[Dwayne Barry]

So back in the spring there was the report that several riders had run afoul of the UCI passport program then eventually only 3 were prosecuted, now it turns out the higher number may have been the correct one and several have not been prosecuted.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-voices-concerns-on-uci-biological-passport

If it turns out the ones who were given a free pass were big names (e.g. Contador, Boonen or Cancellara) it's got to be the end of McQuaid. Not that the UCI has much credibility left but they better have a good explanation for why only 3 of the 8 were prosecuted.

 

[B2]

If it turns out the ones who were given a free pass were big names (e.g. Contador, Boonen or Cancellara) it's got to be the end of McQuaid. Not that the UCI has much credibility left but they better have a good explanation for why only 3 of the 8 were prosecuted.

Yes, that wouldn't look very good at all. I'm thinking that the profiles for the three busted riders must have shown stronger evidence of manipulation than the other five. It's hard to believe UCI would be dumb enough to pick and choose amongst equally incriminating profiles or for that matter, to prosecute questionable ones.

 

[terzo rene]

With 2 of the panel members questioning if things are being covered up it doesn't sound like the panel itself saw any difference in the degree of suspicion so it looks like more of the same from the UCI. Maybe someone should ask McQuaid how much LA paid them again just to see what story he comes up with this time.

I don't think CAS has heard any unequal enforcement cases yet so it would be interesting if Pellizotti or someone tried that angle. In their past decisions they seem to have been fairly consistent in punishing stupidity whether by riders or the UCI so it's conceivable they could throw it out based on the UCI's behavior.

 

[Coolhand]

Looks like for the bio passport they want to be damn sure. Makes sense seeing a false positive would ruin someone's career. A proven false positive would destroy any confidence in the passport system- use the cautious approach (and using it to target riders for extra surprise testing) does make sense to me.

 

[Dwayne Barry]

Looks like for the bio passport they want to be damn sure. Makes sense seeing a false positive would ruin someone's career. A proven false positive would destroy any confidence in the passport system- use the cautious approach (and using it to target riders for extra surprise testing) does make sense to me.

Up until the 3 prosecutions, the targetted testing appears to have been what they were doing. If they stuck to previous behavior, we can assume they were also warning riders they were under suspicion (IOW, stop doping or we might do something about it).

As far as false positives, the positive criteria are usually set far outside of the "normal" range for just that reason. Why the expert panel would have observed 8 suspicious riders but the UCI only pursued cases against 3 should be easy to explain. The fact that 2 of the experts suspect cover-ups is concerning. Could be that they thought all 8 were obviously doping and should have been prosecuted, could be that the 3 cases weren't the most indicative of doping, which is far more troubling. The implications of those two scenarios is vastly different. The UCI should just come out and confirm if they only went after the 3 "worse-case" scenarios and let the other 5 go (for now). Of course, that then begs the question of if the expert panel thinks those 5 were doping, who and what criteria is the UCI relying on to determine they may not have been doping.

 

[AdamM]

If you think the sport is in a new clean era, the WSJ article will be a depressing read. The only hopeful sign is that WADA appears to be moving to take more control of the bio-passport program. As pointed out in the story, the current set up has the UCI being both policeman and promoter of the sport, so when push comes to shove, what's the priority? It isn't too hard to guess $$$. For the unpursued cases, the UCI really has no answer. They don't dispute the results, just claim that they just might, could, maybe, possibly, someday act on the findings. Why those three got tossed overboard, while other five get a pass is a mystery that makes Landis's accusations about the UCI ring more true by the day.