Astana Licence to be withdrawn?

[sniper]

Re:

That being an opinion, just saying

there are few sports where doping is so beneficial to the athlete as in cycling.
is that fact or opinion?

 

[hrotha]

Re: Re:

Sky shouldn't be off the hook, but no EPO cases while Astana has had lots certainly means the two aren't comparable.

Astana have been doping since they exist, so have Sky.
Besides the obvious fact that one enjoys institutional protection while the other got heavily target-tested in 2013/14, why aren't they comparable?

Because it's far from proven that that "institutional protection", if it exists, involves covering up positives or making sure Sky riders aren't tested where they can be caught. Forget about what we suspect and focus about what we do know for sure. The UCI has more to do with a court than with a forum.

 

[manafana]

relating to Astana the telegraph podcast met the Astana english speaking organizer of the current mess

http://thecyclingpodcast.com/podcast/11 ... is-baldwin

interesting comments on the iglinsky brothers, one called an AHOLE

 

[WillemS]

Re: Re:

If true, then Astana is going to delay the procedure by requesting a ’application to stay the execution’ pending the CAS verdict on the case. So, they'll probably race a couple more races.

What CAS case? If Astana wants to appeal, they have to submit their appeal first.

EDIT: It should be said, that if Astana wants to appeal a UCI decision, the UCI needs to make it's decision first. As of now, it is speculation.

Okay, let me clarify my post, as I was not clear apparantly.

If it is true that the UCI has made said decision, then Astana will appeal to CAS after the UCI announces it. However, appealing does not stop the execution of the decision (although it might be overturned later), so they have to request an "application to stay the execution" to postpone the execution of the decision until after the CAS verdict. So, whatever verdict CAS is going to give, the execution of the rumoured UCI decision, the nullification of Astana's licence, will be delayed until after CAS makes a ruling.

As of now, we're not sure if the UCI is even going to make or actually has made the rumoured decision, but even if they do, execution of the decision is probably not be immidiate, so Astana should be safe for the next couple of races no matter what.

(However, I do believe that if the UCI makes said decision, they will probably have a solid groundwork prepared for CAS.)

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Re: Re:

If true, then Astana is going to delay the procedure by requesting a ’application to stay the execution’ pending the CAS verdict on the case. So, they'll probably race a couple more races.

What CAS case? If Astana wants to appeal, they have to submit their appeal first.

EDIT: It should be said, that if Astana wants to appeal a UCI decision, the UCI needs to make it's decision first. As of now, it is speculation.

Okay, let me clarify my post, as I was not clear apparantly.

If it is true that the UCI has made said decision, then Astana will appeal to CAS after the UCI announces it. However, appealing does not stop the execution of the decision (although it might be overturned later), so they have to request an "application to stay the execution" to postpone the execution of the decision until after the CAS verdict. So, whatever verdict CAS is going to give, the execution of the rumoured UCI decision, the nullification of Astana's licence, will be delayed until after CAS makes a ruling.

As of now, we're not sure if the UCI is even going to make or actually has made the rumoured decision, but even if they do, execution of the decision is probably not be immidiate, so Astana should be safe for the next couple of races no matter what.

(However, I do believe that if the UCI makes said decision, they will probably have a solid groundwork prepared for CAS.)

Got it
What is the process for a "stay of execution"? Surely it isn't granted to everyone who asks? What does Astana need to show, or what do they need UCI to show/not show for the stay to go through?

 

[WillemS]

Re: Re:

Okay, let me clarify my post, as I was not clear apparantly.

If it is true that the UCI has made said decision, then Astana will appeal to CAS after the UCI announces it. However, appealing does not stop the execution of the decision (although it might be overturned later), so they have to request an "application to stay the execution" to postpone the execution of the decision until after the CAS verdict. So, whatever verdict CAS is going to give, the execution of the rumoured UCI decision, the nullification of Astana's licence, will be delayed until after CAS makes a ruling.

As of now, we're not sure if the UCI is even going to make or actually has made the rumoured decision, but even if they do, execution of the decision is probably not be immidiate, so Astana should be safe for the next couple of races no matter what.

(However, I do believe that if the UCI makes said decision, they will probably have a solid groundwork prepared for CAS.)

Got it
What is the process for a "stay of execution"? Surely it isn't granted to everyone who asks? What does Astana need to show, or what do they need UCI to show/not show for the stay to go through?

I'm not sure, I'm not a lawyer, but I have read some articles and guidelines on the subject.

I think the general conditions for such an application are:

1. Applicant (for stay of execution) should have 'interest' in appeal.
2. Damages from decision would be hard to remedy at later stage ("irreparable harm")
3. Taken at face value, the actual appeal should have a reasonable chance of success
4. The potential "irreparable" damages (point 2) should outweigh the damages for the summoned party during the status quo. (Balance of interests)

Astana obviously meet the first point, they have both a sporting and a financial interest in the status of their licence, so that should not be a problem for the "stay of execution".

I think CAS will also acknowledge that Astana meets the second point, as missing the spring classics or any other WT race is not easy to remedy, especially given sponsorship contracts etc. (Only receive money in WT.)

I think the matter is going to be complicated, given it's the first time a licence would be revoked mid-season on these reasons (I believe). I think this gives Astana's lawyers some leeway to come up with reasons with "reasonable chances of success", especially as denying a "reasonable chance of success" is quite hard in cases without precedents. However, this depends on the lawyers of both Astana and the UCI.

Finally, I think the damages of not being allowed to race outweigh the damages of the UCI if Astana is allowed to continue racing another couple of races. So I think Astana would meet the fourth point as well.

Edit:
I'm not quite sure how the points are weighted. I don't know if they should meet all four points or if they are considered cumulative (meaning that meeting three points with margin could be sufficient even if they don't meet the other point.)

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Re: Re:

EDIT: It should be said, that if Astana wants to appeal a UCI decision, the UCI needs to make it's decision first. As of now, it is speculation.

Okay, let me clarify my post, as I was not clear apparantly.

If it is true that the UCI has made said decision, ... So, whatever verdict CAS is going to give, the execution of the rumoured UCI decision, the nullification of Astana's licence, will be delayed until after CAS makes a ruling....

As of now, we're not sure if the UCI is even going to make or actually has made the rumoured decision

(However, I do believe that if the UCI makes said decision, they will probably have a solid groundwork prepared for CAS.)

Both of you rather miss the point that this is not a UCI decision to make. The UCI have already made the decision that is within their remit, to refer the matter to the licensing commission.

 

[WillemS]

Re: Re:

EDIT: It should be said, that if Astana wants to appeal a UCI decision, the UCI needs to make it's decision first. As of now, it is speculation.

Okay, let me clarify my post, as I was not clear apparantly.

If it is true that the UCI has made said decision, ... So, whatever verdict CAS is going to give, the execution of the rumoured UCI decision, the nullification of Astana's licence, will be delayed until after CAS makes a ruling....

As of now, we're not sure if the UCI is even going to make or actually has made the rumoured decision

(However, I do believe that if the UCI makes said decision, they will probably have a solid groundwork prepared for CAS.)

Both of you rather miss the point that this is not a UCI decision to make. The UCI have already made the decision that is within their remit, to refer the matter to the licensing commission.

That depends. The licence commission is still a UCI commission, so I think that the summoned party (by Astana) would be the UCI, not the licence commission, as it's not a truly separate, legal entity. (The licence commission might operate independent within the UCI, but it is still sanctioned by the UCI Management Committee and is still an internal commission.)

 

[rote_laterne]

Re: Re:

Okay, let me clarify my post, as I was not clear apparantly.

If it is true that the UCI has made said decision, then Astana will appeal to CAS after the UCI announces it. However, appealing does not stop the execution of the decision (although it might be overturned later), so they have to request an "application to stay the execution" to postpone the execution of the decision until after the CAS verdict. So, whatever verdict CAS is going to give, the execution of the rumoured UCI decision, the nullification of Astana's licence, will be delayed until after CAS makes a ruling.

As of now, we're not sure if the UCI is even going to make or actually has made the rumoured decision, but even if they do, execution of the decision is probably not be immidiate, so Astana should be safe for the next couple of races no matter what.

(However, I do believe that if the UCI makes said decision, they will probably have a solid groundwork prepared for CAS.)

Got it
What is the process for a "stay of execution"? Surely it isn't granted to everyone who asks? What does Astana need to show, or what do they need UCI to show/not show for the stay to go through?

I'm not sure, I'm not a lawyer, but I have read some articles and guidelines on the subject.

I think the general conditions for such an application are:

1. Applicant (for stay of execution) should have 'interest' in appeal.
2. Damages from decision would be hard to remedy at later stage ("irreparable harm")
3. Taken at face value, the actual appeal should have a reasonable chance of success
4. The potential "irreparable" damages (point 2) should outweigh the damages for the summoned party during the status quo. (Balance of interests)

Astana obviously meet the first point, they have both a sporting and a financial interest in the status of their licence, so that should not be a problem for the "stay of execution".

I think CAS will also acknowledge that Astana meets the second point, as missing the spring classics or any other WT race is not easy to remedy, especially given sponsorship contracts etc. (Only receive money in WT.)

I think the matter is going to be complicated, given it's the first time a licence would be revoked mid-season on these reasons (I believe). I think this gives Astana's lawyers some leeway to come up with reasons with "reasonable chances of success", especially as denying a "reasonable chance of success" is quite hard in cases without precedents. However, this depends on the lawyers of both Astana and the UCI.

Finally, I think the damages of not being allowed to race outweigh the damages of the UCI if Astana is allowed to continue racing another couple of races. So I think Astana would meet the fourth point as well.

Edit:
I'm not quite sure how the points are weighted. I don't know if they should meet all four points or if they are considered cumulative (meaning that meeting three points with margin could be sufficient even if they don't meet the other point.)

The points are cumulative.

 

[WillemS]

Re: Re:

The points are cumulative.

That's good news for Astana, as I think the potential "irreparable" damages are immense, so a "stay of execution" is likely even if Astana's lawyers have a weak story "at face value".

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Re: Re:

The points are cumulative.

That's good news for Astana, as I think the potential "irreparable" damages are immense, so a "stay of execution" is likely even if Astana's lawyers have a weak story "at face value".

If the UCI wants to argue against a stay of execution, they could argue that the precedent of Katusha in 2013 shows that harm caused by missing part of a season is not irreparable.

 

[Unsytherhino]

relating to Astana the telegraph podcast met the Astana english speaking organizer of the current mess

http://thecyclingpodcast.com/podcast/11 ... is-baldwin

interesting comments on the iglinsky brothers, one called an AHOLE

Chris Baldwin came across quite well, although he did use the fact that he's not worked in cycling long enough, and he hadn't spoke to Vino about some issues to duck some questions. Quite affectionate about one of the Iglinskys (Maxim?), the other he mentioned his bad stutter, and maybe he's an ahole because of that.
Also said that the stagiaire just disappeared after his positive test was announced, got prize money in cash for winning Qinghai, basically took the money and ran.

 

[MatParker117]

he ISSUL policy calls for a team to employ one coach for every eight riders, that each rider has a carefully planned racing, training and rest programmes, regular support and assistance by qualified staff. Directeurs sportifs and doctors should not be involved in coaching riders and no external, unqualified staff should be part of the team.

According to Cyclingpro, the Astana team only has one full time coach in Paolo Slongo, with Fabio Aru’s coach Maurizio Mazzoleni working in a consultancy role. The role and influence of the Astana directeurs sportifs and team doctors is also unclear. Bonarrigo suggests that the UCI was also ‘livid’ to see that Dmitry Sedoun, the former team manager of the troubled Astana Continental team (that had three cases of doping in 2014 before being suspended) is now a directeur sportif with the 2015 Astana WorldTour squad.

The Astana team claims it has implemented many of the requirements suggested by the ISSUL in the first quarter of 2015. However this may have been after the completion of the audit and so too late to save the team’s WorldTour licence.

Bonarrigo discovered that several other WorldTour teams also fail to fully respect the ISSUL policies by employing doctors to oversee coaching and coaches often working as directeurs sportifs. However only the Astana team agreed to the ISSUL audit as a condition of its registration in the 2015 WorldTour.

As a consequence, it seems logical that the UCI can claim that the Astana team did not respect the UCI rules for WorldTour registration and request the Licence Commission to withdraw its licence.

It will arguably be up to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to rule if the UCI rules and the methods and ethical policy of ISSUL are legally binding under international sporting law.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/issul-a ... ur-licence

 

[mrhender]

IMO Astana wont get licence unless they offer something...

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Re:

he ISSUL policy calls for a team to employ one coach for every eight riders, that each rider has a carefully planned racing, training and rest programmes, regular support and assistance by qualified staff. Directeurs sportifs and doctors should not be involved in coaching riders and no external, unqualified staff should be part of the team.

According to Cyclingpro, the Astana team only has one full time coach in Paolo Slongo, with Fabio Aru’s coach Maurizio Mazzoleni working in a consultancy role. The role and influence of the Astana directeurs sportifs and team doctors is also unclear. Bonarrigo suggests that the UCI was also ‘livid’ to see that Dmitry Sedoun, the former team manager of the troubled Astana Continental team (that had three cases of doping in 2014 before being suspended) is now a directeur sportif with the 2015 Astana WorldTour squad.

The Astana team claims it has implemented many of the requirements suggested by the ISSUL in the first quarter of 2015. However this may have been after the completion of the audit and so too late to save the team’s WorldTour licence.

Bonarrigo discovered that several other WorldTour teams also fail to fully respect the ISSUL policies by employing doctors to oversee coaching and coaches often working as directeurs sportifs. However only the Astana team agreed to the ISSUL audit as a condition of its registration in the 2015 WorldTour.

As a consequence, it seems logical that the UCI can claim that the Astana team did not respect the UCI rules for WorldTour registration and request the Licence Commission to withdraw its licence.

It will arguably be up to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to rule if the UCI rules and the methods and ethical policy of ISSUL are legally binding under international sporting law.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/issul-a ... ur-licence

What the???? I didn't expect to find myself defending Astana here, but ISSUL have a role here of auditing what a team are doing, not setting a model for what they should be doing or deciding that a team should act as the median of the practices of other teams. If any team decide that DSs should be actively involved in training schedules between races (I would have assumed that they are), then why should the ISSUL decree that they cannot?

Why should one model of team management be compulsory, and where was it legislated and promulgated that these principles are mandatory?

 

[markene2]

Re:

IMO Astana wont get licence unless they offer something...

And they will offer Vino, that was UCI's play from the begging. I think we both are in agreement on that!

 

[mrhender]

Re: Re:

he ISSUL policy calls for a team to employ one coach for every eight riders, that each rider has a carefully planned racing, training and rest programmes, regular support and assistance by qualified staff. Directeurs sportifs and doctors should not be involved in coaching riders and no external, unqualified staff should be part of the team.

According to Cyclingpro, the Astana team only has one full time coach in Paolo Slongo, with Fabio Aru’s coach Maurizio Mazzoleni working in a consultancy role. The role and influence of the Astana directeurs sportifs and team doctors is also unclear. Bonarrigo suggests that the UCI was also ‘livid’ to see that Dmitry Sedoun, the former team manager of the troubled Astana Continental team (that had three cases of doping in 2014 before being suspended) is now a directeur sportif with the 2015 Astana WorldTour squad.

The Astana team claims it has implemented many of the requirements suggested by the ISSUL in the first quarter of 2015. However this may have been after the completion of the audit and so too late to save the team’s WorldTour licence.

Bonarrigo discovered that several other WorldTour teams also fail to fully respect the ISSUL policies by employing doctors to oversee coaching and coaches often working as directeurs sportifs. However only the Astana team agreed to the ISSUL audit as a condition of its registration in the 2015 WorldTour.

As a consequence, it seems logical that the UCI can claim that the Astana team did not respect the UCI rules for WorldTour registration and request the Licence Commission to withdraw its licence.

It will arguably be up to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to rule if the UCI rules and the methods and ethical policy of ISSUL are legally binding under international sporting law.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/issul-a ... ur-licence

What the???? I didn't expect to find myself defending Astana here, but ISSUL have a role here of auditing what a team are doing, not setting a model for what they should be doing or deciding that a team should act as the median of the practices of other teams. If any team decide that DSs should be actively involved in training schedules between races (I would have assumed that they are), then why should the ISSUL decree that they cannot?

Why should one model of team management be compulsory, and where was it legislated and promulgated that these principles are mandatory?

Cookson could'nt do anything with the rules at hand.. Immense pressure was on him to do someting so he changed the rules and tricked Astana into the audit they thought was a whitewash... (which they themselves payed for)

The question is if the means justify the end...

 

[mrhender]

Re: Re:

IMO Astana wont get licence unless they offer something...

And they will offer Vino, that was UCI's play from the begging. I think we both are in agreement on that!

6 months after Cookson said "time is running out" for Riis/Vino they are both gone or half-gone...

Yet none of them directly/personally sanctioned...

Coincidence?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

no such thing as coincidence?

 

[Dr.Guess]

Re: Re:

IMO Astana wont get licence unless they offer something...

And they will offer Vino, that was UCI's play from the begging. I think we both are in agreement on that!

6 months after Cookson said "time is running out" for Riis/Vino they are both gone or half-gone...

Yet none of them directly/personally sanctioned...

Coincidence?

They learned nothing from the Landis/Armstrong- cases? Can't wait for Vino´s tales.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

http://www.epochtimes.de/Astana-Lizenz-Hearing-bei-der-UCI-beginnt-a1230556.html
seems to be saying there's no decision today: (google transl.)

The decision on the WorldTour license of the Kazakh team after the hearing will "fall within the next few weeks," said UCI spokesman Louis Chenaille.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

The points are cumulative.

That's good news for Astana, as I think the potential "irreparable" damages are immense, so a "stay of execution" is likely even if Astana's lawyers have a weak story "at face value".

All this is fine and good, but, the UCI will dust off some rules, artfully interpret them, and keep Astana out of races. They have done it before.

Will Vino eventually prevail? Good question! It would be another amazing victory for Vino.

Good work digging all that up.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

gazzetta reporta

http://www.gazzetta.it/Ciclismo/02-04-2015/uci-astana-nove-ore-battaglia-rinvio-110323259879.shtml
gtranslate:

No verdict, all postponed to Friday 24 April. The Commission licenses at the end of a meeting lasting nine hours, from 10am to 7pm, did not express any opinion on the case Astana, against which the UCI has called for the revocation of the license. The Kazakh team was so given the opportunity to produce new documentation but it is unclear at this point the embarrassment of the Commission chaired by Pierre Zappelli who had already given the green light to Vinokourov and his associates at the end of 2014.

 

[mrhender]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/astana-to-keep-worldtour-licence

Cold feet at UCI?

 

[mrhender]

I still think the whole exercise was aimed at getting rid of Vino...

Maybe they got called on their bluff and Cookson loses first mtf...

Still a queen stage to come?