Cookson is worse for cycling than McQuaid

Page 49 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
wrinklyvet said:
Actually I do understand why you should think that.
This makes no sense.

wrinklyvet said:
I have answered your various turns in the argument since this original post. it is never going to satisfy you. Now give it a rest.
Just a friendly hint: you have no authority over me. Telling me what to do won't work here. If you can't explain why you think the UCI is perfectly above board and unimpeachable, despite their inconsistencies, beyond, "THe UCI said it so it must be true", then yes, I will ask for clarification.

And I do sincerely apologise for coming across as bewildered that you are so easily accepting of what you are told by people who are anything but transparent in their dealings.

wrinklyvet said:
Finished now, no more to say. If you have more to say on this don't expect a response. Call it a stunning triumph if you like to think that's the situation.
You're projecting, which is fine.

If you truly believe that the UCI would never lie, that people like Zorzolli remaining there, with Saugy still in charge of the primary testing facility at Lausanne is all fine and dandy, that Makarov and his machinations behind the scenes during the election are all perfectly legitimate because "The UCI say it is", the head of the ethics committee being removed against the UCI's own rules, the single member TUE committee ok'ing Froome's TUE despite assurances they would reimplement an actual committee, then I truly, sincerely would like to see the critical thinking process that leads you to that conclusion. The steps. The logic.

Perhaps Parker or PMCG76 (no offense your username eludes me momentarily) can break it down for me.

But if you can't be bothered, and prefer to deflect onto "what DW thinks the UCI should do", etc. Fine.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
"The UCI said it therefore it must be true" - that's your explanation, right?

Menchov won the Giro, and a month later came 50th in the Tour. His Tour had BP discrepancies so they struck off his 50th place.

If you could explain to me, how that makes any sense at all, I am all ears.

I am standing in the crowd, calling out, "he doesn't have new clothes, he's naked".

What are you calling out?
Wow! Just wow!

Does that ever underscore just how bad the doping is at the Tour.

Everyone knows you can win the Giro cleans. But, just think of all the drugs that they must take right afterwards.

Like here is someone who appears to have been doping for the Tour, after not doping for the Giro, and he dropped 50 places?

Holy cow!

Dave.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
D-Queued said:
Wow! Just wow!

Does that ever underscore just how bad the doping is at the Tour.

Everyone knows you can win the Giro cleans. But, just think of all the drugs that they must take right afterwards.

Like here is someone who appears to have been doping for the Tour, after not doping for the Giro, and he dropped 50 places?

Holy cow!

Dave.
To be fair if they tested Menchov like they tested Ryder then it was only the day before he won the leader's jersey or the day after he lost it - ie when you'd expect the least suspicious hema values vs on the actual day of kicking ***, winning back the leadership. The only time (as far as I remember) they tested Ryder as leader was on the final day TT, where I have an issue with his retics jumping 25% between 7am and 6pm, but I am in a very small group there.

A very special testing protocol implemented there.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
To be fair if they tested Menchov like they tested Ryder then it was only the day before he won the leader's jersey or the day after he lost it - ie when you'd expect the least suspicious hema values vs on the actual day of kicking ***, winning back the leadership. The only time (as far as I remember) they tested Ryder as leader was on the final day TT, where I have an issue with his retics jumping 25% between 7am and 6pm, but I am in a very small group there.

A very special testing protocol implemented there.


Indeed....
 
wrinklyvet said:
Originally Posted by Benotti69
Why did Mecnhov get to keep his GT results except the one where he finished outside the podium?
I only know what I have read, i.e. Menchov has been disqualified from the three Tours as the UCI says that abnormalities in his biological passport could be clearly identified during these events.
Read more at http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/denis-menchov-given-two-year-doping-ban-130083#XmUeVoVlZEXrxTKh.99
Dear Wiggo said:
Just curious if you ever apply critical thinking to situations you read about. Or do you simply accept what you read in the papers / online?
wow, dude offers no opinion, only says "here's an article on it" with link and a quote, and then gets ripped into for a thought he didn't seem to provide in his post... And the article has a direct quote from the UCI on the issue :rolleyes: Make of that statement what you will... A deal done? Certainly looks that way.

Benotti's statement is wrong - Menchov lost his podium from 2010 TdF, so not just his "outside the podiums"

I'm sure Menchov was charging for both Giro and Tour in 09. Hell, if you're doing the Giro/Tour double you'd need to. Just like his 2010 Tour/Vuelta double, which, funnily enough had a similar set of results as his 2009 GT double - 2nd to 41st - similar to 1st to 53rd, no?
Can't say he's not consistent when he rides 2 GTs in a row - great first ride, sh*t second one... As to why that is, is anyone's guess (unless he crashes, but that is why he's known as "the Pope", for kissing the tarmac so much), but that prologue in 2009 was rubbish. Suddenly being down at 53rd, I'm sure he got reckless/desparate to regain ground, and therefore, as seems to be standard with doping cases, made the mistake with his programme that lead to popping up on the BP's Most Wanted... That it failed to gain him more than 2 positions in the remaining 3 weeks seems completely odd.
That said, I don't recall anything of him in the '09 tour, so if anyone could fill in what happened regarding crashes and other issues that hampered him, I'm all ears...

But back to the UCI/WADA/RUSADA sanctions on him - whoever actually applied the sanctions (and I thought it would be RusADA and not the UCI) - they're only going to be able to apply it to what they have the evidence to do, no? Otherwise it's off to CAS they go, and is that what they really want (saga, lawyer fees, etc) with a has-been who'll be off into the sunset?? Doubt it.
Sounds like the insurance company that spares themselves $50k in legal/admin fees to fight a $25k claim... Strike your bargain and walk away.
Dodgy or just business sense?
 
Archibald said:
wow, dude offers no opinion, only says "here's an article on it" with link and a quote, and then gets ripped into for a thought he didn't seem to provide in his post... And the article has a direct quote from the UCI on the issue :rolleyes: Make of that statement what you will... A deal done? Certainly looks that way.

Benotti's statement is wrong - Menchov lost his podium from 2010 TdF, so not just his "outside the podiums"

I'm sure Menchov was charging for both Giro and Tour in 09. Hell, if you're doing the Giro/Tour double you'd need to. Just like his 2010 Tour/Vuelta double, which, funnily enough had a similar set of results as his 2009 GT double - 2nd to 41st - similar to 1st to 53rd, no?
Can't say he's not consistent when he rides 2 GTs in a row - great first ride, sh*t second one... As to why that is, is anyone's guess (unless he crashes, but that is why he's known as "the Pope", for kissing the tarmac so much), but that prologue in 2009 was rubbish. Suddenly being down at 53rd, I'm sure he got reckless/desparate to regain ground, and therefore, as seems to be standard with doping cases, made the mistake with his programme that lead to popping up on the BP's Most Wanted... That it failed to gain him more than 2 positions in the remaining 3 weeks seems completely odd.
That said, I don't recall anything of him in the '09 tour, so if anyone could fill in what happened regarding crashes and other issues that hampered him, I'm all ears...

But back to the UCI/WADA/RUSADA sanctions on him - whoever actually applied the sanctions (and I thought it would be RusADA and not the UCI) - they're only going to be able to apply it to what they have the evidence to do, no? Otherwise it's off to CAS they go, and is that what they really want (saga, lawyer fees, etc) with a has-been who'll be off into the sunset?? Doubt it.
Sounds like the insurance company that spares themselves $50k in legal/admin fees to fight a $25k claim... Strike your bargain and walk away.
Dodgy or just business sense?
Markov's support of Cookson and the odd manner in which Menchov suddenly retired and the announcement was made in a PDFs was most suspicious. Along with not involving the federation.

McQuaid as a parting gesture started the process and Cookson had to find a way to bury it without McQuaid sinking him on it.

Considering Menchov was a 9 on the infamous 2010 suspicion index they had to take his TDF podium. It would be a joke otherwise. But no way were they going to take his Giro away and they found a way to just rip up the rule book and decide for themselves.

Menchov last race was Paris-Nice 2013. He was destroyed by Leinders's new charge Porte. Menchov obviously clean at that point knew his time was up. Leinders had a new group of riders to make ridiculous.
 
thehog said:
Markov's support of Cookson and the odd manner in which Menchov suddenly retired and the announcement was made in a PDFs was most suspicious. Along with not involving the federation.

McQuaid as a parting gesture started the process and Cookson had to find a way to bury it without McQuaid sinking him on it.

Considering Menchov was a 9 on the infamous 2010 suspicion index they had to take his TDF podium. It would be a joke otherwise. But no way were they going to take his Giro away and they found a way to just rip up the rule book and decide for themselves.

Menchov last race was Paris-Nice 2013. He was destroyed by Leinders's new charge Porte. Menchov obviously clean at that point knew his time was up. Leinders had a new group of riders to make ridiculous.
the bold is the key - let's face it, the UCI is elected generals, which means they'll be more politicians than actual leaders...

but certainly a deal done - start the ban from whenever you want, then select results you can, and leave those that came under "never tested positive"
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Archibald said:
wow, dude offers no opinion, only says "here's an article on it" with link and a quote, and then gets ripped into for a thought he didn't seem to provide in his post... And the article has a direct quote from the UCI on the issue :rolleyes: Make of that statement what you will... A deal done? Certainly looks that way.
His mantra all along has been that Cookson is good as gold.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
His mantra all along has been that Cookson is good as gold.
well, he could be gold - if you classify Pat n Hein as silver... and let's face it, the bar set by those two isn't exactly high, so being an improvement (no matter how small) isn't going to take much
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Archibald said:
well, he could be gold - if you classify Pat n Hein as silver... and let's face it, the bar set by those two isn't exactly high, so being an improvement (no matter how small) isn't going to take much
But his judgement - in this instance of the Menchov case as one example - is based on a UCI press release / reporting in a british cycling magazine.

I am trying to understand how asking someone if they engaged critical thinking (and I don't think he did, or if he did the process he followed was never communicated) is "ripping into someone".
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
wrinklyvet said:
No, actually I don't think there is any great likelihood that Menchov was cleaner in his Tour win.

I am prepared to accept at face value that the decisions made turn on the factors I mentioned. I don't think it it open to a sports governing body to do what you seem to have expected that they should do. It's a quasi-judicial process and the reasoning that "You can't seriously expect us to believe you were clean in the period for which we have no evidence so we will strip you of what you gained!" has no place in setting sanctions.

It's OK here in the alternative thinking of the Clinic to do that but I say in all seriousness that it won't wash in the real world.

P.S. Let's allow your last sentence to pass, as you are trying to be neutral and obviously not trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.
If you are prepared to accept things from federations who have been proven to not run their organisations according to the ideals of sport (or even according to their own set of rules) then you can only be in the clinic for one purpose. it is clear to even those with a smattering of grey matter that the UCI is not run along the lines of fairness.

Menchov is an example. He keeps his Giro win but loses his 50th place at the TdF 6 weeks later. How can that be anything other than insane?

Take things at face value at your peril.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
"The UCI said it therefore it must be true" - that's your explanation, right?

Menchov won the Giro, and a month later came 50th in the Tour. His Tour had BP discrepancies so they struck off his 50th place.

If you could explain to me, how that makes any sense at all, I am all ears.

I am standing in the crowd, calling out, "he doesn't have new clothes, he's naked".

What are you calling out?
Frequently on this forum when a poster is asked for evidence to back up an opinion they reply with the refrain "this is an internet forum, not a court of law".

Well the opposite also applies. A doping tribunal is a court of law, not an internet forum.

And as such any sanctions have to be supported by solid evidence. And if the data from the Giro is not of a robust enough standard required for a sanction, then a sanction cannot be imposed - and this appears to be the case.

We can probably all agree that Menchov almost certainly doped for that Giro win, the sanctioning authorities probably thought it too. But the reasoning to support it is conjecture and that has no place in a legal decision. Had he been stripped of his Giro win on the basis such conjecture it would have undermined the rest of the decision and opened the decision up to a fairly an appeal with a good chance of success of overturning the entire convinction.
 
Exactly.

They took everything that they could that was bulletproof against an appeal.

The other wins whilst possibly, or even probably doped, do not have sufficient evidence of doping within that time frame to remove them.


Of course my opinion on blood doping revealed by the bio passport is that every result between the first and last provable anomaly, plus the 2 (now 4 years) should be removed. That isn't the way the current system works.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Without being too tinfoil hat-like, however, the assumption here is they wanted to get Menchov for everything, and in fact had no further / insufficient proof. Noone has seen his BP values - unlike Kreuziger.

The case was also very hush hush - for the first time? (PDF entry only)

Without seeing the data firsthand I am really struggling to see this scenario playing out as perfectly as it needs to such that a 50th place at the Tour is effected via dodgy looking BP and a Giro win looks perfectly normal. Testing protocol mentioned previously notwithstanding.

The bottom line is: it provides sufficient evidence (no, not proof, just evidence) for me to suspect the UCI of dupicity, which was the original point made by TheHog and disparaged by Winklyvet.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
Without seeing the data firsthand I am really struggling to see this scenario playing out as perfectly as it needs to such that a 50th place at the Tour is effected via dodgy looking BP and a Giro win looks perfectly normal. Testing protocol mentioned previously notwithstanding.
No-one said that it looked 'perfectly normal'. It just didn't meet the high standards required for a conviction. If 99% certainty is required for a conviction then you can't convict on 90%. That doesn't mean that 90% is 'perfectly normal'.
It's a court of law not an internet forum. Which is just as well as....

Dear Wiggo said:
The bottom line is: it provides sufficient evidence (no, not proof, just evidence) for me to suspect the UCI of dupicity, which was the original point made by TheHog and disparaged by Winklyvet.
.....an internet forum only requires about 20%
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Parker said:
....


.....an internet forum only requires about 20%
and yet here you are constantly obfuscating on the internet?

If it means nothing, why are you posting in here on a few threads? Trolling per chance?
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
Digger said:
hog and dear wiggo are the ones on this thread talking sense - the magic bullet theory couldn't be more apt.
I think that's where Walsh got his inspiration for the magic tailwind theory
 
the sceptic said:
I think that's where Walsh got his inspiration for the magic tailwind theory
Cookson is just following the rules, he needs more time.

With Cookson's new centralised anti-doping panel there will be a lot more tailwinds this year. Generally only following the Porte & Dawg.
 
Parker said:
No-one said that it looked 'perfectly normal'. It just didn't meet the high standards required for a conviction. If 99% certainty is required for a conviction then you can't convict on 90%. That doesn't mean that 90% is 'perfectly normal'.
It's a court of law not an internet forum. Which is just as well as....


.....an internet forum only requires about 20%
Seriously? There is no reason, logic, or expected outcome to the process.

Do you think the top-20 grand tour guys in Menchov's era all have perfectly normal profiles? You are also ignoring the politics of the situation. The politics in this case being thoroughly corrupt.

2014 was the first year in a very long time that 2nd and 3rd were producing normal-ish power. 1st? Yeah, not so much. Now imagine Froome and Contador making it to Paris for another ridiculous podium and things are right back to "normal" for cycling.
 
thehog said:
Cookson is just following the rules, he needs more time.

With Cookson's new centralised anti-doping panel there will be a lot more tailwinds this year. Generally only following the Porte & Dawg.
Talk about the cleanest peloton ever! 1% minor guys being popped shows anti-doping is working. They can't afford the bribes!

I'm putting my money on some French riders going toe-to-toe with the dopers. Lapartient(sp!!) is on the management committee, WT committee and runs the French federation. All he needs is a France-based company to fund a WT squad and he will have the exact same setup as SKY/USPS.
 
DirtyWorks said:
Talk about the cleanest peloton ever! 1% minor guys being popped shows anti-doping is working. They can't afford the bribes!

I'm putting my money on some French riders going toe-to-toe with the dopers. Lapartient(sp!!) is on the management committee, WT committee and runs the French federation. All he needs is a France-based company to fund a WT squad and he will have the exact same setup as SKY/USPS.
Agreed. Even Brailsford signalled the French renaissance was eminent.

Need to share the Tour victories around to keep cycling delveoping in new countries but don't want to lose the old guard of Italy and France. Probably going to need a South American winner soon and dare I say an American winner to erase Lance completely. Not sure they'll risk having Ryder winning the Tour.

The UCI will get this organised now they are in full control of testing and the judiciary.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY