The ineffable Anne Gripper, the former head of UCI anti-doping department, after resigning for “family reasons” after the mess with the Gusev case (and more…), comes back with an interview on the Biologic Passport (Cyclingnews, 14th feb 2011).
Mrs Gripper warns riders against the publishing of their hematologic profiles and values, as they could become the target of improvised amateur hematologists’ evaluations, pointing out that only the UCI “Experts” are capable of correctly interpreting the data.
Correct, in my opinion, the first comment; conceitedly mistaken the second, as any method could and should be evaluated by the whole Scientific Community in order to gain any value.
Anne reasserts her granitic conviction in the legitimacy of the proceedings, opened under her direction, against Valijavec and Pellizotti, displaying deep disappointment in the event CAS upheld the decisions of their respective National Federations.
Moreover, she seems to “hope” for a potential acquittal due to erroneous storage of blood samples, a solution that wouldn’t undermine the credibility of the entire Biologic Passport…
The fact is that the extremely expensive System of the Biologic Passport, as applied by the UCI, is less and less transparent and credible.
The criteria and the schedules with which the UCI detects, identifies and subjects the haematic profiles to the attention of the “Experts” are decidedly mysterious and questionable, to say the least.
The disciplinary measures are “smoky” and open to interpretation: while WADA recommends sanctioning cases with a specificity above 99.9%, the UCI claims the right to proceed even for lower specificities, under undisclosed principles.
So, what happened to the other 6-9 “Suspect Cases” blared out by Pat McQuaid almost 1 year ago?