Cookson is worse for cycling than McQuaid

Page 69 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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 ;)
 
No case to answer has some known reasons.
1. Federation declines to open a case. "Altitude training" excuses, bribes to close cases.
2. A positive could go to Wada experts panel who do not agree.

Again, there is no requirement a positive has to end in an adrv. This is how the system was set up from the start.

It's not clear which number is the number explained by TUE on my phone, but it's not a stretch to conclude that's doping covered by a TUE.
 
Re:

DirtyWorks said:
No case to answer has some known reasons.
1. Federation declines to open a case. "Altitude training" excuses, bribes to close cases.
2. A positive could go to Wada experts panel who do not agree.

Again, there is no requirement a positive has to end in an adrv. This is how the system was set up from the start.

It's not clear which number is the number explained by TUE on my phone, but it's not a stretch to conclude that's doping covered by a TUE.
wendybnt said:
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 ;)
I think we're both missing that a blood urine test is processed differently than ABP testing.

A BP test is only an AAF after the panel review unanomously decides to open a case. "No case to Answer" is not the category for a computer-identified BP review on which a case is not opened.


Blood/Urine analysis are supposed to be binary. A positive A and B sample should always results in proceedings and sanction(except for those example cases of no-case to answerand TUEs). Only after the provisional suspension does an athlete appeal, and possibly have it turned to a No Fault result.

We're looking at 227 positive tests, and possibly (not likely) including a BP cases that have already been computer screened, comittee agreed, proceedings opened cases which have gone unresolved. Or, if they have been resolved, then 200 are no-case, no-fault, or TUE, which would itself be very distressing.

The problem is that someone like Contador was not anywhere on that list for a while, before being leaked. He was not suspended, provisionally or fully. It was not a no-fault or no-case to answer. It was probably officially listed as pending, but that would mean nearly 200 AAFs are pending for 2014, which is still incompetence by UCI. Tom Danielson is pending, we know about it, and it is still incompetence by USADA.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re:

wendybnt said:
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 ;)
Instead of attacking me, why not ask directly the UCI?

Then come back in here and have your wail.......
 
Jul 17, 2015
771
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
wendybnt said:
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 ;)
Instead of attacking me, why not ask directly the UCI?

Then come back in here and have your wail.......
You are making a claim based on an interpretation of data....I want to know how much you know in order to judge your interpretation.

It's not an attack, its holding you to account for your claims. Your response IS an attack. It would be better if you showed us how you arrived at your conclusion because as yet you don't seem to know how either figure was arrived at, nor how they relate to each other.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

wendybnt said:
Benotti69 said:
wendybnt said:
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 ;)
Instead of attacking me, why not ask directly the UCI?

Then come back in here and have your wail.......
You are making a claim based on an interpretation of data....I want to know how much you know in order to judge your interpretation.

It's not an attack, its holding you to account for your claims. Your response IS an attack. It would be better if you showed us how you arrived at your conclusion because as yet you don't seem to know how either figure was arrived at, nor how they relate to each other.
I accused Cookson of failure. I did not interpret any data. Cookson promised transparency. 194 unreported AAFs in not transparency. You accuse me of having a 'wail'.

Yet you ignore the guy who failed to deliver on his promises........

My response to you is not an attack.
 
Jul 17, 2015
771
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
wendybnt said:
Benotti69 said:
wendybnt said:
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 ;)
Instead of attacking me, why not ask directly the UCI?

Then come back in here and have your wail.......
You are making a claim based on an interpretation of data....I want to know how much you know in order to judge your interpretation.

It's not an attack, its holding you to account for your claims. Your response IS an attack. It would be better if you showed us how you arrived at your conclusion because as yet you don't seem to know how either figure was arrived at, nor how they relate to each other.
I accused Cookson of failure. I did not interpret any data. Cookson promised transparency. 194 unreported AAFs in not transparency. You accuse me of having a 'wail'.

Yet you ignore the guy who failed to deliver on his promises........

My response to you is not an attack.
I didn't accuse you of wailing. I said I won't be wailing.

Your failure to back up your assertion with an explanation of the data you invoke is not very impressive.
 
Re:

Benotti69 said:
UCI only reported 27 riders. So that, you still with me, is 194 unreported riders for AAFs(adverse analytical findings) or positive tests.

Why have these 194 not been explained by the UCI.......
You've already been told: the UCI list is UCI cases, not all cycling cases taken by NFs + NADOs. It is an incomplete list.

From the UCI's suspension list:

This table lists the license-holders currently serving a provisional suspension as a consequence of a potential or asserted anti-doping rule violation, over which the UCI has results management authority. Provisional suspensions imposed by other anti-doping organisations are not included in this list.
From the UCi's sanctions list:

This table lists the license-holders currently serving a period of ineligibility as a consequence of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation, over which the UCI has results management authority. The sanctions imposed by other anti-doping organisations are not included in this list, unless such sanctions have been expressly recognised by the UCI Anti-Doping Commission.
You have also been told that you are not comparing like with like: the UCI's 2014 lists contain positives from prior years.
 
Re: Re:

More Strides than Rides said:
DirtyWorks said:
No case to answer has some known reasons.
1. Federation declines to open a case. "Altitude training" excuses, bribes to close cases.
2. A positive could go to Wada experts panel who do not agree.

Again, there is no requirement a positive has to end in an adrv. This is how the system was set up from the start.

It's not clear which number is the number explained by TUE on my phone, but it's not a stretch to conclude that's doping covered by a TUE.
wendybnt said:
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 ;)
I think we're both missing that a blood urine test is processed differently than ABP testing.

A BP test is only an AAF after the panel review unanomously decides to open a case. "No case to Answer" is not the category for a computer-identified BP review on which a case is not opened.


Blood/Urine analysis are supposed to be binary. A positive A and B sample should always results in proceedings and sanction(except for those example cases of no-case to answerand TUEs). Only after the provisional suspension does an athlete appeal, and possibly have it turned to a No Fault result.

We're looking at 227 positive tests, and possibly (not likely) including a BP cases that have already been computer screened, comittee agreed, proceedings opened cases which have gone unresolved. Or, if they have been resolved, then 200 are no-case, no-fault, or TUE, which would itself be very distressing.

The problem is that someone like Contador was not anywhere on that list for a while, before being leaked. He was not suspended, provisionally or fully. It was not a no-fault or no-case to answer. It was probably officially listed as pending, but that would mean nearly 200 AAFs are pending for 2014, which is still incompetence by UCI. Tom Danielson is pending, we know about it, and it is still incompetence by USADA.
This is my understanding too. Basically, there are "in competition" blood and urine tests. Only urine tests are the overwhelming norm for in-competition testing. And then separately, there seem to be ABP tests.

Be careful about characterizing tests binary. A test for clenbuterol would be binary as none exists in the human body. A test for T:E ratio is a range of values because it occurs in the body naturally. Way down in the nuts-and-bolts an ABP blood test is completely different than a urine test.

We don't hear much about the steroid passport, but that is supposed to work like the ABP and more easily detect steroid use.

Finally, it's not incompetence on the part of USADA. They can't do anything unless directed by the UCI. Also, there have been cases with months of delays in wrangling, then BAM! a swift resolution and a sanction that includes the months of wrangling.

One of my crackpot theories about Danielson was I don't think the UCI wanted him to announce it. Maybe dropping the case could have happened with a bribe or a Menchov disappearance. But Danielson went public.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
DirtyWorks said:
Finally, it's not incompetence on the part of USADA. They can't do anything unless directed by the UCI.
Say what? Since when did USADA have to wait for the UCI's direction before proceeding with a case?
Well, just as an example, USADA's reasoned decision was a recommendation based on the UCI's own rules, not a sanction. You may recall waiting some days between USADA's submission to the UCI and a decision from the UCI. That's because the UCI is the only one with the authority to sanction a UCI licensed cyclist. They are typically the only ones with the authority to open a doping case. Their authority includes ignoring positives as has been discussed in this thread recently.

As noted many times before, Armstrong's situation was an exception.

Explain how you imagine the anti-doping sanction process to work and I'll clarify based on what I've read of the WADA standards.
 
I chose the word incompetance more out of frustration with the case than any action taken or not by USADA. Becuase it is all behind closed doors, it is hard to know exactly what is happening. I'd actually guess USADA is doing everything they can, but Danielson has a Lance-level team of lawyers to obfuscate.

Even more there are new procedures which I don't fully understand. 2015 is the first year of UCI's doping tribunal.

The UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal was established in January 2015 as part of the reforms implemented by Brian Cookson since his election as UCI President. The UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal takes over the task, previously delegated by the UCI to the National Federations, of handling disciplinary proceedings and rendering decisions concerning violations of the Anti-doping Regulations. In principle, the jurisdiction of the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal is limited to anti-doping affairs involving international level riders. The judges are fully independent from the UCI and were nominated in view of their outstanding expertise in the field of anti-doping and dispute resolution.
So whatever we don't know about the case, is compounded by UCI's agenda on the case.
 
More on that Tribunal:

http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Organisation/16/95/42/Anti-DopingTribunalProceduralRules_English.pdf

Article 7 Confidentiality
1. The Tribunal shall ensure that any information d
isclosed to it in connection with the
proceedings and not otherwise in the public domain
shall be kept confidential and shall
be used only in connection with the disciplinary pr
oceedings at hand.
2. Likewise, all Parties as well as the Secretariat
, witnesses, experts, interpreters or any
other individual involved in proceedings shall keep
confidential any information
disclosed in connection with the proceedings.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re:

del1962 said:
Wasnt it his national doping agency that cleared Kreuzinger?
from his wiki page;

On 22 September, it was announced that the Czech Olympic Committee had cleared him of any anti-doping violation and that he was free to compete again.

The UCI and the World Anti-Doping Agency appealed against the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in October 2014.

The case was dropped by both agencies on 5 June 2015.
 
Re:

More Strides than Rides said:
I chose the word incompetance more out of frustration with the case than any action taken or not by USADA. Becuase it is all behind closed doors, it is hard to know exactly what is happening. I'd actually guess USADA is doing everything they can, but Danielson has a Lance-level team of lawyers to obfuscate.

Even more there are new procedures which I don't fully understand. 2015 is the first year of UCI's doping tribunal.

The UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal was established in January 2015 as part of the reforms implemented by Brian Cookson since his election as UCI President. The UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal takes over the task, previously delegated by the UCI to the National Federations, of handling disciplinary proceedings and rendering decisions concerning violations of the Anti-doping Regulations. In principle, the jurisdiction of the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal is limited to anti-doping affairs involving international level riders. The judges are fully independent from the UCI and were nominated in view of their outstanding expertise in the field of anti-doping and dispute resolution.
So whatever we don't know about the case, is compounded by UCI's agenda on the case.
"Agenda" is a very good word for it.

We know from Track and Field that a positive can be bribed away. The new tribunal makes bribes much easier to execute.

The new tribunal apparently ignores the simple fact the UCI is now a supra-national law enforcement organization. An American will be sanctioned under Swiss(??) laws. Which makes it even less likely a legal fight over a sanction can happen.
 
Yes.

With regards to Kreuziger, the in my opinion, the UCI didn't drop the case outright, in the "what a nice guy, let's let him off" way.

Kreuziger argued that his hypothyroidism and thyroid medication was the explanation for the adverse passport scores. It seemed that the UCI wasn't prepared to argue against that. The fact that a case was dropped instead of going all the way to a denied appeal isn't suspicious to me in and of itself.

The case raised issues with the UCI: competence in finding and presenting the necessary evidence, and also the precedent it sets for hypothyroidism/thyroid hormone as a defense for wonky passport scores.

I don't wholly buy the "UCI will let everyone off" attitude some around here take (although I can't tell if its sarcastic). I do think they try to a strong degree, but they just don't try well, and generally aren't very good. I find it much more believable that they suffer the same problems as any bureaucracy, and the same shortage of person-power and funds (at the level that work is actually done), that every large institution faces.
 
Re: Re:

DirtyWorks said:
del1962 said:
Wasn't one of the reason the UCI took control to stop national agencies clearing their own like Impey or Kreuzinger?
They had to get the doping stories under control.

There is no rhyme or reason from the outside.
Remember the good ole days of the Cookson manifesto? Open door policy... Transparency! :rolleyes:

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY