belgian-rider-agent-could-sue-uci-for-defamation

 

I wonder if these athletes agree with your non-concern...
 



I said the idea of a list in and of itself is of little concern (to me) ... never said anything about allowing it to become public.  
 
The pro circuit tacitly accepted that the testing and resulting biologic passport would be used to monitor evidence of illegal performance enhancement when all agreed to the program.  Measure and display is a key part of any task/objective, and the UCI is on a mission.  Prioritizing where/how to focus resources is a part of any plan of action.  Whatever legal agreements have been executed will determine to what extent (if any) the UCI failed the riders/teams.  Almost certainly there would be an expectation that each rider's passport/medical history would be kept confidential, but whether or not that is spelled out in a binding legal agreement is speculation on my part.   If riders and teams sue that question will be answered for them.
 
From what has been published, the ranking system was not an indictment of an athlete's guilt ... rather an indication of the degree to which individual profiles fell outside of established norms and the additional sampling and scrutiny that resulted.  If it was completely objective and applied equally across the board (I have my doubts, but neither here nor there), then the UCI should have little problem defending itself against instituting such a ranking system to administer the program.  That is a completely separate issue from responsibility for failing to keep the results confidential.

 

post #18 of 21

Good on you for the clarification of your own personal non-concern. 

 

Your opinions on the matter are noted and I imagine the OP appreciates your sharing...

post #19 of 21
Thread Starter 

Interesting indeed. See also the response from the AIGCP.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/aigcp-responds-to-leaked-list

 

 According to them a riders score could be increased simply by riding particularly well at the time, not just blood values. (see point 3) So would Cancellara for example recieve a zero during the April of 2010?? Still confused!!

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by jamie72 - 5/15/11 at 3:13pm
post #20 of 21

AIGCP is trying to do damage control by, perhaps, "educating" the public as to how the rankings were derived.  They are preaching to the choir where the UCI is concerned because I have to believe the officials at the UCI are astute enough to have already taken these listed factors into account before they compile their suspicion rankings.

 

The UCI did not publish nor publicize this list - it was "leaked" to L'Equipe...it was meant to remain internal...

post #21 of 21

So if this is the "Tour" list - where's the scoop on the rest of the lads? ;)

 

Interesting to see a fair number of Team Sky riders hitting 5 and above.

 

If there is a global list, I wonder if the UCI ranks Brailsfords other band of cyclists just as highly - the GB track squad ,especially as a few riders ranked 5 and higher were once members of the track squad and the academy.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Professional Cycling
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Professional Cycling ›  The Index of Suspicion