Cookson is worse for cycling than McQuaid

[blackcat]

Jonathan Tiernan-Locke:



link

Stefano Feltrin (Tinkoff-Saxo):



link

wiggins, porte, hesjedal?

 

[fmk_RoI]

wiggins, porte, hesjedal?

Now you're just pulling names out of a hat.

I really don't understand the issue here.

That there are letters sent out questioning ABP values is surely no surprise? It is part and parcel of the way the system operates.

That some of those questions get answers that mean the matter goes no further, is that really a surprise? Are people surprised by that really of the view that the ABP should be so conservative that the only cases it should proceed with are slam-dunk doping? Wouldn't those same people be then whinging about the conservatism of the ABP and how cases in the "grey area" aren't proceeded with?

Should we be surprised by the fact that there is clearly peloton gossip as to who has received these letters? Wasn't there gossip about Menchov? Isn't there gossip about most things?

Should the existence of gossip be taken as proof that such and such a person has actually received a letter? Only if you're the sort of person who believes gossip.

 

[sniper]

Now you're just pulling names out of a hat.

I really don't understand the issue here.

That there are letters sent out questioning ABP values is surely no surprise? It is part and parcel of the way the system operates.

That some of those questions get answers that mean the matter goes no further, is that really a surprise? Are people surprised by that really of the view that the ABP should be so conservative that the only cases it should proceed with are slam-dunk doping? Wouldn't those same people be then whinging about the conservatism of the ABP and how cases in the "grey area" aren't proceeded with?

Should we be surprised by the fact that there is clearly peloton gossip as to who has received these letters? Wasn't there gossip about Menchov? Isn't there gossip about most things?

Should the existence of gossip be taken as proof that such and such a person has actually received a letter? Only if you're the sort of person who believes gossip.

Nobody speaks of proof so let's leave word that out.

JTL said high profile riders have received letters. These letters then 'went away'. How exactly, we don't know. Maybe because the riders satisfactorily explained their abnormal values, maybe because somebody behind the scenes pulled strings. Right now we don't know. The problematic thing is that the system as it is now allows for such speculation.
It all points towards a UCI run BP system that allows riders to dope up to a certain limit, and warns the riders if they are about to tresspass, or have tresspassed, that limit. In isolated cases, UCI will proceed and open a case. We have no clue in which cases, or based on which parameters.
It also points towards a system where some riders can very easily be given favorable treatment.
In that light, it is particularly worrying that Cookson hasn't yet cut himself and the UCI loose from the process. And all that whilst his son is working for Sky and Cookson is bound by several other conflicts of interest.

It's a system that is very sensitive to corruption (which doesn't mean it is happening, but that it could be happening). And Cookson is defending that system verociously.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Now you're just pulling names out of a hat.

I really don't understand the issue here.

That there are letters sent out questioning ABP values is surely no surprise? It is part and parcel of the way the system operates.

If by "part and parcel" you mean the way the UCI uses the letters to control the athlete and team side of the sport, then we agree. BTW, letters means positives, not suspicious values, positive values.

If elite cyclists were relatively clean, then there should be very few letters from the UCI. Instead, we have more of the same dark forces exerted by the UCI that basically rewards doping.

 

[fmk_RoI]

JTL said high profile riders have received letters. These letters then 'went away'.

You make rather a lot of extrapolations from a comment made by a person who needs to discredit the ABP.

 

[thehog]

There is also the component of "results managment", what gets stripped, what does not.

Menchov the most recent of examples. How does one explain that? Was it ever explained by Cookson?

 

[fmk_RoI]

BTW, letters means positives, not suspicious values, positive values.

Cite a source for that, I dare you.

If elite cyclists were relatively clean, then there should be very few letters from the UCI. Instead, we have more of the same dark forces exerted by the UCI that basically rewards doping.

We have no knowledge as to the number of letters sent in each year of the passport's operation.

 

[DirtyWorks]

...JTL said high profile riders have received letters. These letters then 'went away'. How exactly, we don't know.

What we do know is the UCI opts not to open a case on a positive. Why specifically? There are many possible reasons, unfortunately, due to the previous history of the UCI, none of them are particularly good.

In that light, it is particularly worrying that Cookson hasn't yet cut himself and the UCI loose from the process. And all that whilst his son is working for Sky and Cookson is bound by several other conflicts of interest.

That's never going to happen. The other IOC sports would absolutely panic. The IAAF President was publicly shocked(!) and horrified(!) that USADA threaded the needle and got Armstrong's sanction. Imagine if cycling did the right thing and gave NADO's the power to open cases. Meanwhile the UCI is talking about international doping tribunals meeting in Switzerland.

It's a system that is very sensitive to corruption (which doesn't mean it is happening, but that it could be happening). And Cookson is defending that system verociously.

Could be happening? Do you remember when it was revealed that Hein, the head of the UCI, had an investment account at Thom Wiesel's bucket shop, during the USPS era? That's just the tip of the iceberg. It's happening.

 

[Catwhoorg]

A 'letter' comes after the three person panel has reviewed the data and all agree that there is something unusual.

That same panel then reviews any explanation and decides if there is enough to start proceedings.

Suspicious or positive is semantics at that point. In the absence of a good reason they will be said to be positive, but truly that only becomes the case after a case has been brought.

A more transparent way, would be to open a case for every time a letter would be sent, and allow the defence to be conducted in front of a NADO panel. It would however probably be beyond the knowledge of a typical panel member to decide on the merits of some very specialist commentary.


I'm all for transparency, but you do need expert input. The problem is that it becomes expert versus expert with opinions being "bought".

 

[DirtyWorks]

Cite a source for that, I dare you.

Here's a nice summary: http://inrng.com/2013/10/uci-bio-passport-tiernan-locke/

Read the ABP standard in full here:
https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/WADA-ABP-Operating-Guidelines_v4.0-EN.pdf

2015 has some changes coming. I haven't read it, so just an FYI:
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resourc...assport-abp-operating-guidelines#.VE5ZbBbCHlQ

 

[fmk_RoI]

Here's a nice summary: http://inrng.com/2013/10/uci-bio-passport-tiernan-locke/

Doesn't say that the letter writing phase is equivalent of a positive.

Try looking at the latest UCI ABP rule change following the Kreuziger case...

 

[fmk_RoI]

Suspicious or positive is semantics at that point.

It really isn't semantics. It really is just suspicious. The UCI - following Kreuziger - have made it clear when they consider it becomes a positive.

A more transparent way, would be to open a case for every time a letter would be sent, and allow the defence to be conducted in front of a NADO panel. It would however probably be beyond the knowledge of a typical panel member to decide on the merits of some very specialist commentary.

Transparency is great, but the rider/athlete has a certain right to privacy. The explanation for the alleged anomaly could be health related. I think it is perfectly acceptable that "cases" at that point should be private.

On the transparency issue, though, the UCI/CADF could help a lot by simply releasing aggregate data.

 

[sniper]

You make rather a lot of extrapolations from a comment made by a person who needs to discredit the ABP.

Cookson didn't deny a word of it.
that's the main thing i'm extrapolating from.
that, and common sense of course.

Could be happening? Do you remember when it was revealed that Hein, the head of the UCI, had an investment account at Thom Wiesel's bucket shop, during the USPS era? That's just the tip of the iceberg. It's happening.

agreed. I was just minding my words while anticipating the "show me the proof" kind of response that some like to pull out.

...The problem is that it becomes expert versus expert with opinions being "bought".

good point.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Cookson didn't deny a word of it.

If I choose to ignore most of the things people say around here, I do hope people like you don't think that means I agree with them. Me, I'd say the same goes for Cookson on JTL.

 

[DirtyWorks]

A 'letter' comes after the three person panel has reviewed the data and all agree that there is something unusual.

That same panel then reviews any explanation and decides if there is enough to start proceedings.

Suspicious or positive is semantics at that point. In the absence of a good reason they will be said to be positive, but truly that only becomes the case after a case has been brought.

A more transparent way, would be to open a case for every time a letter would be sent, and allow the defence to be conducted in front of a NADO panel. It would however probably be beyond the knowledge of a typical panel member to decide on the merits of some very specialist commentary.


I'm all for transparency, but you do need expert input. The problem is that it becomes expert versus expert with opinions being "bought".

To the bolded, not true. Everything covered both in the ABP and PED detection that has threshold values instead of true/false has a 'suspicious' level that is supposed to escalate the athlete's priority in targeted testing.

Automatically opening a case for every positive is a step in the right direction. You could dial that back even more and simply publish the aggregate number of non-positive/suspicious/positive scores like WADA does for urine tests. No controversy was generated with the UCI's 90+ podium positives dismissed by TUE's in 2013.

REgarding the last comment, th problem actually is that CAS is made up of people employed by the International Sports Federations. They have an incentive to meet whatever expectations the federations have for the case.

 

[sniper]

If I choose to ignore most of the things people say around here, I do hope people like you don't think that means I agree with them. Me, I'd say the same goes for Cookson on JTL.

i've told you what i extrapolate from the public exchange of words between JTL and Cookson. I'm not sure yet what you extrapolate from them?
Anyway, let's not disregard JTL's accusations just because he's a proven doper.
History has shown that that would be very unwise.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Doesn't say that the letter writing phase is equivalent of a positive.

Try looking at the latest UCI ABP rule change following the Kreuziger case...

It's not my fault you haven't read the standard. By the time letters are written, they have a positive score and humans have checked the scores to see if it's not some kind of false positive generated by the APMU algorhythms. Positives. At the letter-writing phase.

 

[fmk_RoI]

It's not my fault you haven't read the standard. By the time letters are written, they have a positive score and humans have checked the scores to see if it's not some kind of false positive generated by the APMU algorhythms. Positives. At the letter-writing phase.

Repeat yourself as much as you like. Blame me as much as you like. But you still need a source for it, a source that actually says it's a positive at the letter writing phase...

 

[TailWindHome]

Repeat yourself as much as you like. Blame me as much as you like. But you still need a source for it, a source that actually says it's a positive at the letter writing phase...

Not sure how useful it is to think of the passport in terms of 'postives'

Inner Ring explains it well

This isn’t “one of your numbers looked odd, can you pop in for a chat” but instead three experts have a unanimous conclusion that it is “highly likely that a prohibited substance or prohibited method had been used and unlikely that it is the result of any other cause” and again those are WADA’s words. But I can’t stress enough that there’s a bias because we don’t know how many other cases are opened and shut. Many things can seem highly likely… until they get explained.

With the biological passport it makes a real difference if, say, the APMU software flags up plenty of athletes and the experts call on plenty to explain data and they can respond so that case is dropped. We do know that back in 2009 the software was flagging up 10-15 cases a week according to a presentation given by the UCI’s Doctor Zorzoli. But we don’t know the amount of cases where the three experts proceed to question an athlete. In short your attitude to Tiernan-Locke might vary if you knew what percentage of requests for explanations led to the case being cleared or going to prosecution.


http://inrng.com/2013/10/uci-bio-passport-tiernan-locke/

 

[Tonton]

I'm following the thread but am not into the politics of cycling, so I don't know the ins and outs like some of you, and the more I read, the less I understand .

What do you think happened to Cookson? He was doing all that talk about change, so what? Was it just campaign promises? Is he in over his head, doesn't know how to begin reforming cycling? Did he get sucked up into the blob, and become the blob? All I see is the same old, same old. Cover ups, empty talks, no action.

 

[Race Radio]

We have no knowledge as to the number of letters sent in each year of the passport's operation.

If you are referring to the initial "Please explain" letters I do recall hearing a number around the start of the JTL case. I am pretty sure I posted it earlier in the JTL thread, I think it was around 40.

The letter that sent out announcing an official ABP case is later in the process and will be considered an A sample positive, as it should be

 

[DirtyWorks]

I'm following the thread but am not into the politics of cycling, so I don't know the ins and outs like some of you, and the more I read, the less I understand .

What do you think happened to Cookson? He was doing all that talk about change, so what? Was it just campaign promises? Is he in over his head, doesn't know how to begin reforming cycling? Did he get sucked up into the blob, and become the blob? All I see is the same old, same old. Cover ups, empty talks, no action.

Don't be discouraged! Following the UCI is like Kremlinology. It's a black box. Stuff goes in, stuff comes out and there's no predicting much of it.

It is important to understand the UCI is a federation of national federations that answers to no one. With that, any President elected is going to protect the UCI and national federation members first. His public campaign promises were meaningless. It's what he promised to UCI Management board members, in secret, that elected him that matters.

While I had doubts but took a 'wait and see' attitude in the beginning, it's obvious on anti-doping and general transparency matters, the UCI is going backwards. The UCI is as random as the Verbruggen/McQuaid days striking out at some dopers and letting others ride.

He at least takes some public time and effort to work on his Women's cycling promise.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Repeat yourself as much as you like. Blame me as much as you like. But you still need a source for it, a source that actually says it's a positive at the letter writing phase...

Sigh... Last time I do this for you. Please, please read WADA's documentation.

Page 14: Expert panel's responsibility is to review the athlete's explanation of an atypical finding.

Page 52 clearly states at that point they have an atypical finding that three experts have already agreed upon. It's a positive. Then the athlete is contacted by the federation. The experts then review the explanation. Things actually start about page 50 for those interested.

https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/WADA-ABP-Operating-Guidelines_v4.0-EN.pdf

It's right there in very clear text.

I'd also like to point out, page 53 makes it clear that the anti-doping authority is the one with the authority to open a sanction. The experts merely provides an opinion on the matter. If the anti-doping authority (ex. UCI) does not direct WADA to process the finding, then there is no positive. Never tested positive.

 

[DirtyWorks]

If you are referring to the initial "Please explain" letters I do recall hearing a number around the start of the JTL case. I am pretty sure I posted it earlier in the JTL thread, I think it was around 40.

The letter that sent out announcing an official ABP case is later in the process and will be considered an A sample positive, as it should be

Re-reading the WADA standard, it appears these letters should contain the ABP Documentation package even when contacted for an explanation.

Do you know if these letters are one-page affairs?

 

[Granville57]

If you are referring to the initial "Please explain" letters I do recall hearing a number around the start of the JTL case. I am pretty sure I posted it earlier in the JTL thread, I think it was around 40.

The letter that sent out announcing an official ABP case is later in the process and will be considered an A sample positive, as it should be

Just for the record, it was this one:

I do not have the exact numbers but I understand that 40 of these "Come in and explain" letters have been sent out over the years. They are not an official violation, but a request for more information. Few result in a sanction, I think only 4 have.