Kreuziger going down?

[del1962]

Decision day?

Good morning all...Today can be long and interesting day for me...Let's see how all things muove,I hope in right direction #Lausanne

 

[roundabout]

Yes, it should be today

 

[neineinei]

To this point, this is actually more common than not. What happens is the process all the way up to accepting the sanction is non-public, then announced. Both sides have some officious quote released with the ban and the story ends.

Menchov's case is complicated by the fact cyrillic/"Russian" readers aren't posting to this forum and RusVelo's press releases are very short on everything.



Interesting to see the UCI backed down and Rodendo rode the Vuelta the next year. Not sure what it got him as his results aren't great. Maybe I'm missing something.

The Menchov case was unusual. In all the other cases there has been some information given before the sanction was final. From the start UCI were happy to announce that they had opened a bio passport case. There are good reasons to not announce these things too early. Rosendo Prado's case shows that. Did he get any official announcement from UCI that they had cleared him? But now they seems to have gone to the other extreme, in fact Cookson has said so, not a word until after the rider is banned, and then only a mention in a pdf file, no big announcement. (Then a few weeks later he says bio passport cases should be treated like a positive doping test, and the rider proviosionally suspended.)

June 2009: UCI names first five biological passport violators (Astarloa, Caucchioli, De Bonis, Serrano and Lobato Elvira)

May 2010: UCI names riders snared by Biological Passport (Pellizotti, Rosendo Prado, Valjavec)

June 2012: Bertagnolli snared by biological passport

October 2012: UCI launches biological passport proceedings against Carlos Barredo

January 2013: Hoste under investigation for biological passport violation

December 2013: UCI opens biological passport case against Team Sky's Jonathan Tiernan-Locke

Tiernan-Locke's case had been leaked by Walsh before UCI announced it opend. He leaked that UCI had sent the letter with questions a couple o f months prior to UCI's announcement. Menchov retired in May 2013. Maybe UCI changed their way of announcing passport cases in 2013? Kreuziger case not announced, Menchov case not announced, and Tiernan-Locke case only announced after it had been leaked.

(There have also been a couple of Portugese riders sanctioned over bio passport abnormaleties: Sergio Ribeiro and António Amorim, but they were probably not in UCI's testing pool. Rather they were in the national Portugese bio passport testing pool, as they were riding at continental teams, and Portugal actually have a ABP program, unlike for instance the Czech Republic, Great Britain, Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Poland, Colombia, USA and so on and on.)

 

[Race Radio]

(There have also been a couple of Portugese riders sanctioned over bio passport abnormaleties: Sergio Ribeiro and António Amorim, but they were probably not in UCI's testing pool. Rather they were in the national Portugese bio passport testing pool, as they were riding at continental teams, and Portugal actually have a ABP program, unlike for instance the Czech Republic, Great Britain, Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Poland, Colombia, USA and so on and on.)

Good post

FYI, France has had longitudinal testing for almost 15 years

 

[DirtyWorks]

....In all the other cases there has been some information given before the sanction was final. ... But now they seems to have gone to the other extreme, in fact Cookson has said so, not a word until after the rider is banned, and then only a mention in a pdf file, no big announcement. (Then a few weeks later he says bio passport cases should be treated like a positive doping test, and the rider proviosionally suspended.)

All true. And one of the very compelling reasons to dope in cycling. Whose treatment do you get and when do you get it? Do you get the "Retired Menchov" treatment? Do you get the Kreuziger treatment? What about Henao "research?" Do you get the Horner free pass?

Why NOT try with such random and non-transparent anti-doping practices against a backdrop of policies that permit some doping? A pragmatist will not see it any other way.

Cookson doing a McQuaid/Verbruggen takedown of Kreuziger is dealt with elsewhere.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

CAS upholds the temporary suspension.

http://www.tas-cas.org/en/infogenerales.asp/4-3-7496-1092-4-1-1/5-0-1092-15-1-1/

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Good, see you in two years, Kreuziger.....

 

[Catwhoorg]

That at least is a positive.

Suspensions should be the norm for any doping offense charge.

(Though I do admit to being in the dark if he has actually been charged, there is contradictory information out there)

 

[roundabout]

http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/4241/5048/0/Media20Release20(English).pdf

 

[DirtyWorks]

That at least is a positive.

Suspensions should be the norm for any doping offense charge.

(Though I do admit to being in the dark if he has actually been charged, there is contradictory information out there)

I'd rather Kreuziger be permitted to ride on this one because of how the case was handled.

-What's with the slow pace of sanction?
-Cookson telling the world he's positive
-Case apparently never given to RK's home federation
-Another case of the UCI applying long dormant rules to meet a goal.

What a mess.

 

[BYOP88]

Better to keep Roman out of the Vuelta than have to remove him from the race after it's finished. You seen how some race results now look on wiki? Utter mess! So well played by CAS they're finally thinking about the effects doping has on wiki pages.

 

[djpbaltimore]

I'd rather Kreuziger be permitted to ride on this one because of how the case was handled.

-What's with the slow pace of sanction?
-Cookson telling the world he's positive
-Case apparently never given to RK's home federation
-Another case of the UCI applying long dormant rules to meet a goal.

What a mess.

I agree that it is a total mess, but I would still prefer to have Roman suspended if there is indeed grounds for such a punishment. Overall, I would much prefer to know who wins a bike race while watching the event itself rather than find about the true final results in a pdf released on the sly.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I agree that it is a total mess, but I would still prefer to have Roman suspended if there is indeed grounds for such a punishment. Overall, I would much prefer to know who wins a bike race while watching the event itself rather than find about the true final results in a pdf released on the sly.

My broader point is you and I still cannot be confident that clean-ish is happening.

The UCI is quite content to give you a winner and likely helps them along the way too.

 

[thehog]

I agree that it is a total mess, but I would still prefer to have Roman suspended if there is indeed grounds for such a punishment. Overall, I would much prefer to know who wins a bike race while watching the event itself rather than find about the true final results in a pdf released on the sly.

A cycling guantanamo bay, let's put those suspected of doping & the ones with foreign sounding names on an indefinite suspension list. Not positive, not negative.

You can't stop someone from earning a living. The UCI needs to either open proceedings via the Federation or target test.

He has the same right to ride as anyone else who's has received bio letters and continued to race whilst their explanation is considered.

If the UCI wishes to take it's time, that is fine. But they can't suspend a rider without due process.

Intent and interpretation of rule 4.6 withstanding.

 

[JimmyFingers]

When was he first notified of his BP violations? He raced while he gave explanations, didn't he, for more than a year. It was when his defense was rejected and Tinkov-Saxo continued to want to race him after withdrawing him from the Tour that the UCI stepped in.

And if he had a British sounding name you'd be applauding the move. Just consistent double-standards that makes debate here such a joke amongst cycling fans.

 

[djpbaltimore]

A cycling guantanamo bay, let's put those suspected of doping & the ones with foreign sounding names on an indefinite suspension list. Not positive, not negative.

You can't stop someone from earning a living. The UCI needs to either open proceedings via the Federation or target test.

He has the same right to ride as anyone else who's has received bio letters and continued to race whilst their explanation is considered.

If the UCI wishes to take it's time, that is fine. But they can't suspend a rider without due process.

Intent and interpretation of rule 4.6 withstanding.

Nice straw man argument. Feel free to tell me where I stated that riders with foreign sounding names should be banned from competition indefinitely.

UCI has bungled the process beyond repair, but I don't feel he should be let ride based on a technicality. If the data suggests doping, I would prefer that he be removed from competition and serve a ban.

 

[BYOP88]

Nice straw man argument. Feel free to tell me where I stated that riders with foreign sounding names should be banned from competition indefinitely.

UCI has bungled the process beyond repair, but I don't feel he should be let ride based on a technicality. If the data suggests doping, I would prefer that he be removed from competition and serve a ban.

I agree with what you say. I want all dopers gone from the sport, 1 strike and you're out forever.

But if the UCI haven't 'pressed charges' for doping it does seem odd that he's not allowed to ride, whilst the UCI sit on their hands and decide if they're going to charge him.

 

[djpbaltimore]

I agree with what you say. I want all dopers gone from the sport, 1 strike and you're out forever.

But if the UCI haven't 'pressed charges' for doping it does seem odd that he's not allowed to ride, whilst the UCI sit on their hands and decide if they're going to charge him.

Admittedly, that situation does seem very shady from a governing body. I snipped a passage from the CN article below. To me, this seems like plausible grounds for a suspension, but YMMV. At some level, CAS must've agreed with the logic.

'At the start of August the UCI took the unprecedented step in treating Biological Passport cases as the equivalent of positive A-sample drug test after they provisionally suspended Roman Kreuziger. They were later backed by WADA.'

 

[Race Radio]

'At the start of August the UCI took the unprecedented step in treating Biological Passport cases as the equivalent of positive A-sample drug test after they provisionally suspended Roman Kreuziger. They were later backed by WADA.'

As it should be.

We all know the barriers for a Bio-Passport case are high, so high it is frequent point made here that it is more of an IQ test. By the time they bring one it is the equal of a positive A sample so having them sit is the right thing to do

 

[Kokoso]

When was he first notified of his BP violations? He raced while he gave explanations, didn't he, for more than a year. It was when his defense was rejected and Tinkov-Saxo continued to want to race him after withdrawing him from the Tour that the UCI stepped in.

And if he had a British sounding name you'd be applauding the move. Just consistent double-standards that makes debate here such a joke amongst cycling fans.

What move? Is that serious? Or trolling? Or serious trolling?

 

[Netserk]

As it should be.

We all know the barriers for a Bio-Passport case are high, so high it is frequent point made here that it is more of an IQ test. By the time they bring one it is the equal of a positive A sample so having them sit is the right thing to do

If it's so obvious that it's equal to a +ve A-sample, why hasn't any other rider been suspended at the same stage?

Don't you think it stinks a little that the UCI changes policy during a case (because of that case)? Wouldn't the correct thing to do not be to treat any future Bio cases as a +ve A-sample?

 

[DirtyWorks]

When was he first notified of his BP violations? He raced while he gave explanations, didn't he, for more than a year. It was when his defense was rejected and Tinkov-Saxo continued to want to race him after withdrawing him from the Tour that the UCI stepped in.

And if he had a British sounding name you'd be applauding the move. Just consistent double-standards that makes debate here such a joke amongst cycling fans.

Again, how many times has Cookson plainly announced an athlete positive? The UCI has sanctioned other riders. Mysteriously, this situation is entirely different than the others.

 

[Race Radio]

If it's so obvious that it's equal to a +ve A-sample, why hasn't any other rider been suspended at the same stage?

Don't you think it stinks a little that the UCI changes policy during a case (because of that case)? Wouldn't the correct thing to do not be to treat any future Bio cases as a +ve A-sample?

It was a change in policy, one that bring the process more in line with the WADA code. Happens all the time and I don't smell any stink. A policy change like this was likely discussed for over a year, WADA was consulted, at some point the change had to begin. It is kinda silly to think the UCI said "Quick, lets change this policy to screw the guy with the funny name"

In reality they modified the process to bring it more in line with how doping cases are handled under the WADA code. It should not be a surprise to anyone

 

[Race Radio]

Again, how many times has Cookson plainly announced an athlete positive? The UCI has sanctioned other riders. Mysteriously, this situation is entirely different than the others.

Not really. UCI even used to send out press releases saying an athlete doped

UCI press release from last year

The analysis of the biological passport of Mr Jonathan Tiernan-Locke by the Experts Panel has demonstrated an anti-doping rule violation (use of prohibited substances and/or methods).

Not just Cookson but a "Experts Panel" says JTL is a doper, this is 10 months prior to any decision by UKAD

 

[mrhender]

It was a change in policy, one that bring the process more in line with the WADA code. Happens all the time and I don't smell any stink. A policy change like this was likely discussed for over a year, WADA was consulted, at some point the change had to begin. It is kinda silly to think the UCI said "Quick, lets change this policy to screw the guy with the funny name"

In reality they modified the process to bring it more in line with how doping cases are handled under the WADA code. It should not be a surprise to anyone

Makes sense.. Cookson however, did also say this

"What I will say is that these things are taking too long to resolve, but what was particularly worrying about this case was that his own team withdrew him from the Tour de France because of the Biological Passport but then put him back into competition at the Tour of Poland.That was an extremely odd thing to do in my opinion. So what we've decided to do is look at all of these cases and treat them, if we can, as the equivalent to being an A sample positive test."

I consider the situation of letting him back in on the roster was the tipping point..
Had they not, none of this would had happened....

I still think that his team put him back in, mostly to force a more speedy decision... They probably didn't expect this...