Astana Licence to be withdrawn?

[Bronstein]

http://inrng.com/2012/10/pro-cyclists-usada-views/

Link for Indurain and Sanchez.

The first complaint is usually that a rider won't call out dopers. Kittel did that, so the complaint became that he won't call out big names. Kittel did that... and now the complaint has become that he hasn't called out every big name!

Kittel called out Sayar based on his results and performances:

I was not often in my life so angry about a result of someone else. And I see many people around me feeling the same

He criticised Indurain, Contador and Sanchez for not jumping on the bandwagon and denouncing Armstrong once the obvious had finally been officially confirmed. Let me know when Kittel questions the performance or results of a high profile rider before they test positive.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

But he didn't exactly call them out for being cheating dopers did he, not like what he had to say about Sayer.

He called them out for having no credibility on the subject of doping.

I will admit that the Torku episodes were some of my favourite moments in here. Everyone knew they were rocket fueled, yet many of our silliest posters managed to work themselves into fits of idiot outrage about how they were being picked on because a few riders stayed the bleeding obvious. It was a particularly extreme example of the mindset I was talking about a few posts ago - people who actually think its. "unfair" when some obvious doper is suspended or investigated or even called out by other riders.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Kittel called out Sayar based on his results and performances:



He criticised Indurain, Contador and Sanchez for not jumping on the bandwagon and denouncing Armstrong once the obvious had finally been officially confirmed. Let me know when Kittel questions the performance or results of a high profile rider before they test positive.

I really do love these ever shifting goal posts. Now it isn't enough to call riders out, nor to call high profile riders out, nor, we can only assume, would it be enough to call out every big name rider. The calling out has to be done on the basis of approved "that looks too fast to me" methodology too, or it doesn't count.

"not jumping on the bandwagon" is a particularly lovely bit of phraseology, by the way. Why I dare say, we could come to the conclusion that Contador, Sanchez and Indurain were taking a brave stand against prevailing opinion. Perhaps even heroic.

 

[skippythepinhead]

"Many of the loudest" does not equal "everyone" or "the clinic" as a whole. If you really think that there aren't many posters who believe that all pros, almost all, or all of the reasonably successful riders are doping, I'd suggest that you've been reading a different forum.

Which is it? All? Almost all? All of the reasonably successful?

Would the belief that an average of between 6 and 7 of the top 10 places of the TdF in the last 15 years were on a systematized doping program place me in the category of posters in your analysis?

 

[Morbius]

UCI must be doing something right:

Oleg Tinkov @olegtinkov
That isn't the way we want to compete w @vincenzonibali . UCI again confirms that it is full of mess and cycling need different management

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Which is it? All? Almost all? All of the reasonably successful?

Those three positions are functionally the same for the purposes of the argument I made and the mindset I was describing. They are not quite identical in other circumstances, of course.

 

[Netserk]

Those three positions are functionally the same for the purposes of the argument I made and the mindset I was describing. They are not quite identical in other circumstances, of course.

Incorrect. If every single one is doping, then no one can speak up/point fingers without being a hypocrite. If only (all of) the most/reasonable successful riders are doping, then there are plenty of clean riders who can speak up without being hypocrites.

I think it's fair to say that almost everyone (at the top level) was doping in the late 90's, but that doesn't mean I'd attack Bassons. If however, I was of the opinion that he was a doper as well (the every-single-rider-is-a-doper opinion) then it'd be fair to criticize him for being a hypocrite.

 

[skippythepinhead]

Those three positions are functionally the same for the purposes of the argument I made and the mindset I was describing. They are not quite identical in other circumstances, of course.

No, it means you constructed your argument based on a fallacious categorization of people who don't exist, and then wasted your time trying build a psychological profile of a fictional archetype. Might as well ask, "Who would be more likely to dope to win a bike race, Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn?"

 

[Bronstein]

Now it isn't enough to call riders out, nor to call high profile riders out, nor, we can only assume, would it be enough to call out every big name rider. The calling out has to be done on the basis of approved "that looks too fast to me" methodology too, or it doesn't count.

I didn't claim any of these things in my previous post. Inventing straw men won't hide the obvious difference between Kittel's comments with respect to Sayar as compared to those regarding Indurain, Sanchez and Contador.

"not jumping on the bandwagon" is a particularly lovely bit of phraseology, by the way. Why I dare say, we could come to the conclusion that Contador, Sanchez and Indurain were taking a brave stand against prevailing opinion. Perhaps even heroic.

No, I came to the obvious conclusion that Contador, Sanchez and Indurain didn't want to be seen as hypocrites. Therefore they didn't denounce Armstrong. I'm sure you also came to that conclusion.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Incorrect. If every single one is doping, then no one can speak up/point fingers without being a hypocrite. If only (all of) the most/reasonable successful riders are doping, then there are plenty of clean riders who can speak up without being hypocrites.

You are arguing as if such logic had any purchase on the minds of the posters in question.

In practice, some Conti rider nobody, like that Colombian lad whose interview was posted the other day can get away without being called a hypocrite. Either because he's unsuccessful enough that he isn't assumed to be a doper, or simply because nobody notices. The definition of reasonably successful in practical terms extends down to just about any Pro Tour rider prominent enough for his anti-doping stance or "calling out" of others to be widely noticed.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

No, it means you constructed your argument based on a fallacious categorization of people who don't exist, and then wasted your time trying build a psychological profile of a fictional archetype. Might as well ask, "Who would be more likely to dope to win a bike race, Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn?"

Ah yes, I'm just imagining the posters here who assume that all or all reasonably successful pros are doping. Just like I'm imagining your long pointy shoes and shiny red nose.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

I didn't claim any of these things in my previous post. Inventing straw men won't hide the obvious difference between Kittel's comments with respect to Sayar as compared to those regarding Indurain, Sanchez and Contador.

Yes, of course Kittel's comments were different in that he used different actions and evidence to call different people out. Nonetheless his conclusions were that various big names had no credibility on the subject of doping. That, in plain terms, constitutes calling out big names rather than restricting himself to small fish as was being claimed before I pointed out his comments.

I have no interest in anyone's whining about how he should be required not just to call out big names, but to call them out on the basis of specific, clinic approved arguments.

 

[Netserk]

You are arguing as if such logic had any purchase on the minds of the posters in question.

In practice, some Conti rider nobody, like that Colombian lad whose interview was posted the other day can get away without being called a hypocrite. Either because he's unsuccessful enough that he isn't assumed to be a doper, or simply because nobody notices. The definition of reasonably successful in practical terms extends down to just about any Pro Tour rider prominent enough for his anti-doping stance or "calling out" of others to be widely noticed.

I think (most likely) everyone of the most successful riders are doping. I doubt anyone gets in a GT top-10 clean (nor contends for monument wins for that matter), not because I don't think that would be possible, but because I think those who could do that clean are doping to do better. I also think that a large part isn't doping from the first day on a pro team and that there is a relatively large minority (compared to a decade or two ago) of riders who never dopes during their entire careers.

Am I one of those posters in question according to you?

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Am I one of those posters in question according to you?

In theory, no. In practice, well, have you been moaning that it's unfair for some obvious dopers to be "singled out"? Something which only really makes sense on a "they're all at it" basis.

(That's an actual question, I haven't read all 16 pages of the thread,)

 

[The_Captain]

Unless the UCI's hand is somehow forced, it is ALWAYS the nobodies testing positive. Always.

Is it like the IAAF where you pay for your positives to go away and the Kazhaks stopped paying? No idea. Maybe it's a simple as Vino has played them a fool too many times.

They've been singled out for some reasons.

I think there are perfectly reasonably explanations for this too. The nobodies probably aren't running sophisticated doping programs, and therefore are easier to catch. It's all very well demanding the UCI go after people we suspect of doping, but they still need to get a watertight case so as not to be open to legal action.

There's also a difference between sporting organisations turning a blind eye to and going out of the way to protect star athletes, and specifically targeting someone on a hunch. Anti-doping does have a finite budget and those resources still need to be used effectively.

I think most people here would agree that no-one wants any bus-throwing-undery in some sort of PR exercise, but in this case it seems a valid use of resources to rid the sport of some cheating, even if it's not the panacea to cure all.

 

[Netserk]

In theory, no. In practice, well, have you been moaning that it's unfair for some obvious dopers to be "singled out"? Something which only really makes sense on a "they're all at it" basis.

(That's an actual question, I haven't read all 16 pages of the thread,)

No that I have not (at least not in this thread )

My first post in this thread was number 141. You could say that I have reserved the right to moan later on.

edit: However, I do think that I could be put in the group of "all of the reasonably successful riders are doping", which is why I articulated my position and asked if I indeed was in that group according to you.

 

[skippythepinhead]

Ah yes, I'm just imagining the posters here who assume that all or all reasonably successful pros are doping. Just like I'm imagining your long pointy shoes and shiny red nose.

Yes, exactly. I'm glad we agree.

 

[doperhopper]

we need a poll: Astana in TdF2015? Y/N/Vino option

 

[Oldman]

I think (most likely) everyone of the most successful riders are doping. I doubt anyone gets in a GT top-10 clean (nor contends for monument wins for that matter), not because I don't think that would be possible, but because I think those who could do that clean are doping to do better. I also think that a large part isn't doping from the first day on a pro team and that there is a relatively large minority (compared to a decade or two ago) of riders who never dopes during their entire careers.

Am I one of those posters in question according to you?

+1-You have restated what my experience has been with all of my pro contacts. Some have actually remained clean, but have a fatalistic view of their career prospects. None of them pretend they'll be GT contenders but several actually finish GTs. For those that couldn't reconcile the unfair circumstances; finding a new job has been the answer.
Several of them have won major races clean as a peak in their season. A normal rider can't sustain that peak alongside gassers that win from Dubai to Ghisallo...

 

[maxmartin]

Haha stupid UCI, it is much harder to take away a license than not giving it out in the first place. UCI has no legal ground and most likely zero chance to succeed in CAS.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

UCI must be doing something right:

Oleg Tinkov @olegtinkov
That isn't the way we want to compete w @vincenzonibali . UCI again confirms that it is full of mess and cycling need different management

but but but... Cookson is worse for cycling say many of the clinic regulars. So saint Tinkov must be right.

 

[Random Direction]

From the Shameful Journey thread.

QUOTE=Random Direction;1615280]Likely whatever rules of administrative justice apply to CAS and therefore the UCI. I'm reasonably versed in administrative justice foundations in my home country, but not Switzerland. I would say though that Katusha a did not seem to get a warning to improve behavior and b seemed to be singled out arbitrarily. What the UCI seems to ha e done with Astana is make the rules really clear and give them a chance once the rules are clear.

That said, the decision is probably baked in already and now til June or August is just the illusion of fair process. Happens more often than not.[/QUOTE]

Good post RD

 

[DirtyWorks]

In theory, no. In practice, well, have you been moaning that it's unfair for some obvious dopers to be "singled out"? Something which only really makes sense on a "they're all at it" basis.

(That's an actual question, I haven't read all 16 pages of the thread,)

This is a false choice. A range of doping is possible. Historically, a range of doping was permitted. A very, very wide range of doping at that. I have no idea or confidence anything has changed.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I think there are perfectly reasonably explanations for this too. The nobodies probably aren't running sophisticated doping programs, and therefore are easier to catch. It's all very well demanding the UCI go after people we suspect of doping, but they still need to get a watertight case so as not to be open to legal action.

There's also a difference between sporting organisations turning a blind eye to and going out of the way to protect star athletes, and specifically targeting someone on a hunch. Anti-doping does have a finite budget and those resources still need to be used effectively.

I think most people here would agree that no-one wants any bus-throwing-undery in some sort of PR exercise, but in this case it seems a valid use of resources to rid the sport of some cheating, even if it's not the panacea to cure all.

Yes, there is no arguing that last bit.

I would not call many of the UCI's decisions reasonable\logical though.

 

[LaFlorecita]

I would think it should be pretty obvious why people who believe **** Pound, Michael Ashenden and Christophe Bassons (3 people who have more anti doping cred in their little fingers than jv could ever have) are telling the truth when they say cycling is still rotten at the top, were not particularly impressed with kittel only calling out nobodies for doping.

It's the equivalent of taking some 9 year old selling crack on a street corner and passing him off to the press as a major narcotrafficker. Such bull**** pr is designed to.impress sheeple and tabloid readers, but has no actual impact on the wider problem.

This would be the same Kittel who called out Contador, Armstrong, Vinokourov, Indurain, Samuel Sanchez etc? Or are we talking about some other Kittel?

Yes, of course Kittel's comments were different in that he used different actions and evidence to call different people out. Nonetheless his conclusions were that various big names had no credibility on the subject of doping. That, in plain terms, constitutes calling out big names rather than restricting himself to small fish as was being claimed before I pointed out his comments.

I have no interest in anyone's whining about how he should be required not just to call out big names, but to call them out on the basis of specific, clinic approved arguments.

Uhm Zinoviev Letter read the original post you replied to again.

"Kittel calling out nobodies for doping"

You reply "the same kittel who called out Indurain, Sanchez etc etc"
Yes, he called them out but not for doping, which is what several posters are trying to tell you.