Kreuziger going down?

[thehog]

Brailsford to Cookson:

"Look we're taking some heat for this TUE leak, got anything in the war room you can leak about Saxo?".

"No problems Dave. See what I can do. We've always got some delayed cases ready to let out of the bag".

 

[deValtos]

TUE's just shouldn't exist, for cycling's own sake. It's open to way too much interpretation to do anyone any good. Just yank the rider out of competition until they get better. as much as that might suck suck (I know, wasp sting thing) it turns out better, long term.

If no TUE's then I couldn't race (diabetic insulin dependent), what would team novo nordisk do ?

The system is open to way too much abuse sure, but it's still needed for legit purposes. It's just poorly controlled.

 

[murali]

btw, why do i feel tht i am the only person thinking that date in letter and date of receipt of a letter are two different things.

I thought the film http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Few_Good_Men was an american one.

EDIT: the paper has to go to make it official. when a legal letter is sent, usually no phone call is made. this is to avoid the recipient from skipping town.

 

[Lanark]

Fantastic news. Great to see that it looks like they are finally catching this guy.

 

[Fzotrlool]

I'm surfing on the Twitterstorm right now.

Oleg should accuse UCI collusion. He is bat**** insane, but at least the only one who has the guts to do so.

He is chatty on Twitter, so a few complaints from the fans could result in a war of Words between Tinkoff-Saxo and UCI/Sky.

This is really a mockery of the sport. #fireCockson

 

[the sceptic]

Since you seem only worried that he get caught, I can assume you've given up hope that he would actually be clean.

Lol. Typical clentadopologist.

And they are rampant on these forums.

Nah, Contador only doped once like Hesjedal, then he saw the light.

 

[Danielovich]

Whatever man! Seriously, from a fans perspective, this just adds to the absolute crazy levels of senselessness (is that even a word) of what is going on inside the UCI circus. WTF ?

Cookson, seriously, are you smoking on a pipe or are you just sharing the same roids you had Chris "the snake-charmer" Froome play around with to win a race, while he was sick.

You can't even make this s**t up so welcome to another round of the "Worlds most expensive Circus"!

 

[Fzotrlool]

And still no Michelle? She should be on the verge of exploding.

 

[luckyboy]

Don't get why this took so long for Kreuziger to hear back from the UCI from Oct 2013 to May 2014? Seems even more drawn out than the old passport cases..

 

[Fzotrlool]

Whatever man! Seriously, from a fans perspective, this just adds to the absolute crazy levels of senselessness (is that even a word) of what is going on inside the UCI circus. WTF ?

Cookson, seriously, are you smoking on a pipe or are you just sharing the same roids you had Chris "the snake-charmer" Froome play around with to win a race, while he was sick.

You can't even make this s**t up so welcome to another round of the "Worlds most expensive Circus"!

His son works for Sky. It's all nepotism. So much for honesty, straightforwardness, and transparency. #firecookson

 

[hrotha]

Of course, you guys realize the case predates Cookson's presidency, right?

 

[TheGame]

We are not sure where the JTL leak came from, perhaps from Pat himself, we aslo know some source in the UCI leaked information about another Anglos TUE.

How about the race director who is a mate of Pats. But thats got nothing to do with Kreuziger

 

[Netserk]

then you better pray the so called eastern Europe will help Germany to feed your lazy southern country

I'm Danish

 

[del1962]

I'm Danish

Another Eastern European

 

[blackcat]

And still no Michelle? She should be on the verge of exploding.

see my avatar, froome is on grindr,

i have some sneeking suspicions i will find some entries on Bouldr Grindr too.

 

[Merckx index]

Dodgy passport results collected in 2011 and 2012. Data taken in early 2013 suggests an issue with the 2011/12 data I assume or jars with his baseline readings. He is notified in mid 2013 of the problem with his data. It is not 2 years. The year's delay since then is accounted for by his own appeal to the initial findings and the UCI's own experts then taking time to consider it - and reject it.

It is two years. The initial abnormalities began in March 2011, yet he never received any notification until June 2013. The abnormalities in 2011 were reported to occur over a period of five months, and there were additional abnormalities in the spring of 2012, yet you think they needed 2013 data to confirm them, or to obtain more baseline data?

I understand how the biopassport works, probably better than most other posters here, and I understand that it’s very hard to build a sanctionable case. I understand the process of triggering the criteria, then sending the data to a panel of experts. But if either the 2011 or 2012 data triggered the criteria, the panel should have looked at it and reached a decision before May 2013. If data in 2011 and 2012 didn't trigger a red flag in the software, then there was nothing to act on.

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. I'm not accusing the UCI of doing this to help Froome, or anything like that. But if they can wait a prolonged time before notifying the rider, anyone in the organization who did want to help or hinder someone would certainly be given a powerful tool to use. You don't have to believe someone has abused his power to argue against a system that makes abuse of power possible.

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.

So you think USPS/Disco was an aberration, that most teams only featured their GC favorite doping?

And why do we continue to get lesser fish caught, DiLuca, and so on, if these are the riders most likely to be clean? Is it just statistics? There are so many more non-contenders, that one of them is more likely to get caught, even though a smaller proportion of them are doping?

If the peloton was 80-85% clean in 2005, and we know almost all of the top ten were doping, that would suggest the non-contenders were more like 90% clean. And if that trend has continued, one would think that by now almost all non-contenders are clean. Yet it seems that it's still the relatively little fish that get caught most of the time.

 

[JV1973]

If no TUE's then I couldn't race (diabetic insulin dependent), what would team novo nordisk do ?

The system is open to way too much abuse sure, but it's still needed for legit purposes. It's just poorly controlled.

Right. good point.

 

[robow7]

I'm Danish

Not quite red but definitely pink

 

[blackcat]

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.

was it possible to be a mediocre cyclist and get your contract renewed.

silly question blackcat, silly question. and stop extemporising in the third person you twit

 

[doolols]

You guys never cease to brighten my day with your completely bonkers conspiracy theories.

We've had thunderstorms here, which might be hampering some teams with their TdF preparation (not Sky, because they've already done it). I hear Sky have been bombarding the upper atmosphere with gamma rays and alpha particles (and crap TV programmes) causing it to rain. Yes! Guilty! Join the dots, people!

 

[Fzotrlool]

Plan B.

 

[murali]

It is two years. The initial abnormalities began in March 2011, yet he never received any notification until June 2013. The abnormalities in 2011 were reported to occur over a period of five months, and there were additional abnormalities in the spring of 2012, yet you think they needed 2013 data to confirm them, or to obtain more baseline data?

I understand how the biopassport works, probably better than most other posters here, and I understand that it’s very hard to build a sanctionable case. I understand the process of triggering the criteria, then sending the data to a panel of experts. But if either the 2011 or 2012 data triggered the criteria, the panel should have looked at it and reached a decision before May 2013. If data in 2011 and 2012 didn't trigger a red flag in the software, then there was nothing to act on.

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. I'm not accusing the UCI of doing this to help Froome, or anything like that. But if they can wait a prolonged time before notifying the rider, anyone in the organization who did want to help or hinder someone would certainly be given a powerful tool to use. You don't have to believe someone has abused his power to argue against a system that makes abuse of power possible.
---cut---.

well-said.

the delay doesnt make sense. even if it was supposed to make sense, informing ppl about the duration for which they need to monitor is crucial.

as far as corruption goes, its not a question of if, but when.

we may have to wait for a whistleblower for truth to come out.

 

[murali]

do we have paid posters here?

looking at a few stupid posts i cant help but wonder.

 

[bigcog]

Lol, you're obsession with Sky is a tinsy bit weird. Every conversation heads in that direction. Are you like this in real life? "Hello hog, what's up?"
"Up? Well the Sky is up. Team Sky. Did I ever tell you that Team sky doped. Froome. Cound. Roll eyes" ad nauseum.

I see you've noticed it too. Changing his forum avatar to whatever the latest sky/froome forum discussion point. Weird ...

 

[del1962]

do we have paid posters here?

looking at a few stupid posts i cant help but wonder.

Paid by Tinkov?