Kreuziger going down?

[veganrob]

I was talking about ABP panel experts, not RK's experts.

Ahhh, very good.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Still my problem with this case is how Cookson is handling the case. In May he said he couldn't and shouldn't comment on ongoing doping cases. This is completely forgotten by August. He has also said that CADF is independent now. The independence only lasted until he read in the news that Kreuziger was going to race again.Then CADF wasn't independent anymore and the UCI president was the one deciding what they were to do again.

A few months into the job, he was likely treating it like he was a few months into a new job. Now? He's more comfortable.

CADF should be independent. Give them the resources, staff and rules they need to be able to do their job, and then let them do that job without intervention and overruling. If the UCI rules are so useless that they can't stop riders from raceing even when CADF are certain that they have a fool proof doping case against him, the rules needs to be changed.

We all know how an "independent" CADF will be run. We see it with Roman's case. Just let WADA/NADO open cases on their own. Simple! Of course, the rest of IOC sports would panic.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Hmmmm. I dunno. Oleg is pouring a lot of money into the sport and relying on the multi-million dollar riders whose salaries he's paying to get some runs on the board for sponsorship ROI.

No formal charges (?) have been laid. RK hasn't been suspended. Therefore racing him is the most logical, $1M p.a. thing to do.

To have someone arbitrarily jump into the process and suspend RK out of the blue, make comments about the case that essentially declare RK guilty, just weeks after calling Team Sky, "my friends", where his son is employed. Team Sky, who also had weirdness going on with Henao, but managed to reinstate him no worries...

He's a drunk. I think he's acting inappropriately, yes. But not like a 3 year old.

I think he has valid grievances, and whilst I personally would prefer to have him walk softly and carry a big stick, I don't see responding publicly to a very public indictment from the UCI as childish.

Yes, lets involve Sky in some way with what is going on here.

Tinkov-Saxo should have acted in a reasonable way and kept a rider with a suspected passport violation off their roster. In the same way you suspend a employee for gross misconduct pending a full investigation, a rider under investigation for doping should not be racing. The UCI may have acted outside of the rules as they are written, but if they are not written that way then they should be changed, and riders with anomalies like Kreuziger's sufficient enough to have procedures started against them should be off the road.

Oleg wants him to race. He's paying him to race, so he puts him back on the roster and creates this conflict. As you point out he's doing to get results because he's paying a large wage, rather than what is good for the sport.

UCI and Cookson got slammed for not saying enough about Menchov, they talk about Kreuziger and get slammed. Sky gets brought up. Cookson's son gets mentioned. The agenda is showing through...

 

[Martina]

Yeah that was cr*p. I was mainly reacting to Martina's post where she seems to take Romans' words for granted.
Of course there are more serious problems in RK's ABP than one value approaching some limit if three independent ABP experts flagged it as most likely doping.

Hi,
no, I don't take it as granted, just adding info. Honestly, I have no idea in this case, truth can be on both sides.
From my personal experience, my natural hematocrit is 0.51 (living 300m above sea level) as regular value = for (now veteran) female way too high. I had experienced many questioning myself (and remember feelings I came through), so that may be the reason I am inclined to wait with final opinion and hope it will be solved fairly.

 

[IndianCyclist]

UCI and Cookson got slammed for not saying enough about Menchov, they talk about Kreuziger and get slammed. Sky gets brought up. Cookson's son gets mentioned. The agenda is showing through...

They are getting slammed for doing the right thing in the wrong way

 

[mrhender]

Yes, lets involve Sky in some way with what is going on here.

Tinkov-Saxo should have acted in a reasonable way and kept a rider with a suspected passport violation off their roster. In the same way you suspend a employee for gross misconduct pending a full investigation, a rider under investigation for doping should not be racing. The UCI may have acted outside of the rules as they are written, but if they are not written that way then they should be changed, and riders with anomalies like Kreuziger's sufficient enough to have procedures started against them should be off the road.

Oleg wants him to race. He's paying him to race, so he puts him back on the roster and creates this conflict. As you point out he's doing to get results because he's paying a large wage, rather than what is good for the sport.

UCI and Cookson got slammed for not saying enough about Menchov, they talk about Kreuziger and get slammed. Sky gets brought up. Cookson's son gets mentioned. The agenda is showing through...

To the bolded:

The issue of them bringing him back (or trying so) in competetions has several layers..
We don't know how his contract is sorted out regarding current issues..
I do not think that the objective of putting him back on the roster was to provide results for the team..
I think it was done to force the hand of UCI.. So put him down so we can get rid of him, or better yet -let him of the hook (from team perspective)
Bringing case details to the public and putting him on the roster was done to make the UCI decide on his destiny now..
With the pressure of their decision to enroll him they did not know the outcome, but recent development only provided more ammo to their case, and so they dicided to go all in..
If the BP values in question was in his time at TS then i doubt they would have been so agressive (more to loose)...
I think they made the judgement that the uncertainty of his situation was worse than a probable ban..
They needed to close this one down, cause having a very expensive guy on the payroll possibly to the end of his contract in 2015? is not sustainable in any way...
I do also think that they wouldn't be this persistent if they didn't have a case that at least in the eye of the public would benefit them...

On a last note... Never has a rider of Romans calibre been hold back because of BP values.. It is easier to keep JTL off the roster than Kreuziger right?

 

[roundabout]

Pellizotti was

 

[DirtyWorks]

They are getting slammed for doing the right thing in the wrong way

And long after it was clear the guy wasn't riding on bread and water.

It's true though. And the problem is it just enables the doping.

 

[DirtyWorks]

UCI and Cookson got slammed for not saying enough about Menchov, they talk about Kreuziger and get slammed. Sky gets brought up. Cookson's son gets mentioned. The agenda is showing through...

Was Cookson telling the world Roman's got positive values WADA compliant? And yes, the way UCI handles cases is inconsitent.

Please explain "the agenda." Details please!

 

[JimmyFingers]

Agenda? Anti-Sky, anti-British, anti-Cookson. Why bring Sky into at all? What the hell do they have to do with Kreuziger. Is the suggestion they are in cahoots with Cookson to disrupt a rider from another team. Why drag Oli Cookson into it? He has precisely zero to do with it.

It is highly likely Kreuziger doped, so quite frankly I don't care too much in the procedure, but the outcome is correct: he is off the bike. I wonder what the reaction might be if this was a Sky rider the UCI was doing this to: I am certain the general reaction in this forum would be very, very different.

So instead of being pleased that a probably doper has been prevented from competing, this is being used as a stick to beat Cookson with.

Enough detail?

 

[Journey Man]

It is highly likely Kreuziger doped, so quite frankly I don't care too much in the procedure, but the outcome is correct: he is off the bike.

So instead of being pleased that a probably doper has been prevented from competing, this is being used as a stick to beat Cookson with.

Can't you see the irony of your statement? "Highly likely", "a probably (sic) doper"; "I don't care too much in the procedure, but the outcome is correct".

If the sanction is going to be just, the process must be correct.

 

[Netserk]

Agenda? Anti-Sky, anti-British, anti-Cookson. Why bring Sky into at all? What the hell do they have to do with Kreuziger. Is the suggestion they are in cahoots with Cookson to disrupt a rider from another team. Why drag Oli Cookson into it? He has precisely zero to do with it.

It is highly likely Kreuziger doped, so quite frankly I don't care too much in the procedure, but the outcome is correct: he is off the bike. I wonder what the reaction might be if this was a Sky rider the UCI was doing this to: I am certain the general reaction in this forum would be very, very different.

So instead of being pleased that a probably doper has been prevented from competing, this is being used as a stick to beat Cookson with.

Enough detail?

"If the riders break the rules, it's okay the UCI does as well"

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Can't you see the irony of your statement? "Highly likely", "a probably (sic) doper"; "I don't care too much in the procedure, but the outcome is correct".

If the sanction is going to be just, the process must be correct.

Not all riders deserve due process, apparently?

 

[kingjr]

"If the riders break the rules, it's okay the UCI does as well"

I can only speak from my perspective as a fan, but if it turned out that Kreuziger was indeed cheating, then it wouldn't bother me at all if the UCI didn't stick to the rules. The only thing that matters to me is the cheater not being able to compete.

 

[BYOP88]

I can only speak from my perspective as a fan, but if it turned out that Kreuziger was indeed cheating, then it wouldn't bother me at all if the UCI didn't stick to the rules. The only thing that matters to me is the cheater not being able to compete.

Would it bother you if for example, someone was guilty of a crime but the court didn't stick to the rules in order to get a conviction?

 

[Netserk]

Would it bother you if for example, someone was guilty of a crime but the court didn't stick to the rules in order to get a conviction?

Everybody's a fan of waterboarding, right?

 

[Futuroscope]

I can only speak from my perspective as a fan, but if it turned out that Kreuziger was indeed cheating, then it wouldn't bother me at all if the UCI didn't stick to the rules. The only thing that matters to me is the cheater not being able to compete.

Of course they should stick to the rules and have clear rules implemented. Not just make things up as they go along. Because with your reasoning cheaters will indeed get away with it when they bring things to a court of law.

I don't know if Kreuziger cheated but there must be due process.

 

[BYOP88]

Everybody's a fan of waterboarding, right?

Sure looks like it.

 

[kingjr]

Would it bother you if for example, someone was guilty of a crime but the court didn't stick to the rules in order to get a conviction?

If the bottom line is that the criminal gets locked up in the end for what he did (or whatever punishment would be adequate), I sure as sh!t won't bother asking how the court made it happen.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

If the bottom line is that the criminal gets locked up in the end for what he did (or whatever punishment would be adequate), I sure as sh!t won't bother asking how the court made it happen.

Myopic .

 

[hiero2]

Everybody's a fan of waterboarding, right?

Spot on.

Presumption of guilt without a trial.

No one values innocence so much as those who are innocent.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Agenda? Anti-Sky, anti-British, anti-Cookson. Why bring Sky into at all?

Because it is interesting to compare the way RK's case is being handled as opposed to Sky's last positive.

-Cookson plainly states RK had irregular values.
-UCI (not Cookson) gives strange explanation that doesn't quite fit facts regarding Henao's positive-like scores. Henao takes break.
How about JTL? General silence.

All positive cases, all handled differently.

 

[del1962]

Because it is interesting to compare the way RK's case is being handled as opposed to Sky's last positive.

-Cookson plainly states RK had irregular values.
-UCI (not Cookson) gives strange explanation that doesn't quite fit facts regarding Henao's positive-like scores. Henao takes break.
How about JTL? General silence.

All positive cases, all handled differently.

Henao is a red herring here, UCI never had a case against him, just Sky's internal procedures, there are probably loads of WT cyclists out there with worse values than Henao on other teams.

In JTL case, withdrawn from racing thus not putting UCI on the spot, Tinkoff kept putting RK racing for almost a year (if anything it was unfair on JTL).

 

[Kreuziger bounces back]

In JTL case, withdrawn from racing thus not putting UCI on the spot, Tinkoff kept putting RK racing for almost a year (if anything it was unfair on JTL).

UCI allowed Roman racing for more then a year despite declared "very serious anomalies" and "very strong indication of manipulation". Moreover, they don´t even inform national federation about it. It looks simply incredible, giving such preferential treatment especially to him.

There is another explanation, even more incredible, they have problem with demonstrating and proving their conclusions properly

 

[JimmyFingers]

As del points out, your argument doesn't hold water. Whatever was going with Haneo wasn't because of a BP violation like Kreuziger. JTL was, and was withdrawn from competition and stayed there.