Cookson is worse for cycling than McQuaid

[the delgados]

Yeah, rider fatigue in week three is a perfect illustration of the new clean cycling era.
A cynic might say everyone save for Vroome were still trying to recover from the first mountain stage, when Sky's domestiques managed to blow every opposing team leader out the back door mid-way through the climb.

 

[proffate]

Re: Re:

Everybody fighting each other, ASO pushing to kill Giro and Vuelta by shortening them - as Vuelta organizers!

guess this is off topic but I think that's a good direction to explore. What is magical about three weeks? I get fatigued just trying to follow a single race for three weeks... especially when it's decided on the first MTF. Also, why do we as fans care who can ride the fastest after three weeks of serious overtraining? To me stage racing is more interesting as a way to determine who can ride the fastest over a variety of terrain.

A three week stage race is probably just as unhealthy as three weeks of doping, and to me, rider health is the only reason doping should be banned.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re:

I really wish journalists would take the time to ask follow up questions to answers that, on the surface, don't appear to make a lot of sense.
Cookson claims the reason why riders were tired in the third week was due to the increased efficiency of doping controls.
I'm genuinely curious to know what he means by that.
Have the controls themselves changed? If so, how?
I don't recall reading about a whack of doping suspensions being handed down due to this new technology; so how do the riders know about it?
Did Cookson visit every camp and say, "listen boys, we have some radical new technology that will be able to detect what you're on, so you better watch out."
Also, please stop publishing the urine throwing incident as fact. No one except Vroome seems to recall it happening.

that moron Danie Benson only cares about hits, dont worry, his adds will pay for his salary

 

[the delgados]

@ Fearless Greg Lemond:
Maybe a "Ask a Reporter" thread is in order.
I understand that everyone needs to make a living, and I would never call Benson et al a moron, but it never ceases to amaze me why an obvious follow-up question isn't asked.
I always tend to give the benefit of the doubt by thinking the interview was conducted amongst a scrum of reporters and s/he didn't have an opportunity to follow-up, etc. Also there's the fact that CN is not an investigative news web site. Benson et al knows which side their bread is buttered on. But c'mon. Sometimes a follow-up question is too obvious to ignore.

 

[wendybnt]

Excuse my ignorance, but who is Danie Benson?

 

[Afrank]

Re:

Excuse my ignorance, but who is Danie Benson?

Owner of Cyclingnews.

 

[No_Balls]

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.

 

[heart_attack_man]

Re:

@ 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...

 

[the delgados]

Re: Re:

@ 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.

 

[Benotti69]

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/641646256000008192

plus cá change.........

 

[Benotti69]

UCI might have to clean up it's act or move it's HQ....

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/clamping-down_swiss-mps-pass--u2018lex-fifa-u2019-anti-corruption-law/41652890

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[Benotti69]

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.

 

[heart_attack_man]

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?

 

[42x16ss]

Re:

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*

 

[ebandit]

.......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

 

[Freddythefrog]

Re:

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.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Re: Re:

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

 

[Dear Wiggo]

https://twitter.com/wada_ama/status/651839693496184832

 

[Freddythefrog]

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 ?

 

[wendybnt]

Re:

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?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

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

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

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? I dont!

 

[wendybnt]

Re: Re:

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

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

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.