Kreuziger going down?

[djpbaltimore]

we'd be back in the dark days of cycling.

I don't think we ever truly left them. That is why there is such a draconian policy relative to other sports in regard to doping. Doping brings disrepute onto the sport, granting leeway to the UCI to make certain sporting decisions unilaterally. Is that the best way to govern? Of course not.

I'm surprised that some support the concept that evidence of doping does not warrant a suspension. Or is it just that it doesn't warrant a suspension now?

Unless new evidence comes to light suggesting that the science does not support doping by Kreuziger, my opinion on the matter really won't be swayed. I do respect those who think otherwise even though we are not in agreement.

 

[thehog]

I don't think we ever truly left them. That is why there is such a draconian policy relative to other sports in regard to doping. Doping brings disrepute onto the sport, granting leeway to the UCI to make certain sporting decisions unilaterally. Is that the best way to govern? Of course not.

I'm surprised that some support the concept that evidence of doping does not warrant a suspension. Or is it just that it doesn't warrant a suspension now?

Unless new evidence comes to light suggesting that the science does not support doping by Kreuziger, my opinion on the matter really won't be swayed. I do respect those who think otherwise even though we are not in agreement.

What evidence is that?

No one has seen any apart from President Cookson who became a hematologist overnight to tell us there were "serious anomalies".

If the evidence was strong then I'm sure it would have proceeded to the Federation & a anti-doping violation recorded. That hasn't occurred so we really don't have any evidence. Just a procedure which has not completed its course and is stuck, mainly due to the UCI not being able to decide whether it should be opened as an actual violation or not.

 

[Race Radio]

There has to be a happy medium between keeping a rider in limbo in perpetuity and allowing a rider to compete when there is a high likelihood of stripping of results. I side closer to the former even if the legal grounds are admittedly more shaky. But sport is not exactly a court of law and the CAS ruling seems to underline that point.

The legal grounds are not shaky as it is already done in this way after the A sample.

The UCI process for the biopassport is pretty clear

If the Scientific Expert Panel does not accept the rider’s explanation, or if the rider fails to provide an alternative explanation, the UCI will open a case of an asserted anti-doping rule violation against the rider.

This part has been done.On June 28, 2013, Kreuziger received a letter about his passport and sent an explanation to the UCI on October 3, 2013. On May 30, 2014, the UCI started formal proceedings against him. Since then Kreuziger has been fighting with various legal methods, and a medical smoke screen, to delay the case. He followed up with a third opinion arguing that the fluctuations in his profile could not be attributed solely to doping methods and that the conclusions of CAFD’s Experts Panel “had limited scientific supporting evidence.” this went nowhere

The next step is also clear

Once the UCI is confident that the rider has received notification of the asserted anti-doping rule violation, the team, the relevant National Federation and the relevant NADO will be informed.

Given that Kreuziger has been fighting to stop the procedure I can understand why it took a few weeks to officially notify the team. With the CAS case now settled the UCI and Kreuziger's Fed/NADO can now start the next phase of the case.

There is some speculation as to the reasoning behind CAS' ruling but that is really just speculation. CAS did not give their reasoning yet, just the decision. Normally this takes 2 weeks but it may be longer with the summer holidays.

 

[djpbaltimore]

What evidence is that?

No one has seen any apart from President Cookson who became a hematologist overnight to tell us there were "serious anomalies".

If there was no blatant evidence of doping, he wouldn't have been flagged and we wouldn't be in this situation. Or do you feel that the data has been falsified? What evidence do you have of that?

Your Cookson critique is slightly disingenuous. He has scientists who run the passport and provide the expertise and convey the results.

The legal grounds are not shaky as it is already done in this way after the A sample.

The UCI process for the biopassport is pretty clear


This part has been done.On June 28, 2013, Kreuziger received a letter about his passport and sent an explanation to the UCI on October 3, 2013. On May 30, 2014, the UCI started formal proceedings against him. Since then Kreuziger has been fighting with various legal methods, and a medical smoke screen, to delay the case. He followed up with a third opinion arguing that the fluctuations in his profile could not be attributed solely to doping methods and that the conclusions of CAFD’s Experts Panel “had limited scientific supporting evidence.” this went nowhere

The next step is also clear


Given that Kreuziger has been fighting to stop the procedure I can understand why it took a few weeks to officially notify the team. With the CAS case now settled the UCI and Kreuziger's Fed/NADO can now start the next phase of the case.

There is some speculation as to the reasoning behind CAS' ruling but that is really just speculation. CAS did not give their reasoning yet, just the decision. Normally this takes 2 weeks but it may be longer with the summer holidays.

Thank you. That was very informative.

 

[sniper]

If there was no blatant evidence of doping, he wouldn't have been flagged and we wouldn't be in this situation. Or do you feel that the data has been falsified? What evidence do you have of that?

Your Cookson critique is slightly disingenuous. He has scientists who run the passport and provide the expertise and convey the results.

add words like 'should' or 'hopefully'.

 

[neineinei]

IAAF changed rule 37.14 in their Competition Rules 1 May 2013 to include the possibility to provisionally suspend athletes in biological passport cases.

(...) If, in accordance with the Anti-Doping Regulations, the IAAF proceeds with a case as an asserted anti-doping rule violation, the IAAF Anti-Doping Administrator may at the same time provisionally suspend the Athlete pending resolution of the case by his National Federation (...)

Updated rules p.75, rule 37.14

(According to the IAAF anti-doping regulations

"the IAAF proceeds with a case as an asserted anti-doping rule violation" is what happens after the expert panel has come to

a unanimous opinion of the Panel that there is no known reasonable
explanation for the blood profile information of the Athlete other than the
use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method;

This is when IAAF sends the case over to the National Federation.)

UCI didn't come up with provisionally suspending people in biological passport cases. But IAAF had the good sense to adjust their rules first.

Aslı Çakır Alptekin was provisionally suspended in a biological passport case in May 2013, a few days after the IAAF rule was changed. The Turkish federation cleared her in December, so she was provisionally suspended for 7-8 months. CAS next.

 

[thehog]

If there was no blatant evidence of doping, he wouldn't have been flagged and we wouldn't be in this situation. Or do you feel that the data has been falsified? What evidence do you have of that?

Your Cookson critique is slightly disingenuous. He has scientists who run the passport and provide the expertise and convey the results.

I don't feel the data has been falsified. If the evidence was clear then he would have an actual A sample. Right now we have experts on both sides providing 'interpretations' of the data.

If it took the UCI nearly 9 months to decide on Kreuzinger's response then the evidence to doping mustn't be that compelling as some suggest.

Cookson should never have seen the data. Anti-doping is supposed to be independent and his comments are prejudicial. Now the committee have to find RM guilty as those who pay them have already passed judgment. Cookson has backed them into a corner.

He offered the explanation, based on two medical expert opinions independently of each other, that the fluctuations in his blood passport profile were not abnormalities and did not indicate anti-doping violations, which was submitted to the UCI by 3 October 2013.

The rider had no further contact with the UCI until receiving a letter of 30 May 2014. He was advised that the CAFD’s Experts Panel did not accept his explanation.

Kreuzinger is not fighting with legal methods and medical smoke screens to stop the process. He is requesting for a fair and just process and defending himself as he has the right to do.

Or are we know taking away all the rights from athletes to defend themselves?

 

[Kicker661]

Perhaps all the bloodpassport has done is create a massive 'grey area' open to interpretation.

A rider looks dodgy but isn't banned on the data. The team wants the guy to ride because they are paying for him. Rider becomes banned on the same data that he wasn't banned on previously.

What is wrong with using normal positive testing methods? It's an absolute test and then the rider can argue if they ate steak or not.

 

[thehog]

Perhaps all the bloodpassport has done is create a massive 'grey area' open to interpretation.

A rider looks dodgy but isn't banned on the data. The team wants the guy to ride because they are paying for him. Rider becomes banned on the same data that he wasn't banned on previously.

What is wrong with using normal positive testing methods? It's an absolute test and then the rider can argue if they ate steak or not.

Re: JTL, if only they tested for EPO at the ToB then perhaps we wouldn't have these types of strung out proceedings that have more questions that answers.

 

[Kicker661]

Re: JTL, if only they tested for EPO at the ToB then perhaps we wouldn't have these types of strung out proceedings that have more questions that answers.

Agree.

I also think it's insane for anyone to suggest it's up to a team to interpret blood data of which the sole basis on what constitutes doping is actually down to the interpretation itself.

A team hires a rider based on their interpretation that the blood is clean.
The UCI then bans that rider based on their interpretation that the blood is dirty.

If they absolutely must keep the BP system i think it needs to be used as an early warning system to riders and teams. Ie UCI calls the rider and team into a meeting and advised they have interpreted the BP data to look a little fishy. As a result, we will now be targeting you for specific testing during the next 12 months.

I think it would be beneficial for the UCI to stop using letters and actually call riders and managers to a meeting to discuss the data directly. An hour discussion from both sides on why it's dodgy and why it isn't. Then the rider/team know after that meeting the rider will be targeting for specific testing.

Done.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I think it would be beneficial for the UCI to stop using letters and actually call riders and managers to a meeting to discuss the data directly. An hour discussion from both sides on why it's dodgy and why it isn't. Then the rider/team know after that meeting the rider will be targeting for specific testing.

Done.

That's already been done to keep Rasmussen in the Tour - via Zorzoli.

And to keep Tyler Hamilton on a short leash - via Hein.

Why even bother having the BP if you are going to give them the results (as they do now) AND the analysis if they are skirting dodginess? Why not just let them dope?

 

[Kicker661]

Why even bother having the BP if you are going to give them the results (as they do now) AND the analysis if they are skirting dodginess? Why not just let them dope?

The test procedure is accepted by every other sport on the planet.

Why is it that cycling must have a BP?

 

[DirtyWorks]

The test procedure is accepted by every other sport on the planet.

Why is it that cycling must have a BP?

The test procedure is accepted because it permits some doping.

You are missing some important information. It's not just cycling. Other IOC sports use it.

Also note a steroid passport using the same idea of tracking scores over time is on the horizon for IOC sports. Not like that's going to change much, but might keep athletes in sports where steroids really help a little healthier.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Agree.

I also think it's insane for anyone to suggest it's up to a team to interpret blood data of which the sole basis on what constitutes doping is actually down to the interpretation itself.

It's up to a team because the federation, like the IOC, is okay with doping.

A team hires a rider based on their interpretation that the blood is clean.
The UCI then bans that rider based on their interpretation that the blood is dirty.

Sort of. Welcome to cycling. Nobody is minding the doping but 12 anonymous w@nkers in this forum. The UCI certainly doesn't mind too much.

JV1973 said something to the effect that he would ask for tests strategically timed after high performances to get a sanity check on those results. He was confident he could detect clean athletes this way. It makes sense to me.

 

[fmk_RoI]

If they absolutely must keep the BP system i think it needs to be used as an early warning system to riders and teams. Ie UCI calls the rider and team into a meeting and advised they have interpreted the BP data to look a little fishy. As a result, we will now be targeting you for specific testing during the next 12 months.

Yeah, like, you know, if you test in the gray area, the neither dirty not clean bit, they call you into the office, explain the problem, and tell you to be very, very careful, cause, you know, like, they'll be keeping an eye on you now.

Oh hang on a minute. They've already tried that and the world pointed out how absolutely freakin' crazy it was.

 

[Microchip]

Oleg must be tweeting fiercely.

 

[Benotti69]

Oleg must be tweeting fiercely.

Oleg is tweeting and deleting fiercely..........

 

[Microchip]

Oleg is tweeting and deleting fiercely..........

Well this is unexpected!!!! lol lol

@Roman86_K stay cool! We lost the battle but not the war. Remember, we had to let Moscow to Napoleon once, before we kick him out of Russia

— Oleg Tinkov (@olegtinkov) August 20, 2014

 

[Benotti69]

Well this is unexpected!!!! lol lol

@Roman86_K stay cool! We lost the battle but not the war. Remember, we had to let Moscow to Napoleon once, before we kick him out of Russia

— Oleg Tinkov (@olegtinkov) August 20, 2014

Nothing is unexpected from Oleg...........

 

[del1962]

He is trying to sign Cancellara on twitter

 

[Microchip]

He is trying to sign Cancellara on twitter

lololol lol !!

Nothing is unexpected from Oleg...........

I know! It's usually some caustic remark though. It's surprising he didn't grumble about paying top dollar for a rider who's not riding.

 

[thehog]

Refreshing to see a team owner support their rider rather than dump them at the first sign of trouble.

And this trouble occurred at Astana not Saxo. Impressive from Oleg.

 

[mrhender]

Refreshing to see a team owner support their rider rather than dump them at the first sign of trouble.

And this trouble occurred at Astana not Saxo. Impressive from Oleg.

I wonder as to how he will react if/when Kreuziger gets the final verdict...

I think he's doing the right thing though..
He can defend him free of charge.
Exactly because basis of the case was during his time at Astana...

 

[thehog]

I wonder as to how he will react if/when Kreuziger gets the final verdict...

I think he's doing the right thing though..
He can defend him free of charge.
Exactly because basis of the case was during his time at Astana...

Free of charge? Someone is paying the legal fees.

 

[mrhender]

Free of charge? Someone is paying the legal fees.

In this instance. I was not referring to the monetary issues.. So "free of charge" porobably the wrong impression.. Granted

But since we are talking money..

Would be interesting to see how they split the bills..
Everyone has interests in him walking... Or do they?
If he walks will the team be compensated for all the time he couldn't ride?
And what about all the bad PR and lost Godwill?

The key thing could be how his contract is drawn out regarding these matters..

Why push the case and invest so much in it. Unless there is also a financial interest... I think they need a decision more than anything else.. Having their possibly second most expensive rider in this mess is just not sustainable...

If he's found guilty the blood would be on Astana and Kreuziger's hands right..

I would love to see his contract, as I think every move they make is highly affected by the pencil used in that contract....
Maybe they will live better financially with a guilty sentence.. Who knows...

They did however perform their own vet, and was aware of the irregularities.
This could be the problem they face legally, when time comes...