Wielrennen #89 - Kittel, Kittel, Kittel, Kittel

quote:

Op zondag 8 mei 2011 21:56 schreef Sjoerd102 het volgende:
las het net op teletekst inderdaad. En probeer aan mensen die het wielrennen niet volgen maar eens uit te leggen, dat degene met de meeste overwinningen niet de eindwinnaar is,

quote:

Op zondag 8 mei 2011 22:49 schreef Maarten-Pieter het volgende:

[..]

De meeste overwinningen kan nog (Cavendish wint ook geen Tour), maar als je alles wint vind ik het wel raar. Heeft die Voeckler heel veel bonificaties en Kittel buiten de dagzeges niks o.i.d.?

quote:

Op zondag 8 mei 2011 22:03 schreef No-P het volgende:
Worldcyclingchannel3 gestopt? Of heeft hij weer een nieuw kanaal?

quote:

Because of recent copyright claims and other requests (by now we got a claim from about every major source), it has become impossible to maintain a 'world cycling channel' on YouTube this way. So this is where the story ends. Symbolically we've changed the background of our logo to black. Thank you for being with us in the past years. There will be some limited uploads on C11. http://www.youtube.com/user/channelC11

quote:

Op zondag 8 mei 2011 22:57 schreef SaintOfKillers het volgende:
In sommige rondes met bonificaties onderweg is 't in theorie mogelijk om alle ritten te winnen en geen eindwinnaar te worden.

quote:

Op zondag 8 mei 2011 22:51 schreef Felagund het volgende:

[..]

Voeckler won een etappe met meer dan een minuut voorsprong.

quote:

Op maandag 9 mei 2011 00:52 schreef buzz1291 het volgende:

[..]

Het lijkt me in dat soort ritten dan toch dat de etappe winnaar ook wel een paar bonificatie seconden krijgt. O ja, in theorie dus, degene die steeds tweede wordt pakt alle bonificatie seconden onderweg op. Volgens mij is de Tour wel eens gewonnen door iemand die geen enkele ritzege behaald heeft. Maar ik ben niet zo goed in lijstjes.

quote:

Dopage: nouvelles révélations vendredi

L'Union cycliste internationale a réagi par avance ce jeudi soir à la prochaine publication par le journal l'Equipe des commentaires de spécialistes antidopage faits sur les coureurs du Tour de France 2010.

"L'UCI a été informée que le journal L'Equipe allait publier dans son édition de vendredi un document confidentiel contenant les évaluations individuelles des coureurs du Tour de France 2010 suite aux contrôles effectués avant le départ", a déclaré la fédération internationale.

"Tout d'abord, l'UCI déplore que ce document soit entré en possession de personnes extérieures alors que cette liste constitue un simple outil de travail sur la base de laquelle ses services antidopage ont organisé leur activité pendant la course. Sans avoir pour le moment d'explication, l'UCI s'interroge sur la source d'une telle fuite, sachant que ce document était réservé à l'UCI et aux experts indépendants de l'AMA présents sur la course. Une telle faille dans la confidentialité est très grave et l'UCI mettra tout en oeuvre pour en découvrir l'origine", a insisté l'UCI.

"Concernant le contenu du document, l'UCI souligne que sa valeur est liée à un contexte temporel bien précis et découle d'une évaluation sommaire des résultats de ces contrôles. L'esprit et le but des commentaires inscrits dans ce document était d'éviter toute sous-évaluation de la situation, l'UCI ayant pour préoccupation majeure de lutter contre toute forme éventuelle de dopage grâce notamment à son programme du passeport biologique", a conclu la fédération internationale.

Les contrôles antidopage traditionnels pratiqués pendant le Tour de France 2010 ont abouti à un résultat positif, celui de son vainqueur, l'Espagnol Alberto Contador, pour des traces de clenbutérol.

Contador, qui a expliqué le résultat par une contamination alimentaire, a été "blanchi" par la fédération espagnole. Cette décision a fait l'objet d'un recours, par l'UCI et l'AMA, devant le Tribunal arbitral du sport (TAS), qui doit rendre son verdict en juin.

Avant le départ du Tour 2010 à Rotterdam (Pays-Bas), l'ensemble des 198 concurrents a subi un prélèvement sanguin, une opération à laquelle les coureurs de l'élite doivent se soumettre à plusieurs reprises durant la saison dans le cadre du passeport biologique mis en place par l'UCI depuis 2008.

quote:

Op vrijdag 13 mei 2011 00:34 schreef Waaghals het volgende:
mijn Frans is niet meer zo denderend

quote:

While recognising the high level of testing and a focus on targeting riders in the Pre-Tour period (i.e. April to June 2010) it was noted that there were a number of riders of significance who took part in the Tour who had either not been tested during the Pre-Tour period or who had only been tested once (with the majority of these for the ABP).

• During the Tour, a number of riders demonstrating suspicious profiles and/or showing significantly impressive performances at the Tour were tested on surprisingly few occasions and for three riders of interest did not provide a blood sample for the purposes of anti-doping in the whole Tour (instead each providing a single sample for the ABP). This was consistent with the IO Team’s view that at times more weight was given by the UCI to ABP samples than samples for the detection of the ‘presence’ of prohibited substances and/or methods.

• The IO Team was surprised to see that a random draw was conducted for Post-Finish testing on two stages. The IO Team did question the rationale of even conducting a random draw, and while recognising that the particular stage was a flat one (which usually finishes in a bunch sprint), it seemed a missed opportunity not to use the intelligence available to the UCI or even base the selections on the performance of the riders in the stage. This was considered by the UCI after the first random draw was conducted and the IO Team only observed one further random draw being conducted again on the Tour.

• A rider identified as having a priority index of eight (with ten being the highest and most at risk of doping) was tested only once (urine EPO) during the Pre-Tour period with no blood sample collected for the analysis of CERA, HBT, HBOC or other prohibited substances and/or methods. During the Tour recommendations from the Laboratory related to target testing for EPO did not seem to be conducted expediently or as appropriate (ie. the EPO test was conducted 6 days later while the blood sample was only analysed for hGH). Lastly, following a significant delay in providing an early morning sample and in conjunction with the intelligence already held on this rider, there seems no evidence of more intense target testing on this rider.

• For a rider identified as having a priority index of ten, no blood samples were collected following the Laboratory recommendations after interpretation of blood passport data from the first week of the Tour, with only urine being collected and no blood as recommended by the Laboratory. Further, a recommendation to target test the rider for EPO took seven days to be executed.

• A rider identified as having a priority index of ten was not tested for either urine or blood from 3 April to the start of the Tour. Recommendations made by the Laboratory following testing in the first three days of the Tour resulted in no further blood samples being collected but rather only urine and approximately ten days later. The IO Team became aware of the remarks made by the laboratory regarding the analysis of this rider’s specific sample that raised the suspicion of the use of proteases. No further information regarding any actions taken by the UCI for further analysis of that sample was made available.

• For a rider identified as having a priority index of eight, who was recommended to be target tested for EPO by the Laboratory, the UCI did not target test the rider and in addition a sample collected five days later was not analysed for EPO. Interestingly in this case collection of follow-up samples from this rider was initiated by the AFLD via the WADA Resolution.

• Given the challenges in organising and resourcing unannounced missions, the IO Team would have expected to observe multiple riders being targeted for morning and/or evening testing. However, it was observed that when a single rider was targeted there was no consideration to testing additional riders either from the same team as the targeted rider or from teams also residing in the same hotel.

Before any conclusions are made with respect the UCI’s testing strategy the IO Team would like to reiterate that the UCI’s ABP is an excellent programme and one the UCI should be proud. However, in the opinion of the IO Team, the UCI now needs to take the next step in designing and executing a testing strategy that is radically different to those executed in the past

quote:

Zo zou Denis Menchov, die dit jaar bij Geox-TMC rijdt maar vorig jaar namens Rabobank derde werd in de Tour, heel sterk in de gaten gehouden zijn, met een score van maar liefst negen. Jurgen Van den Broeck, die Parijs haalde als vijfde in het klassement, was eveneens ernstig verdacht, met een quotering van acht.

quote:

John Wilcockson
johnwilcockson John Wilcockson
Also rated 4 (low suspicion) Armstrong are Evans, Leipheimer, Millar; on 5 Contador (more suspicious) are Ballan, Vinokourov, Wiggins,

quote:

John Wilcockson
johnwilcockson John Wilcockson
L'Equipe has secret UCI list of doping suspicion (0-10) of 198 riders @ 2010 TdF: Cancellara, Horner 0; Armstrong 4; Contador 5; Menchov 9.

quote:

Op vrijdag 13 mei 2011 09:04 schreef Ereinion het volgende:
Kan dit niet beter in het dopingtopic, want daar heeft dit toch mee te maken?