12 bio passport bans in all have been announced by UCI: Igor Astarloa, Carlos Barredo, Leonardo Bertagnolli, Pietro Caucchioli, Francesco De Bonis, Leif Hoste, Rubén Lobato, Denis Menchov, Franco Pellizotti, Ricardo Serrano, Jonathan Tiernan-Locke and Tadej Valjavec.skippythepinhead said:How many biopassport violations led to sanctions before Cookson, and how many since Cookson took over?
None of these are mutually conclusively to one another.Benotti69 said:
Certain of a shared link. Benotti and the guy in the tweet are full sure of it.Dear Wiggo said:What does "mutually conclusively" mean?
1. mutually conclusively is not English. It's gibberish.gooner said:Certain of a shared link. Benotti and the guy in the tweet are full sure of it.Dear Wiggo said:What does "mutually conclusively" mean?
Because one happens doesn't mean there is any bearing on the outcome of the other. That's a simple clear cut point being made and one that has been pointed out on many occasions, something you wouldn't know about or grasp as it doesn't fit in with your doping only view.
great post.neineinei said:12 bio passport bans in all have been announced by UCI: Igor Astarloa, Carlos Barredo, Leonardo Bertagnolli, Pietro Caucchioli, Francesco De Bonis, Leif Hoste, Rubén Lobato, Denis Menchov, Franco Pellizotti, Ricardo Serrano, Jonathan Tiernan-Locke and Tadej Valjavec.skippythepinhead said:How many biopassport violations led to sanctions before Cookson, and how many since Cookson took over?
JTL's case was the last one. And it was opened before Cookson took over (he was dropped from the British team to the 2013 Worlds because of the case, Cookson won the election in late September 2013). Hoste, Menchov and Barredo's ban's were also announced (slipped into the .pdf file) under Cookson, but the cases were opened prior to him takeing office. Even the sniffing around Kreuziger started before Cookson (he got a letter from CADF about suspect blood values in June 2013).
The bio passport can be used for more than just sanctions based on abnomal profiles, it can be used to target EPO testing. A positive EPO test makes for a much easier case than a suspect bio passport profile. According to some paper written by Zorzoli, quoted in the CIRC report, 20 out of 26 EPO positives from the first 3 years of UCI's passport system came from tests targeted after suspect blood values. Last year, the first full year for Cookson in office, there were 3 EPO positives from world tour and pro continental riders (riders in the bio passport system): Matteo Rabottini, Maxim and Valentin Iglinskiy. Riccardo Chiarni also tested positive for EPO soon after he'd left a pro continental team, while possibly in the bio passport system. And in 2015 Lloyd Mondory and Ramon Carretero have tested positive for EPO.
Really hard to see how 'banned' it is, because it sure doesn't look like it.gooner said:None of these are mutually conclusively to one another.Benotti69 said:
Umm, doping is banned too, you know.
CN: To another issue – the Biological Passport, and the Roman Kreuziger case. I remember we spoke at the Commonwealth Games in August of last year and you told me that there were serious anomalies on his passport. He was provisionally suspended but the case was dropped just before going to CAS and no one is any wiser as to why that happened, what the serious anomalies where, if they still exist or if there are still concerns.
BC: He was pulled by his team from the Tour de France last year and subsequently I was advised by the Cycling Anti Doping Foundation that there were serious anomalies in his Passport, to the point where he should be provisionally suspended. I was acting on technical advice given to me and that case proceeded with due diligence. Additional information was provided by both sides as I understand it and the Passport experts, who are also WADA experts, concluded that the new information provided had given them sufficient cause for doubt and the decision was taken, along with WADA, not to pursue the case further. An agreement was reached with the rider about the terms and conditions on how that would happen, and one of the conditions was that we wouldn’t comment any further.
Benson doing a good job I think..CN: That may not fill fans with confidence in the Passport given that at one stage there were serious anomalies and now there aren’t.
BC: I don’t think that we can draw conclusions from the Passport per se. I think due process was entered into and the athlete was given the opportunity to produce evidence, which he did, and in those circumstances, after a lot of deliberation, the case was dropped. You can say that’s due process and natural justice. That’s the outcome and I can’t say any more.
CN: Lets not mince words. You thought he was a doper, on the evidence you had. Are you now saying that Roman Kreuziger is not a doper?
BC: I’m saying that the expert advice a year ago was that there were serious anomalies in his Passport and that since that time, the additional information was provided and analysed and considered to cast doubt on the judgment of the experts.
CN: So those anomalies are no longer anomalies?
BC: I don’t want to comment further.
CN: Personally, though, with the information you have but can’t share, how are you going to feel if Roman Kreuziger wins a stage of this year’s Tour de France?
BC: I can’t comment any further.
An argument can be made that he promised a lot pre-election..ebandit said:how do others read this..............that brian still thinks the same but is running scared of a CAS
ruling that compromises confidence in the passport?
agreement has been reached that legal proceedings will not be made against the UCI
if both parties move on and comment no further?
Mayabe taking a risk to achieve something....?Netserk said:I'd like to know how wise Cookie thinks it was to change policy during the case and for the first time ever provisionally suspend a rider charged with a passport case. Because of that decision, which has only been applied to Kreuziger, he wasn't able to compete in the Vuelta last year even though he was later cleared.
But even if Cookson (or any UCI president for that matter) had the backbone it would require him being able to make everyone involved following his lead....Benotti69 said:it stinks. end of. experts are now not expert enough according to Cookson! Yeah sure. Blood passport is not for anti doping, it is a tool to use to prevent so called alien performances and the repeats of Riis, Indurain, Armstrong, etc (to control riders or teams) where UCI can monitor their doping, but it is flawed and UCI has no backbone to fight the likes of Tinkov. So ABP has failed. Next?
Cookson had a great PR campaign but he is just a brown bag man like all those in sporting federations.
To play devils advocate, maybe they blew it. They were so gung-ho to nail Kruziger and now know that they caused financial and professional strain to an innocent person, and know that if they admit they were wrong then any shred of credibility they desire to have concerning doping is gone. If Cookson was to say "I'm sorry, we were wrong about Roman" it would open the floodgates for every convicted doper to claim they were screwed as well.RownhamHill said:What I found interesting was the comment that Cookson made that seemed to suggest they wanted the detail kept private so that other riders wouldn't be able to use the details to cheat themselves with a ready made excuse. Which seems to suggest that whatever explanation Kreuiziger gave was both plausible enough to win a court case, but also possibly unverifiable either way - could be he came up with the perfect excuse!