Cookson is worse for cycling than McQuaid

[the sceptic]

That line is amazing.

And when they don't catch anyone it shows that we are in a new clean era.

Right now it seems that being friends with the UCI is more important than ever. If you are a lone doper, or riding for a small budget team, you are going down.

 

[thehog]

Only if you consider the Anti-Doping Tribunal and Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation bent, which I presume you do. Is there no honest man in your town?

Using Menchov as a reference point then, yes, I do.

The UCI finally got their jurisdiction.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Only if you consider the Anti-Doping Tribunal and Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation bent, which I presume you do. Is there no honest man in your town?

In an ideal world: every case should be documented when opened, in very broad terms (The tribunal is opening a case against <name> and in respect of due process no further comments will be made until the conclusion of the case) and then the results (including summary of evidence and reasoning) publicly posted after the hearings and any appeal window.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Using Menchov as a reference point then, yes, I do.

The UCI finally got their jurisdiction.

Oh. Do tell me - In what way do you consider the Menchov case demonstrates that the Anti-Doping Tribunal and Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation are bent?

 

[Benotti69]

Oh. Do tell me - In what way do you consider the Menchov case demonstrates that the Anti-Doping Tribunal and Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation are bent?

Why did Mecnhov get to keep his GT results except the one where he finished outside the podium?

 

[thehog]

Perhaps bent is the wrong expression! Yikes!

 

[thehog]

Good post Hog!

In other news, Cookson's transparency and accountability strategy really taking off now:

Swiss anti-doping tribunal's purpose:
The public will never know, unless the rider chooses to announce the adverse finding, as the UCI has made it a policy only to announce provisional suspensions through a published list.

Nicely positioned as: lift the operational burden from National Federations," the UCI stated.

Uhhh. Yeah.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-anti-doping-tribunal-brings-speed-privacy-in-doping-cases

The story is attributed to no writer, which, means whomever put it together knew it was complete BS.

It really is hilarious. Did the UCI consult with Middle Eastern dictators when coming with this new strategy?

 

[wrinklyvet]

Why did Mecnhov get to keep his GT results except the one where he finished outside the podium?

I only know what I have read, i.e. Menchov has been disqualified from the three Tours as the UCI says that abnormalities in his biological passport could be clearly identified during these events.
Read more at http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...wo-year-doping-ban-130083#XmUeVoVlZEXrxTKh.99

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I only know what I have read, i.e. Menchov has been disqualified from the three Tours as the UCI says that abnormalities in his biological passport could be clearly identified during these events.
Read more at http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...wo-year-doping-ban-130083#XmUeVoVlZEXrxTKh.99

Just curious if you ever apply critical thinking to situations you read about. Or do you simply accept what you read in the papers / online?

 

[wrinklyvet]

Perhaps bent is the wrong expression! Yikes!

It depends on your version of English!

A recognised meaning in British English is "dishonest; corrupt" and not the following:
2. intoxicated, or
3. gay or effeminate.

I used the expression in the first meaning only and I think you knew what i meant!

 

[wrinklyvet]

Just curious if you ever apply critical thinking to situations you read about. Or do you simply accept what you read in the papers / online?

Yes, I do (the former). I think about things a great deal more than you suppose. Please don't be condescending if it's not absolutely justified (and it very seldom is).

The decision in Menchov made sense to me as this is how the UCI has routinely applied adverse biological passport findings as far as I know.

If they can't link a result with a discrepancy under that scheme the rider gets to keep his result. That's how the system has been working.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Using Menchov as a reference point then, yes, I do.

The UCI finally got their jurisdiction.

Oh. Do tell me - In what way do you consider the Menchov case demonstrates that the Anti-Doping Tribunal and Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation are bent?

Why did Mecnhov get to keep his GT results except the one where he finished outside the podium?

I only know what I have read, i.e. Menchov has been disqualified from the three Tours as the UCI says that abnormalities in his biological passport could be clearly identified during these events.
Read more at http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...wo-year-doping-ban-130083#XmUeVoVlZEXrxTKh.99

Just curious if you ever apply critical thinking to situations you read about. Or do you simply accept what you read in the papers / online?

Yes, I do. I think about things a great deal more than you suppose. Please don't be condescending if it's not absolutely justified (and it very seldom is).

The decision in Menchov made sense to me as this is how the UCI has routinely applied adverse biological passport findings as far as I know.

If they can't link a result with a discrepancy under that scheme the rider gets to keep his result. That's how the system has been working.

So you consider a rider who had discrepancies in some tours (eg 50th in TdF 2009) was perfectly clean in other tours (1st Giro 2009) where he performed better?

And you don't see or have any issue with this? You think it makes perfect sense? You see no reason to suspect some backroom dealings? Were you even aware of the details of his race results vs his punishment application to same?

I'm sorry you read my post as condescending but can assure you it was entirely neutral.

Read this one as completely amazed and astounded.

EtA: critical thinking is NOT "thinking about things a lot". It means taking what you read and looking into it deeper than what you are told by the overlords.

 

[wrinklyvet]

So you consider a rider who had discrepancies in some tours (eg 50th in TdF 2009) was perfectly clean in other tours (1st Giro 2009) where he performed better?

And you don't see or have any issue with this? You think it makes perfect sense? You see no reason to suspect some backroom dealings? Were you even aware of the details of his race results vs his punishment application to same?

I'm sorry you read my post as condescending but can assure you it was entirely neutral.

Read this one as completely amazed and astounded.

EtA: critical thinking is NOT "thinking about things a lot". It means taking what you read and looking into it deeper than what you are told by the overlords.

No, actually I don't think there is any great likelihood that Menchov was cleaner in his Tour win.

I am prepared to accept at face value that the decisions made turn on the factors I mentioned. I don't think it it open to a sports governing body to do what you seem to have expected that they should do. It's a quasi-judicial process and the reasoning that "You can't seriously expect us to believe you were clean in the period for which we have no evidence so we will strip you of what you gained!" has no place in setting sanctions.

It's OK here in the alternative thinking of the Clinic to do that but I say in all seriousness that it won't wash in the real world.

P.S. Let's allow your last sentence to pass, as you are trying to be neutral and obviously not trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

No, actually I don't think there is any great likelihood that Menchov was cleaner in his Tour win.

I am prepared to accept at face value that the decisions made turn on the factors I mentioned. I don't think it it open to a sports governing body to do what you seem to have expected that they should do. It's a quasi-judicial process and the reasoning that "You can't seriously expect us to believe you were clean in the period for which we have no evidence so we will strip you of what you gained!" has no place in setting sanctions.

It's OK here in the alternative thinking of the Clinic to do that but I say in all seriousness that it won't wash in the real world.

P.S. Let's allow your last sentence to pass, as you are trying to be neutral and obviously not trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

Where did I say UCI could or should do something different?

You questioned how Menchov's banning could be construed as an indication something is wrong with the UCI?


Yet acknowledge he was probably not clean for this Giro win a month before "discrepancies" were found in his lacksadaisical TdF performance?

And yet have absolutely no issue with him not losing that result?

And accept whole heartedly that there was absolutely nothing wrong with his passport during the Giro, because it was implied by the UCI's wording of his punishment?

Gotcha.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Poster sees Menchov's Giro win and one month later at the Tour the UCI claim he had BP discrepancies so removed his 50th place from the Tour, leaving his Giro win intact.


Said poster applies critical thinking to this scenario and finds it wholly acceptable, understandable and not troublesome at all.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Where did I say UCI could or should do something different?

You questioned how Menchov's banning could be construed as an indication something is wrong with the UCI?


Yet acknowledge he was probably not clean for this Giro win a month before "discrepancies" were found in his lacksadaisical TdF performance?

And yet have absolutely no issue with him not losing that result?

And accept whole heartedly that there was absolutely nothing wrong with his passport during the Giro, because it was implied by the UCI's wording of his punishment?

Gotcha.

Well you are clearly of the opinion that a right thinking person should have an issue with that result. Why can you not accept with good grace that there is more than one way of looking at an issue and you don't have a monopoly on the right way?

I am absolutely sure decisions are not made without legal advice and the UCI has to protect its resources.

You don't have any way of showing that what the UCI said on this was untrue and you base your criticism on other factors, obviously influenced by a dislike and distrust of "overlords." Well carry on. I've done my best to explain my way of looking at it.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

You don't have any way of showing that what the UCI said on this was untrue and you base your criticism on other factors, obviously influenced by a dislike and distrust of "overlords." Well carry on. I've done my best to explain my way of looking at it.

"The UCI said it therefore it must be true" - that's your explanation, right?

Menchov won the Giro, and a month later came 50th in the Tour. His Tour had BP discrepancies so they struck off his 50th place.

If you could explain to me, how that makes any sense at all, I am all ears.

I am standing in the crowd, calling out, "he doesn't have new clothes, he's naked".

What are you calling out?

 

[wrinklyvet]

Poster sees Menchov's Giro win and one month later at the Tour the UCI claim he had BP discrepancies so removed his 50th place from the Tour, leaving his Giro win intact.


Said poster applies critical thinking to this scenario and finds it wholly acceptable, understandable and not troublesome at all.

What's your game now then? Neutral, you said. Applied my critical thinking to this post and don't believe a word of it. Some form of success in your training then.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

What's your game now then? Neutral, you said. Applied my critical thinking to this post and don't believe a word of it. Some form of success in your training then.

Only my first, "do you apply critical thinking" post was neutral. Since then, as intimated in the very next post, my jaw is firmly embedded in the ground, in disbelief.

I am incredulous that you can on one hand acknowledge he was probably doped but on the other be critical of or confused as to why someone who is doubting the UCI's handling of the case.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Only my first, "do you apply critical thinking" post was neutral. Since then, as intimated in the very next post, my jaw is firmly embedded in the ground, in disbelief.

I am incredulous that you can on one hand acknowledge he was probably doped but on the other be critical of or confused as to why someone who is doubting the UCI's handling of the case.

For one last time (and no more - that's it, so go and do your sledging elsewhere) I think it probable that, applying such rules as exist the UCI could not justify doing what you obviously think they should have done, or was not prepared to be in further dispute about it. For every person who thinks a certain course is fair there will be somebody who thinks differently.

I am not talking about what i would like the UCI to have done. You are applying that value judgement and because it was not done you attribute it to mismanagement.

Now give it a rest please.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Amazing. Simply amazing.

You still didn't explain beyond, "The UCI said it so it must be true" - is that your only explanation for what went on?

You still can't see there may be other, underhanded explanations for the dodgy punishment Menchov received?

You know Cookson was a member of the UCI when McQuaid was boss yeah?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Only if you consider the Anti-Doping Tribunal and Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation bent, which I presume you do. Is there no honest man in your town?

This is what we are discussing, in case you have forgotten. Nothing to do with what I think the UCI should have done, or what you think the UCI should have done.

Just your complete inability to understand why someone might consider the UCI, through its very inconsistent application of punishments to be off-kilter when it comes to ethics and believability.

 

[wrinklyvet]

This is what we are discussing, in case you have forgotten. Nothing to do with what I think the UCI should have done, or what you think the UCI should have done.

Just your complete inability to understand why someone might consider the UCI, through its very inconsistent application of punishments to be off-kilter when it comes to ethics and believability.

Actually I do understand why you should think that.

I have answered your various turns in the argument since this original post. it is never going to satisfy you. Now give it a rest.

Finished now, no more to say. If you have more to say on this don't expect a response. Call it a stunning triumph if you like to think that's the situation.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Actually I do understand why you should think that.

This makes no sense.

I have answered your various turns in the argument since this original post. it is never going to satisfy you. Now give it a rest.

Just a friendly hint: you have no authority over me. Telling me what to do won't work here. If you can't explain why you think the UCI is perfectly above board and unimpeachable, despite their inconsistencies, beyond, "THe UCI said it so it must be true", then yes, I will ask for clarification.

And I do sincerely apologise for coming across as bewildered that you are so easily accepting of what you are told by people who are anything but transparent in their dealings.

Finished now, no more to say. If you have more to say on this don't expect a response. Call it a stunning triumph if you like to think that's the situation.

You're projecting, which is fine.

If you truly believe that the UCI would never lie, that people like Zorzolli remaining there, with Saugy still in charge of the primary testing facility at Lausanne is all fine and dandy, that Makarov and his machinations behind the scenes during the election are all perfectly legitimate because "The UCI say it is", the head of the ethics committee being removed against the UCI's own rules, the single member TUE committee ok'ing Froome's TUE despite assurances they would reimplement an actual committee, then I truly, sincerely would like to see the critical thinking process that leads you to that conclusion. The steps. The logic.

Perhaps Parker or PMCG76 (no offense your username eludes me momentarily) can break it down for me.

But if you can't be bothered, and prefer to deflect onto "what DW thinks the UCI should do", etc. Fine.

 

[D-Queued]

"The UCI said it therefore it must be true" - that's your explanation, right?

Menchov won the Giro, and a month later came 50th in the Tour. His Tour had BP discrepancies so they struck off his 50th place.

If you could explain to me, how that makes any sense at all, I am all ears.

I am standing in the crowd, calling out, "he doesn't have new clothes, he's naked".

What are you calling out?

Wow! Just wow!

Does that ever underscore just how bad the doping is at the Tour.

Everyone knows you can win the Giro cleans. But, just think of all the drugs that they must take right afterwards.

Like here is someone who appears to have been doping for the Tour, after not doping for the Giro, and he dropped 50 places?

Holy cow!

Dave.