Sky - Page 893 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #8921  
Old 11-22-12, 03:59
Tinman's Avatar
Tinman Tinman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,100
Default

CN today. "Team Sky confirmed that all of the riders and staff who will form the squad for 2013 had signed their declarations but would not comment on any possible changes to their line up. However Cyclingnews understands that changes may still be made to the rider roster before the start of next season.

“I don’t think the process will ever conclude,” a team spokesperson told Cyclingnews.

“It’s an ongoing process that the team will continue to implement throughout its development. Everyone within the team has been interviewed and the relevant declarations have been signed where appropriate. Any relevant news will be released in due course.”


Interesting to hear of the 2013 lineup then. As the process involves an interview and management decision it puts the emphasis on management to get it right. Management better makes some good (rider agreed) notes of these interviews...

But why would this process not conclude? We're talking about past doping or involvement in doping. Should be straight forward, no? The past doesn't change with time, does it?
__________________

“Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Reply With Quote
  #8922  
Old 11-22-12, 04:07
Tinman's Avatar
Tinman Tinman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krebs cycle View Post
Maybe I should have explained this differently. It's less about the science and more about due process. Should there be a system where evidence is reviewed anonymously by a panel of experts whose recommendation then gets presented in a court or tribunal overseen by a non-corrupt regulatory body or should we just allow mob rule, with all its emotional bias and predjudice? Same concept applies to any legal matter. For example, why don't we just release evidence to the public regarding crimimal cases and then let mob rules decide what the sentencing should be as opposed to judges? Its a slippery legal slope to go down and the risk is that you let dopers off the hook because it could be argued that they were previously tried in the court of public opinion, which would thus lead to a mistrial.
You are representing an either/or scenario but we can have both. As is the case in many legal systems. Ie internal process, but information publicly available.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krebs cycle View Post
If you have a proper system untainted by UCI corruption, then what would it achieve if you released the biopassport data, say in the event that an athlete has already been cleared any blood manipulation? How will you discourage doping moreso by doing that?
Already covered. Onus is now on the athlete to explain, not the panel. And not only to the panel, but more broadly - indirectly - to the fans. Repeat feeble excuses no longer possible.
__________________

“Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.”


Last edited by Tinman; 11-22-12 at 04:15.
Reply With Quote
  #8923  
Old 11-22-12, 04:11
Tinman's Avatar
Tinman Tinman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferminal View Post
UCI has more control over ABP data than the independent panel of experts.

They may be experts and they may be independent, but nothing happens without the blessings of the highly incompetent UCI.
As with several of these UCI panels, I seem unable to find out who is on them. Anyone familiar who is on this "independent biopassport data analysis panel"?

Likewise the 'disciplinary committee', who presumably discuss/conclude on rule infringements and penalties. Anyone know who is on there?
__________________

“Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Reply With Quote
  #8924  
Old 11-22-12, 04:11
Krebs cycle Krebs cycle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 770
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinman View Post
Already covered. Onus is now on the athlete to explain, not the panel. And not only to the panel, but more broadly - indirectly - to the fans. Repeat feeble excuses no longer possible.
The athlete has been cleared by the panel. What do they need to explain exactly to the public?
Reply With Quote
  #8925  
Old 11-22-12, 04:18
Ferminal Ferminal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 16,454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinman View Post
As with several of these UCI panels, I seem unable to find out who is on them. Anyone familiar who is on this "independent biopassport data analysis panel"?

Likewise the 'disciplinary committee', who presumably discuss/conclude on rule infringements and penalties. Anyone know who is on there?
Mercer has it:

http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/04/new...d-in-lausanne/

Reply With Quote
  #8926  
Old 11-22-12, 04:24
Tinman's Avatar
Tinman Tinman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krebs cycle View Post
The athlete has been cleared by the panel. What do they need to explain exactly to the public?
The panel currently allows enormous 'benefit of the doubt' in declaring a suspicious reading/readings positive. Which is a good thing, to some extent. But it also means that many athletes are still getting away with things that are patently obvious transgressions. Ashenden has talked about several of these incidents. Having data publicly available strengthens the position of the independent panel and puts the emphasis much more strongly on the athlete to explain data abberations adequately. As the 'public' will also see this.

And by the way, easy to dismiss 'public' as 'unruly mob', etc etc, but misses the point conveniently that there are many experts out there who will aid the public discussion/understanding, etc etc.

And we're back to benefits of peer review (and paper discussion sections in journals, conferences, etc) which you know, right?
__________________

“Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.”


Last edited by Tinman; 11-22-12 at 04:30.
Reply With Quote
  #8927  
Old 11-22-12, 04:24
blackcat's Avatar
blackcat blackcat is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,573
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehog View Post
I don't what you say. No one on Sky has ever tested positive. Ever. Period. Without doubt. No re-runs, do-ins, love-ins.

Clean.
worst they will ever get with the current regime is Rob Hayles crit suspension for health reasons. no Christine Ohrogu for Sky. No Siree. Uncle Rupert will be wielding his power from his twitter throne.
__________________
there are few genius
ricky riccio is a savant genius
the rest of us are freeloading intellectual proletariat
Reply With Quote
  #8928  
Old 11-22-12, 04:38
blackcat's Avatar
blackcat blackcat is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,573
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinman View Post
Come on Vickers, do you want guys like Rogers in your sport? Y/N.

And then, do you want them in your team Sky, screwing your/its reputation? Y/N

Should be pretty simple really.

Should also be simple to resolve for Rogers, ie. to either sign and declare himself clean, or explain himself otherwise and find another team or retire.

But no need for you to defend the man, he can do that quite simply himself in public. As a high profile rider and quite chatty to the media should be no problem.
I want Rogers in the sport. This is getting Salem witch trials. No doubt he doped. No doubt Wiggins doped. No doubt Froome doped. there is no doubt.

There is no doubt it was not confined to Sky, that the peloton will still be on it.

A tenet of justice is the universal application of justice. Cant cherrypick riders like Ricco and Kohl and Landis. They make easy marks. But ultimately, all riders are hurt, not just the riders serving the suspension. If you think no one has ever won the Tour on bread and water, tho I will make a Lemond exception, he proves the rule prior to the blood and O2 vectors dominating the sport, if you think that no one has won the pinnacle of the sport on bread and water, just how does that redefine the sport?

And just how does it play out to throw Dodger to the wolves with Rory Sutherland. Its BS. You will see you cannot hold one person to a standard and account when the rest of the peloton go on their merry way. /sarcasm
__________________
there are few genius
ricky riccio is a savant genius
the rest of us are freeloading intellectual proletariat

Last edited by blackcat; 11-22-12 at 05:13.
Reply With Quote
  #8929  
Old 11-22-12, 04:55
Tinman's Avatar
Tinman Tinman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackcat View Post
I want Rogers in the sport. This is getting Salem witch trials. No doubt he doped. No doubt Wiggins doped. No doubt Froome doped. there is no doubt.

There is no doubt it was not confined to Sky, that the peloton will still be on it.

A tenet of justice is the universal application of justice. Cant cherrypick riders like Ricco and Kohl and Landis. They make easy marks. But ultimately, all riders are hurt, not just the riders serving the suspension. If you think no one has every won the Tour on bread and water, tho I will make a Lemond exception, he proves the rule prior to the blood and O2 vectors dominating the sport, if you think that no one has won the pinnacle of the sport on bread and water, just how does that redefine the sport?

And just how does it play out to throw Dodger to the wolves with Rory Sutherland. Its BS. You will see you cannot hold one person to a standard and account when the rest of the peloton go on their merry way. /sarcasm
For me the whole lot of tainted ones can go. Start with a clean slate. Plenty of untainted riders out there, just that we may not yet know of them. I'm also comfortable with an amnesty concept. It's about how the stakeholders (incl. sponsors) want the sport to go forward. And that's why I like the concept of 'clean' declarations by riders and teams. But it needs to be backed up with transparency... on the past, on the bloods, on the UCI process, etc etc. And that's what is holding this back. Via UCI leadership. Just not there.
__________________

“Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Reply With Quote
  #8930  
Old 11-22-12, 05:15
blackcat's Avatar
blackcat blackcat is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,573
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinman View Post
For me the whole lot of tainted ones can go. Start with a clean slate. Plenty of untainted riders out there, just that we may not yet know of them. I'm also comfortable with an amnesty concept. It's about how the stakeholders (incl. sponsors) want the sport to go forward. And that's why I like the concept of 'clean' declarations by riders and teams. But it needs to be backed up with transparency... on the past, on the bloods, on the UCI process, etc etc. And that's what is holding this back. Via UCI leadership. Just not there.
I think it would be hypocrisy in extremis to let Frodo Mavendish to ride while he spews invective at Ricco. sorry, does not work that way. All are complicit. Some may indeed not take a thing now, but they will not utter a word, unless it is the accepted mark like Ricco or Landis. Bascially like the next UCI prez Dave Millar says. muppettry
__________________
there are few genius
ricky riccio is a savant genius
the rest of us are freeloading intellectual proletariat
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:12.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.