Cookson is worse for cycling than McQuaid

Page 68 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

One example of a good CN-article:

How are we to know Gesink’s power meter is producing completely accurate data? Do his and others’ computers take into account fluctuations in weight from day to day? How can we have faith in Sky’s numbers, modified from the raw data because they claim osymetric chainrings overestimate power by six per cent?

The new numbers have failed to satisfy Sallet, who has revised his calculations in a fresh report published under the banner of his Athletes for Transparency body. Having originally taken Froome to weigh 71 kilograms, the 67.5kg figure given by Sky leads him to believe Froome averaged 408 watts over the climb, compared with his original 425 estimate and Sky’s claim of 414.

Whereas he based his fist conclusions on a Maximal Aerobic Power of 7.04 w/kg – which is a different measurement to Sky’s 5.78 average power output – he now believes the figure to be 7.2 w/kg. Given that he claimed that those who posted above 7 w/kg were known dopers, with images of Lance Armstrong and Jan Ullrich appearing on the Stade 2 screen, Sky’s new data has only bolstered his assertions.

He concludes again by stating three possibilities: either Froome has a unique physiological profile, he is using performance enhancing drugs, or he is using a motor in his bike.

Sallet has echoed many in calling for Froome’s information to be released in its entirety, from power numbers and biological passport data to medication history. Team Sky principal Dave Brailsford has welcomed the idea of the introduction of a power passport, which would be a step in the right direction but, given the myriad variables touched on above, seems years away from becoming a reliable yardstick.

Sky have tried to regain control of the narrative by releasing Froome’s numbers but only full transparency would come close to quelling the innuendo. Even then, a wider, reliable, system of analysis would need to be implemented to provide concrete answers.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/skys-release-of-froomes-tour-de-france-data-fails-to-clear-the-air/

But they are too few, too rare, and seldom gets followed up in that they usually stop pushing the narrative to get back to business as usual. The exact same procedure stuck in reverse as during Lance where investigative journalism was at best reduced to a sideshow or at worst too busy cheerleading.

After been hiding and silent during two highly suspicious GT's Cooksons remarks should be earmarked for critical questions like those already posted here, the riders in question, how he could sound soo confident knowing that dopers and those doping DS still in the business usually always are one step in front. Fewer positives and "fatigue" on riders (those who rode the Giro?) is usually a warning signal in pro cycling. A journalist who took his job seriously would be concerned how pleased the man sounds. No transparency. Nothing.
 
Re:

the delgados said:
@ Fearless Greg Lemond:
Maybe a "Ask a Reporter" thread is in order.
I think that a great idea would be to have a sticky in the forum for questions we would like reporters to ask selected people. Easy resource for the lazy journo to at least try and ask the difficult questions... Though I could see something like that getting bastardised and trolled to death...
 
Re: Re:

heart_attack_man said:
the delgados said:
@ Fearless Greg Lemond:
Maybe a "Ask a Reporter" thread is in order.
I think that a great idea would be to have a sticky in the forum for questions we would like reporters to ask selected people. Easy resource for the lazy journo to at least try and ask the difficult questions... Though I could see something like that getting bastardised and trolled to death...
My questions for journalists always come up in retrospect--e.g. Why didn't you follow up with the claim that doping controls have become more efficient? I mean, that's such a loaded claim. One, it implies that doping controls were inefficient to begin with; and two, Cookson claims that the controls are now up to date and effective. Neither perspective was picked up on by the reporter.
I don't mean to come down on the reporter--a lot of things may have been going on--but yeah, I think a thread for sincere questions might be interesting.
 
Re: Re:

Afrank said:
wendybnt said:
Excuse my ignorance, but who is Danie Benson?
Owner of Cyclingnews.
Managing Editor not actual owner. Immediate Media are the owners.

Daniel Benson is the Managing Editor at Cyclingnews. Based in the UK, he coordinates the global coverage for the website. Having joined Cyclingnews in April 2008, he has covered several Tour de France, the Spring Classics, and the London Olympic Games in 2012.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
It is official, Cookson is worse than McQuaid for anti doping.

Lab testing

2013 (622) Châtenay-Malabry, Lausanne, Cologne
2014 (719) CM, Lausanne
2015 (656) CM, Lausanne

Cookson not sending samples to Cologne. Cant have riders testing positive can we now.
 
I think that your first sentence should be the name of the thread, not that he's worse for cycling. Though, personally, I believe it IS worse for cycling to not enable exceptionally strict anti-doping controls, there is an argument to be made that not having riders testing positive is actually good for cycling.

Take a look at all of the sports where drug testing is not even a consideration - the general public don't believe that there is any problem in them - perhaps his plan is to reduce drug controversy. In which case, it could be said that he's better for cycling than McQuaid. It was under McQuaid's and Verbruggen's watch that a lot of the drug controversies occurred. Perhaps his plan is to reduce that instead. We are certainly not seeing more positives, so what's the alternative?
 
Re:

Benotti69 said:
It is official, Cookson is worse than McQuaid for anti doping.

Lab testing

2013 (622) Châtenay-Malabry, Lausanne, Cologne
2014 (719) CM, Lausanne
2015 (656) CM, Lausanne

Cookson not sending samples to Cologne. Cant have riders testing positive can we now.
*Cue Skyborgs telling us how testing has increased, yet not recognising that the best lab in the world isn't receiving samples* :rolleyes:
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
.......not sure why cologne is no longer used........or if it really is the best lab?

,,,,,,all world tour teams slotting in for next year with no unsightly fuss over ethics

seen previous years

.......surely? less talk about the uci and more about racing is better for cycling...

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,no?

Mark L
 
Re:

Benotti69 said:
Cookson FAIL again


Pro cycling: 221 positive tests in 2014.

The amount of positives reported by the UCI: 27

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/33686397

Now think, Cookson was head of BC at the height of their track success. Think that was clean? hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!

Crookson is correct.
So are we able to get official figures for adverse analytical findings for cyclists that were then dismissed when the case came for hearing ? Now that by Nation would be great info.
 
Re: Re:

Freddythefrog said:
Benotti69 said:
Cookson FAIL again


Pro cycling: 221 positive tests in 2014.

The amount of positives reported by the UCI: 27

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/33686397

Now think, Cookson was head of BC at the height of their track success. Think that was clean? hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!

Crookson is correct.
So are we able to get official figures for adverse analytical findings for cyclists that were then dismissed when the case came for hearing ? Now that by Nation would be great info.
Data was released that did show this.

I believe it was WADA information from 2013 or 14, which segregated data by NADO, and sport. It showed AAFs, Sanctions, the "excused" AAFs (it had an official name, but TUEs or not meeting thresholds), and other data.

I think it was WADA at least. It will take me a while to find it. Someone else might know what I'm talking about.

EDIT: Not this by the way: https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wada_2014_anti-doping-testing-figures_full-report_en.pdf

There's info there, but I seem to remember more information about how the samples were processed: sanctions, excused, in-progress

EDIT again: Here: https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wada-2013-adrv-report-en.pdf

2013
You can't quite get specific enough to see the TUEs in cycling by nation. You can get the TUEs by National Federation, NADO, Sport, but not together. You can also get type of violation by nation.
Cycling
Total Samples** Total AAFs TUE No Case to Answer No Sanction Pending ADRV
22252 278 27 52 15 31 153
 
Whilst positives covered by TUEs is one problem, I would still like to know positives with no TUEs and just dismissed by a National Federation - true protection. Were there any cases of this in European countries ?
 
Jul 17, 2015
771
0
0
Re:

Benotti69 said:
Cookson FAIL again


Pro cycling: 221 positive tests in 2014.

The amount of positives reported by the UCI: 27

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/33686397

Now think, Cookson was head of BC at the height of their track success. Think that was clean? hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!

That's interesting.

Can you provide a link to your source of doping cases reported by UCI please?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

wendybnt said:
Benotti69 said:
Cookson FAIL again


Pro cycling: 221 positive tests in 2014.

The amount of positives reported by the UCI: 27

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/33686397

Now think, Cookson was head of BC at the height of their track success. Think that was clean? hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!

That's interesting.

Can you provide a link to your source of doping cases reported by UCI please?
UCI website
 
Jul 17, 2015
771
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
wendybnt said:
Benotti69 said:
Cookson FAIL again


Pro cycling: 221 positive tests in 2014.

The amount of positives reported by the UCI: 27

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/33686397

Now think, Cookson was head of BC at the height of their track success. Think that was clean? hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!

That's interesting.

Can you provide a link to your source of doping cases reported by UCI please?
UCI website

Link please
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
Pro cycling: 221 positive tests in 2014.

The amount of positives reported by the UCI: 27
1) The UCI reports UCI cases. The NFs + NADOs also report cases. This has long been one of the failings of the UCI's list of sanctions, that it does not show the true picture across the whole sport.

2) Are you even comparing like with like? UCI reports the outcome of cases (so 2014 sanctions include postives from prior years) while the WADA stats are the outcome of actual tests.
 
Jul 17, 2015
771
0
0
This is what I'm trying to identify. I don't know where Benotti is getting his figures and I'm not prepared to take them for granted. As with tabloid hysterical headlines, the details usually tell a different story
 
Outcomes of AAFs are classified under five categories:

TUE:
The athlete had a valid TUE that justified the presence of the prohibited substance in the athlete’s
sample.
No Case to Answer: Cases closed at results management level, excluding TUE cases. Such cases include for example:
authorized route of administration for glucocorticosteroids; departure from International
Standards; medically justified AAF (low-level athletes as per the definition of athlete in the Code*);
cases outside WADA’s jurisdiction (including non-Code signatories); and, other particular cases (for
example, THC cases that were closed based on the principle of lex mitior upon increase of the threshold in 2013 for this substance).
No Sanction: The athlete was exonerated or deemed to have no fault or negligence following a full disciplinary
process. For example, all meat contamination cases where the athlete was exonerated are
included in this category.
Pending: WADA has not received all the documentation required to validate the case decision. This may
include information such as a reasoned decision, TUE, the athlete’s name, etc.
ADRV: A decision was rendered and an ADRV was recorded against the athlete following a full disciplinary
process. The sanction was either a reprimand or a period of ineligibility.
Compare what we know so far about 2014 to what we know about 2013 from my linked report above:

Table 2- AAF Outcomes by Sport Category - ASOIF Sports/Disciplines* (continued)
Sport Total Samples** Total AAFs TUE No Case to Answer No Sanction Pending ADRV
Cycling..........22252............278 ...... 27.............52 .................15 ........ 31.....153
We want to know the circumstances of the "No case to answer" and the "No sanction" results. We also want to know why there were only 27 ADRVs compared to 153 the year before. Who is silencing the ADRVs? Is the process being circumvented.

Those are the questions being asked.

EDIT: I followed up my thought that maybe BBC was just reporting road figures. I'm tired of copying/pasting and then needing to reformat the PDF into a post, but the BBC number (22,000 samples) appears to all UCI sports. In 2013, nearly 9000 of their 22,000 were on roadies (53 ADRVs).
 
Jul 17, 2015
771
0
0
Yes, it would be interesting. As dope-testing is about interpretation rather than a binary yes/no answer I'm reluctant to accept Benotti's analysis at face value. I'd like to know the context before starting to wail ;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY