Kreuziger going down?

[King Boonen]

Well, I'm one of these old guys, and I embrace it.

Then I need you to talk to my collaborators!

The difference is that someone's career is at stake. When there is urgency--a major discovery, and scientists trying to be the first to publish--the review process, as I'm sure you know, is greatly expedited. It can be done. And when a decision about whether to strip someone of his job for two or more years is involved, the same if not greater urgency ought to be in effect. Remember, the rider is continuing to compete, and maybe getting results which might have to be nullified.

I can understand being slow in the initial phase, when they are trying to see if a profile is suspicious enough to warrant a further review (though the software is supposed to take most of these cases out of the scientists' hands). But when it gets to the point when they think they have a case, things ought to move much faster. There have been less than a dozen or so cases so far, so it's not like the pipeline is clogged.

Our paper was a first to publish finding (although the area it was in meant that at least one of the reviewers work directly disagreed with ours so no doubt that held it up a bit).

I completely agree that the impact of these things means that they should be dealt with much quicker. I just think that it's the most likely cause rather than a conspiracy, especially if there was disagreement between the experts at each stage.

It's certainly something they should be sorting out.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

the timing is what gets me. Right before the tour the UCI decides to "investigate" his passport? bs.

No, the article says Kreuzinger was advised by letter dated June 28, 2013 his results were irregular so obviously the investigation was initiated before that! At least more than a year ago.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Congratulations @AlejandroVavlerde on winning your first Amstel Gold Race.

If ever there was a quote that shows how biased you are in assuming a positive finding before hearing the facts, this is it. Why do you bother posting on here? You have no credibility!

 

[doolols]

So no one is wondering about these "high" profile busts after Froomegate? Not saying that Kreuz (or Ulissi) did nothing wrong, but the timing is just perfect to keep eyes off something else..

Just as we were getting back on topic

 

[Amazinmets73]

2005 top ten TdF? I don't know, but I don't think its 80% clean or anywhere close to that. Maybe the inverse or more!

My point when I said 80-85% clean in 2005, is that there were plenty of guys slogging away in the grupetto clean in 2005. That was not true in 1996. by 2005, it was possible to be a professional cyclist without doping, albeit a mediocre one. In 1996, that was not a possibility, the grupetto would leave you for dead. It was an invisible, but still significant cultural change.

The bio-pass cases go through multiple levels. Computer/regression models first, then panel of 3 expert opinions, after panel of of 11 expert opinions. Each time an opportunity for the athlete to present a defense. It's a long process, but it's not something you'd want to get wrong. Still, it should be streamlined or expedited, I agree.

That can't be true, there had to be clean pros in '96. Basson's?

 

[matikff]

Oh crap, sorry. Got kinda confused with these 3 topics about the same thing, so posted here, my bad

 

[doolols]

(obviously cos you are a troll you use the generic - "you guys" to try and blame even those of us who directly dismiss these theories. )

It amazes me that certain people on here (usually those with big post counts) are allowed to "play the man, not the ball" - they are allowed to name-call with no warnings. It's like it's accepted that frequent posters can, basically, do what they like. No, I'm not a troll, I'm someone who follows cycling, and who has an open mind on most of the main issues.

No, I'm not blaming anyone specifically, or generally. There are some on here who try to turn everything into a Sky conspiracy. It's basically ridiculous that just about every single thread turns into an anti-Sky, anti-Froome rant. And this - Kreuziger gets popped, and the feeling is that yes, he was guilty, and yes, it is about time, and yes, there is evidence in his performances. And yet, still, it's all about Sky and the UCI working in conjunction to make the Froome win in 2014 easier.

 

[karlboss]

For a a large number of guys it stopped after 1998 - and they were angry about all the guys who kept doing it until 2001 when the EPO test came out, and then there were another group of guys who stopped, who then became angry about those who found a way around the old EPO test...then another large group stopped in the 2005-2006 range, as the homologous transfusion test came out and puerto broke - and those guys then became really angry about those guys who tried to keep doping. Then when the passport came out, another group stopped.... and on it goes.

you could call each and every group that once doped and then stopped, hypocrites for being angry about the guys who kept doping. but, in the end, that's how progress is made, not some massive watershed event. takes a while to unravel 100 years of culture.

please, don't oversimplify my thoughts or opinions.

More or less an opinion I share, though I don't rule out that those who stop may well start again, and it is in this environment that it's impossible(really really tough?) for any winner to have much credibility.
On Kreuziger i doubt any of this has anything to do with his performance in Switzerland, he came 8th, and appeared to ride relatively conservatively.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

It may be that because of the difficulty of building cases that UCI is now sitting on possibly suspicious data for years, constantly checking with new data. That is, they may not even make the determination of whether data need to be examined by experts for a long time after they have analyzed it by the software. But if they’re doing that, they ought to let the riders know.

I’m not in great sympathy with Kreuziger, but I think he has the right to know if data that were collected years in the past might come back to haunt him. If riders have to worry for years about some sample they gave, fine, I have no problem with that. But tell them that they have to worry. Don’t just spring it on them.

And let's not kid ourselves. If UCI is sitting on data like that, then the possibility for corruption does arise.

IMO the processes used by NADAs and the UCI are suspicious. I am strongly anti-doping but I also believe in due process. Once an allegation is made by a NADA or the UCI, there is an assumption under the various anti-doping legislation and regulations the cyclist is guilty and the onus shifts to the cyclist to prove his innocence.

This is of course contrary to the philosophy of all credible criminal justice systems. But it could be argued doping infractions are not as serious as crimes (except perhaps in France) and if the only way to deter doping is to put the onus on the cyclist so be it.

However the ramifications for a cyclist are huge, including reputation, money and loss of income. Again this may be the price an cyclist has to pay to deter doping.

The problem you point out about not keeping Kreuzinger informed is a classic case of a bad process, that can be subject to corruption. IMO the cyclists need an independent union, not the tepid UCI Athletes Commission or the Professional Cycling Council all of which are under the umbrella of the UCI.

Another reason a union is required is for example the paltry prize money of $650,000 for winning what the ASO tells us is the greatest and most difficult athletic event in the world. Both the PGA and USPGA players can make $1,000,000 + in 4 days on the pro golf circuit, with maybe the odd blister.

You cannot convince me the ASO does not make a ton of millions of dollars on the Tour that justifies better prize money, especially for the domestiques on some kind of gradated scale. I know the winner shares the prize with his team, but for the effort involved, the prize money in pro cycling is chump change.

It is the cyclists that need to stand up to the UCI, their teams and the conditions they work under, while at the same time committing to clean cycling.

IF Kreuzinger wins his case, maybe he can sue the UCI for loss of future income?

PS Regarding experts - their views are simply opinions no more and no less. In the legal system they are disdainfully referred to as "Someone from out of town"!

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Your point on little fish is going to be impossible to explain to the satisfaction of the conspiracy minded. But what I would ask that you consider is that in an environment where highly effective doping is receding, but yet to be eliminated, you end up with an odd coexistence of highly talented athletes winning and less talented, yet doped athletes winning. Also, in this part doping/part not environment the risk/reward ratio is very different for the highly talented athlete, as to say, he can still have a highly successful career without doping. Of course, doping would increase that even further, but still, he would be able to earn well clean.

Only pure sociopathic greed causes this highly talented rider to choose to "win even more!" than they could clean, and dope. A less talented athlete would not have a similar risk/reward ratio. They would "need" the doping to succeed in any form, and in great quantities, so the risk of being caught increases quite a bit. Just consider it. Not meant as an absolute explanation.

This is a bit of my argument about cleanER cycling. My bar is different than yours, i come from racing in the 90's, where no matter what the talent, you were finishing at the back of the race w/o doping. That set my "standard" and any improvement from this standard was improvement. So, what I observed over the last 15 years are slow, imperfect, improvements. Sometimes(certain events caused) the number of riders doping reduced, sometimes the efficacy of the doping methods reduced(due to lower doses/better testing) even though riders were still doping. Either way, this allowed clean riders to succeed in way that was not previously possible. Even if they were still beaten by dopers, it was 5-6 dopers as opposed to 185 dopers. This is where my annoyingly optimistic tone comes from. I know you guys want an absolute, which I've made the mistake of trying to give/prove. The reality is a slow and painful march from black to grey to less grey, and hopefully to white.

The evolutionary theory of cleaning up doping! Makes sense! But is it climbing up Mount Improbable i.e. will natural selection ever complete its task?

 

[The Hitch]

It amazes me that certain people on here (usually those with big post counts) are allowed to "play the man, not the ball" - they are allowed to name-call with no warnings. It's like it's accepted that frequent posters can, basically, do what they like. No, I'm not a troll, I'm someone who follows cycling, and who has an open mind on most of the main issues.

No, I'm not blaming anyone specifically, or generally. There are some on here who try to turn everything into a Sky conspiracy. It's basically ridiculous that just about every single thread turns into an anti-Sky, anti-Froome rant. And this - Kreuziger gets popped, and the feeling is that yes, he was guilty, and yes, it is about time, and yes, there is evidence in his performances. And yet, still, it's all about Sky and the UCI working in conjunction to make the Froome win in 2014 easier.

Well address those posters specifically. Because the "omg this place does...." rants do not help.

 

[Ferminal]

IMO Bertie will be fine, in any case it's too late now and a lot of the hard work and risks have already been taken, it would be rash to throw in the towel now. The time in question didn't happen and Saxo, was on a conventional program predating the "better gains than Ferrari" era. When Bertie decided to ramp up this year he already knew about this anyway. If anything the person who would be most concerned is someone who has a lot in common with the Czech and who last hit top form in May 2013... I guess we will find out soon enough.

 

[pmcg76]

Well address those posters specifically. Because the "omg this place does...." rants do not help.

Come now Hitch, a quick glance through posting stats would clearly illustrate that addressing the clinic as such wouldnt be far off incorrect.

So called SKY critic posters

Hitch 22k +
La Florecita 14+
The Hog 13+
Benotti, Netserk 12k+
Blackcat 7k+
Sniper, Hugh Januss, DirtyWorks 5k+
Dear Wiggo 4k+

Compare that to the so called pro-SKY posters

MartinVickers(currently banned), Jimmy Fingers 2k+

Now I realise that some of you post in other sections regularly but many do not so the whole SKY debate is incredibly one sided, thus the reason it gets dragged into everything. Throw in the more balanced posters like hrotha, Zam, Ferminal, Libertine who are also SKY sceptics and it becomes even more lopsided. I think it would require 100 or more SKY bots to keep up with the other side.

 

[Ferminal]

I do more than my fair share of botting...

 

[The Hitch]

Come now Hitch, a quick glance through posting stats would clearly illustrate that addressing the clinic as such wouldnt be far off incorrect.

So called SKY critic posters

Hitch 22k +
La Florecita 14+
The Hog 13+
Benotti, Netserk 12k+
Blackcat 7k+
Sniper, Hugh Januss, DirtyWorks 5k+
Dear Wiggo 4k+

Compare that to the so called pro-SKY posters

MartinVickers(currently banned), Jimmy Fingers 2k+

Now I realise that some of you post in other sections regularly but many do not so the whole SKY debate is incredibly one sided, thus the reason it gets dragged into everything. Throw in the more balanced posters like hrotha, Zam, Ferminal, Libertine who are also SKY sceptics and it becomes even more lopsided. I think it would require 100 or more SKY bots to keep up with the other side.

I specifically dismissed the sky conspiracy theories on this issue, just like I did the TUE ones last week and the inhaler ones the week before, or the claim that Valverde dopes because of Sky, yesterday.

Which is why I don't like posters blaming the whole clinic or even the anti sky posters for these theories, because then I get implictly blamed for saying stuff which I actually dismissed.

If people have a problem with whichever posters it is that are behind these theories, then adress those posters direct or report them or whatever. Don't tie me in with it. I never made those claims.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

It is the machine, it is not calibrated properly, ask JV, happened to Wiggins in 2009 TdF...

You guys really need to investigate this Commonwealth indemnification thing more closely. I think there's something to it. Clearly, because none of your above mentioned profiles raised any flags.

Maybe the Queen is involved? Pippa Middleton likes riding bikes: connect the dots from there.

Armstrong's profile didn't raise any flags at the UCI either.

But this dude thought they were both fishy.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Yeah, worked well with lance.

Lance and Horner. 2 great champions who released spotless profiles the UCI's computer models could not fault.

Why?

Because they are clean profiles of clean riders.

 

[movingtarget]

Blow to Contador but the timing of this is better for the team, the Tour and the sport. Would have been a media frenzy during the Tour and very damaging. Kreuziger looked better in the Tour last year than Contador and also won the Amstel convincingly. The consensus was that Contador was off his game during the Tour but maybe Kreuziger was also on his or on something.

If it's proven it's a shame as I actually thought that Kreuziger was finally showing what he had promised in his earlier years. Not a shame that he has been caught if guilty but a shame that Joe Public is duped again, not that most long term cycling fans don't have a healthy does of cynicism anyway. The dangers of getting too optimistic in this sport.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Come now Hitch, a quick glance through posting stats...

I'm happy to address this in the Sky or some other thread where facts will bring your fairy tale to an abrupt and unsatisfactory ending.

Buried in this thread is a post where I make it clear, specific to this rider, that many possibilities need to be considered. Since this is cycling, a great deal of time will pass and we'll have a much better picture of June, 2014.

Until then, we observe the effects of the "dark forces" we know operate at the UCI/ASO and consider the potential sources of those possibilities. Here's one for you. Someone at the UCI got that last bit of paperwork off their desk before a holiday.

Again, sometimes "agree to disagree" is as good as it gets. Maybe leaving it there is best?

 

[DirtyWorks]

You guys really need to investigate this Commonwealth indemnification thing more closely. I think there's something to it. Clearly, because none of your above mentioned profiles raised any flags.

If it did, then would we be guaranteed the positive be processed? History suggests the answer is "no" if you are highly ranked in the mysterious UCI athlete popularity contest.

 

[darwin553]

THIS. I feel like the timing is waaay too suspicious. Maybe thats my cynicism coming out, but when Kreuziger is a known super domestique for Contador and absolutely flying and gets hit with a letter like this from 2011 a couple of weeks before the tour is sketchy as s***. It's not like Tinkoff have the depth that Sky have, they can't just take Kreuziger out and replace him with a rider like Nieve, Henao, etc

Sure they still have Roche and Porte, but Kreuziger was going to be a key part of the lineup. F*** you UCI, this stinks of bias.

I am so happy about the timing. Puts you Contador fan boys in your place.

 

[DirtyWorks]

F*** you UCI, this stinks of bias.

Could be ASO making sure the turnout is very good for their new event funded by the taxpayers.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...ng-race-legacy-british-tour-de-france-success
It worked so well for the Olympics.


Could be someone clearing off their desk before a holiday at the UCI.

 

[yespatterns]

I am so happy about the timing. Puts you Contador fan boys in your place.

LOL, you must be a wizard, or a genius. We'll see what the road has to say.

 

[SiAp1984]

Lol just lol. Yeah right, Sky are so clean

That was not exactly what I intended to say. Got carried away a little. I just wonder how so many people now can call "Sky responsible!" when a guy in a team led - on the road and in the car - by proven and convinced dopers gets sidelined for doping investigations.

Of course Sky may also be playing dirty- but unlike AC, Froome never tested positive to this date etc. So I prefer to gove them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[stutue]

Hilarious. A thread about Kreuzinger and all the Sky-whiners turn up to turn it into a Sky-whine.


Not to worry. The mods have already issued a warning. No doubt they will arrive and demonstrate their integrity by handing out lengthy bans to all the miscreants.




Anyways, in answer to the people questioning why this news comes just before the Tour, its probably because it is far less damaging to the sport than if it was released during the tour! Or after the Tour resulting in a change to GC.

Also, why should this guy get a ride in the Tour against those that are clean?