Cookson is worse for cycling than McQuaid

Page 66 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
Re:

skippythepinhead said:
How many biopassport violations led to sanctions before Cookson, and how many since Cookson took over?
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.

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.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
sometimes all you need is 140 characters..

The Broom Wagon @broomwagonblog

Flesh coloured lycra?! NO

Motorhomes?! NO

5 x positive for doping riders from Astana main & devoted squad?! *** YEAH!
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Re:

Benotti69 said:
sometimes all you need is 140 characters..

The Broom Wagon @broomwagonblog

Flesh coloured lycra?! NO

Motorhomes?! NO

5 x positive for doping riders from Astana main & devoted squad?! **** YEAH!
None of these are mutually conclusively to one another.

Umm, doping is banned too, you know.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
What does "mutually conclusively" mean?
Certain of a shared link. Benotti and the guy in the tweet are full sure of it.

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.

It was shown up thread at the time of the women's team in Colombia and their cycling kit. That when high profile women in sport spoke out about it and it was somehow perceived as Cookson ignoring the issue of doping. What was even more insulting was that much of the reaction on here didn't have anything to do with a genuine concern for the issue of women in sport and more to do with using it as any means as a battering ram towards to Cookson. Guys like Matt Cooke were even playing to the gallery on this issue. While dealing with doping is a big part, there's other aspects in a job description of a President. A few need to keep that point in mind.

I worry for people if they think getting rid of high profile team is as easy as banning a motorhome for the Tour. I'm sure we will get a lot of CAS cases for the latter.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Re: Re:

gooner said:
Dear Wiggo said:
What does "mutually conclusively" mean?
Certain of a shared link. Benotti and the guy in the tweet are full sure of it.

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.
1. mutually conclusively is not English. It's gibberish.
2. Your claim that my "doping only view" precludes understanding is also gibberish.
3. Noone is saying Cookson is ignoring doping - unless you can link to such a post. All they are pointing out is that Cookson is useless. As useless as McQuaid. I am so sorry this seems to insult you to the point of having to take it personally, I really am. But it's the plain truth.

Re: the women: Cookson jumped in with both feet, in complete and utter error.

You say "there's other aspects in a job description of a President" - perhaps you could, in your obviously superior position as authority on sports administration - outline what they are - not all of them, just one or two, and indicate how Cookson is fulfilling his role there?

I look forward to your response.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re: Re:

neineinei said:
skippythepinhead said:
How many biopassport violations led to sanctions before Cookson, and how many since Cookson took over?
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.

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.
great post.

if an EPO positive follows targeted testing due to dodgy passport values, I'd maybe expect Cookson's PR department to exploit that, i.e. to use it as BP propaganda, which, however, they haven't. (this is just an observation, not evidence that the positives weren't due to BP-related testing)
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
The 1966 Road World Championship, the 3 podium riders refused to give a sample to testers. The three were disqualified and suspended but ten days later the Union Cycliste Internationale allowed the result to stand.

It seems nothing has changed. Nearly 50 years later, the sport still will not attempt to properly rid itself of doping.

The fish rots from the head.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

gooner said:
Benotti69 said:
sometimes all you need is 140 characters..

The Broom Wagon @broomwagonblog

Flesh coloured lycra?! NO

Motorhomes?! NO

5 x positive for doping riders from Astana main & devoted squad?! **** YEAH!
None of these are mutually conclusively to one another.

Umm, doping is banned too, you know.
Really hard to see how 'banned' it is, because it sure doesn't look like it.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cookson-i-dont-want-a-war-with-aso-but-cycling-must-reform

Finally Cookson is talking again:

On the Kreuziger issue:

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.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
And more:

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.
Benson doing a good job I think..
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
There is plenty more.. Won't post it here though..

Worth a full read as he is asked questions raised here over and over again...
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
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?

Mark L
 
As typical with any settlement of this nature, I imagine the language was that neither party would pursue the case further in court. The passport is the best marketing tool that UCI has at its disposal. I agree that they would go to just about any length to prevent it from being challenged in court even if it is likely that doping is still suspected. The fact is that UCI is pretty toothless when it comes to anti-doping. What we don't know is whether that is by choice or by circumstance.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Re:

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?

Mark L
An argument can be made that he promised a lot pre-election..
Once elected he continued being ambitous on well-intended grounds (maybe)..

Once faced with plenty of resistance (and REALISM), he may have played the card if his own position (via tough talk) to deliver something.. Wether for real or for show -I dunno..

But I do find it strange he would compromise his position and risk being marginalised
if not the overall goal was deemed worthy such risk...

He is a peculiar characther to me...

One day -I think he is offering little more then MCBruggen..
The other -i think he is "learning" and playing the long game, maybe even doing some real good.....

On the Kreuziger case...
It is worth mentioning that UCI had never met resistance in this caliber..
Kreuziger had plenty of means to throw after this... It was a different case then any other simply because of the ressources of the opponent..

So who is to blame..

Cookson, or the passport? Maybe bit of both...

My nutjob theory is still that The Astana licence/Kreuziger case were part of a campaign to get rid of Riis/Vino..
But not my preferred/most likely scenario to be honest...

One thing I'am sure of.. Is that he is honest when he says:
"Many parts of my job are frustrating"
 
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.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Re:

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.
Mayabe taking a risk to achieve something....?

It could be argued that since neither Kreuziger/Tinkoff or Astana bite the layed out bait that they had already called the bluff from the get-go.. But how could they, if not already aware that either Cookson was not able to deliver on his tough talk? or he was unfamiliar with underlying legal issues...

Stange indeed....
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
I wouldn't like to be in Cookson's shoes...

He is balancing between protecting the sport and cleaning it up....

So is being well-intended leaning more to the one side then the other?

And if so, it must surely be on a case by case analysis in combination with your overall objective as UCI president which is what?

To deliver change for the better?'

I mean, Cookson may be able to cause havoc, but history has shown us that scandals are no pillar for REAL change...

No man alone can change the culture of cycling... Not even the president of UCI..

So maybe a well-intended president is taking some risks to get things in motion for positive improvement, but is faced with more resistance then a salmon swimming upstream in northen america?

Maybe the Astana/APB-Kreuziger -and reform collaps is a symbol of the salmon being a quarter way upstream now,
-and must re-evaluate his approach..

So what does he do now?

Turn back and survive (personally)... But offer no change to the culture of cycling?

Or continue on an (ofiicially) powerful mandate that in reality contains a lot less pedigree?

I take it he does not see the meaning in swimming up-stream if no-one is following..

Thus he is the Salmon caught in the middle...
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
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.
 
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!
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Re:

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.
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....

How does one make that possible?

How does one accomplish mutual agreement between short-sighted stakeholders that is only for the benefit of future stakeholders.......?

When there is only one "here and now"....?
 
Re:

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!
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.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts