Kreuziger going down?

[murali]

Bear in mind my timeline is taken 100% from Tinkoff-Saxo's site too. My guess, with the limited info we have? Tinkoff didn't intend to pull Kreuziger from the Tour when they posted that. They intended to line him up until he was provisionally suspended, which would explain why he started at Suisse. They changed their mind. Pressure from UCI/ASO? Possibly.

too many ifs and buts.


can skybots plz clear this thread.


how does UCI decide tht values are bad. if they think their scientists are better now, then shouldn't they be revisiting ALL the profiles of GT winners and their superdoms?

 

[Fzotrlool]

"You are a sky bot, Cound, inhaler, coffee, marginal gains pun, badzilla" etc yawn.

Cry me a river. You have not considered how stupid you are going to look like when he concedes? True believers are the real conspiracy theorists given the history of the sport.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

So Sky is no go, but Nibali is totally on topic?

The sky discussion that has nothing to do with anything are the dozens of posts about the UCI and Sky in cahoots to make July easier for Froome, or that Sky got younger Cookson to call up old Cookson to push the case forward, or Froome sacrificed another rabbit to the gods...

Sky discussion that has something to do with this topic might be the timeline of JTL's case opening, as the unnecessarily drawn out process is mirrored here. But, I only remember one post along those lines.

I made a mistake with Nibali, confusing my timelines of who moved where, when.

 

[JV1973]

So when can we expect Indurain to fall?

Or for that matter all the footballers and tennis players etc who were involved in Puerto who havent yet been named.

Good point. I don't know, man, I'm just telling you my belief. Not saying I'm right.

 

[hrotha]

Lal, so I'm a Skybot now. This is better than that time I was called a Contador fanboy. Or the time I was accused of being pro-Valverde. I must be doing something right.

 

[jens_attacks]

there goes out of the window, the "piloto probador" theory about kreuziger. the guy even stayed tranquilo, who knows what could have been if he went full cataclysmic in 2013?

 

[argyllflyer]

Yeah, because it isn't even a remote possibility, of course.

Crackpot conspiracy theories to explain away the guilt of a rider known to have worked with the universally-banned Dr Ferrari? As already highlighted, now on a team founded by an ex-doper, ran by a doping denier - according to Tyler Hamilton - and led by a convicted doper. But it's Sky that are the bad guys?

 

[argyllflyer]

Bear in mind my timeline is taken 100% from Tinkoff-Saxo's site too. My guess, with the limited info we have? Tinkoff didn't intend to pull Kreuziger from the Tour when they posted that. They intended to line him up until he was provisionally suspended, which would explain why he started at Suisse. They changed their mind. Pressure from UCI/ASO? Possibly.

I'd wager a few roubles the person writing the content for Tinkoff-Saxo's website is not in the know about impending doping cases, and until the team decided on a message they wished to share, all statements from management would be along the lines of 'business as usual'.

 

[JV1973]

The point is you said the uci had zero reservations with wiggos profile as an argument. The argument is easily dismissed with the simple observation that there were plenty of dopers that year who's profiles were also seen by the uci as perfectly ok.

So the - uci said wiggos profile was good is a bit forced.

fair point. like i said, it's just my belief.

the uci, or more specifically AG, telling me that wiggo's profile was fine(and temp/calibration issues) is just a fact. it's neither here nor there in a debate.

unfortunately the mitigation of "the uci said it was ok" due to multiple post-facto investigatory doping issues that never had associated positive test render my argument weak. I would say less weak that you might think looking strictly at available data, but you'd have to deconstruct that from highly publicized doping cases and ones less so vs. flagged biopass issues that never made it to process.

neither of us have access to the all the data, so trying to even find that out is pointless.

 

[thehog]

http://m.cyclingnews.com/news/feltr...gth-and-procedures-in-kreuziger-passport-case

Zee story...

 

[Catwhoorg]

too many ifs and buts.


can skybots plz clear this thread.


how does UCI decide tht values are bad. if they think their scientists are better now, then shouldn't they be revisiting ALL the profiles of GT winners and their superdoms?

In summary, an expert reviews a case (either random, targeted or flagged by software) and decides if there is something.

Then it gets send to three experts who must all agree.

Then and only then they get the riders information and race program etc. If they still feel that there is a case to answer that is when the letter goes to the rider (and team?) for any information/evidence they wish to bring.

After those justifications are considered, if the three person panel still thinks there is a case, then one gets opened.

 

[MBotero]

I kinda like this this guy,of course it was expected to happen sooner rather than later,but the timing seems a bit strange.

 

[sir fly]

Well, his performance consistency coincides with the passport inconsistency. The team could step off the gas now.
Anyhow, the annual Tour media campaign has begun.

 

[The Hitch]

Crackpot conspiracy theories to explain away the guilt of a rider known to have worked with the universally-banned Dr Ferrari? As already highlighted, now on a team founded by an ex-doper, ran by a doping denier - according to Tyler Hamilton - and led by a convicted doper. But it's Sky that are the bad guys?

Then why don't you and others express your disagreement with these statements by directly adressing the people that make them in the posts that make them, rather than making generic statements about the whole forum?

 

[LaFlorecita]

Crackpot conspiracy theories to explain away the guilt of a rider known to have worked with the universally-banned Dr Ferrari? As already highlighted, now on a team founded by an ex-doper, ran by a doping denier - according to Tyler Hamilton - and led by a convicted doper. But it's Sky that are the bad guys?

Not explaining away the guilt. But as Jens pointed out, you could find passport irregularities for 75% of the peloton. Why did they go after Kreuziger specifically? It's interesting to say the least

 

[Poursuivant]

Cry me a river. You have not considered how stupid you are going to look like when he concedes? True believers are the real conspiracy theorists given the history of the sport.

No idea what you are talking about.

Back on topic: it seems weird that TS have pulled him without him being suspended by the UCI. Why haven't the UCI suspended him if he has suspicious values? Because they knew if would take years to sort?

 

[Beech Mtn]

Original 2005 article:

"But this year was probably the cleanest Tour since the early '90s. It (doping) has decreased enormously since the '95-'96 period." Now, Vaughters estimated about "80-85 percent" of the field is clean.

I stick by that statement. 100%.

If you take the whole of professional cyclists under employment at that time (Conto, pro-conti, WT) I think that is a valid statement.

Did it apply to the top 10 of the TdF? No. But that wasn't the question I was being asked.

Moving the goalposts much?

 

[JV1973]

Original 2005 article:





Moving the goalposts much?

I see your point, but I still stick by that statement. I mean, if you want me to concede and adjust to 70% based on more information that we have now than in 2005, then fine, I was off by 10%. But I stick by the underlying premise of the statement.

 

[Benotti69]

I agree. You should contact Pippa and open an investigation. This clearly could hurt the credibility of the Commonwealth.

When it gets close to the bone JV goes for an attempt at humour.

Take JV seriously? Why? Because he runs a team in a sport that has a doping culture?

JV thinks that the old wasy were dropped after 98. Maybe in France they were because guys were sh1tting the cops were gonna put them in jail but Pantani's Hct in the 99 Giro spells out how scared guys were.

Anti doping is always years behind maybe a decade. THe cops have had more success than any sporting federation, but then what sporting federation wants to damage its own sport.

Why is it any different now with UCI? Where was the big clean out of people who oversaw the Armstrong/Landis/Contador/Schleck era? Zorzoli still handing out 'emergency TUEs'.

Also speeds was another thing we were sold as 'proof' the sport was cleaner! Now we have skeletons TTing and climbing faster than ever!

 

[JV1973]

Original 2005 article:





Moving the goalposts much?

Btw - I was a real estate agent for a job running a little team for fun in 2005. I was asked this question by a journalist. I answered the best i could given the information that I had, which was very limited at that point in time. My primary information sources in 2005 were guys on French teams. Thinking that 80-85% were clean and that Disco was still full throttle upset me. Hence the IM convo with Frankie.

End of the day, do I know it was 80-85%? Nope. But I genuinely thought it was. And I genuinely believe the premise of that statement, which was: "It's much better than when I raced"

 

[JimmyFingers]

In 2005, yes, I do think they were an aberration. Well, Kelme and Telekom were also aberrations, so maybe not so much an aberration, as a minority. 80-85% would not even apply to the Tour de France, that number would be yet again smaller, perhaps 60%-70%. Which would put the GP Rennes(or analogous smallish French race) at 98% clean for 2005, which I would think accurate. There was an enormous amount of anger and animosity in 2005-ish around those who had decided to continue and those who backed off. That animosity was the root source of so many of the leaks that occurred.

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.

Good read, thanks

 

[Benotti69]

I see your point, but I still stick by that statement. I mean, if you want me to concede and adjust to 70% based on more information that we have now than in 2005, then fine, I was off by 10%. But I stick by the underlying premise of the statement.

How do you know 70%(for arguments sake) are not doping? Heck the gran fondos are full of guys juicing, the master racers get popped. Most teams are run by know ex dopers who made a living doping (inc you), why would Riis, Martinelli, Lefevere, Saronni, Bettini think ah *** lets not dope anymore, this is too much! It worked for them and worked well, why would they not think doping is part of the fabric of the sport.

By the way just because big bags of blood full of epo is not the drug of choice does not mean the peloton is cleanER. Once a rider crosses the line of cheating whether 1 steroid pill or a full on program he is no longer clean.

Your boy Talanksy doesn't think Levi aint cool since he rides his Granfondo!!

Give us more credit than the riders who are dumb enough not to do a Scott Mercier and think taking PEDs. Cool guys wouldn't ride as pros, Punto.

I dont remember any of the people involved in cheating in the reasoned decision giving any of the ill gotten gains back! All appear to be doing well on the back of their cheating!

 

[ToreBear]

No idea what you are talking about.

Back on topic: it seems weird that TS have pulled him without him being suspended by the UCI. Why haven't the UCI suspended him if he has suspicious values? Because they knew if would take years to sort?

It might have something to do with ASO wanting a clean Tour. Perhaps they told Tinkoff and Riis to pull him, and they obliged. It would have been very inconvenient for the tour, Tinkoff-Saxo and the sport if Alberto perhaps in yellow has to answer questions about his Lieutenant.

It would have ruined the media narrative.


Alternatively, ASO and CADF have a deal to keep riders with impending cases or something out of the Tour, and CADF pressured the team.

Anyway I'm not sure about the procedure in the passport cases. The scientific back and forth could I imagine be quite time consuming. Not to mention eventually CAS having to listen to a lot of experts. So it could be he is supposed to keep riding(except in ASO's precious tour).

 

[GearFiddler]

Heck, takes a very strong character to go 'nah not going to bother doping to make me better at my job, after all it's not like my income is based on how well I ride and it's not like I've sacrificed a lot and have been working for years to be here.'

Kudos to those that take, and have taken the clean stance I say. Definitely takes strength and fortitude.

...and that's just a general observation really

 

[JV1973]

How do you know 70%(for arguments sake) are not doping? Heck the gran fondos are full of guys juicing, the master racers get popped. Most teams are run by know ex dopers who made a living doping (inc you), why would Riis, Martinelli, Lefevere, Saronni, Bettini think ah *** lets not dope anymore, this is too much! It worked for them and worked well, why would they not think doping is part of the fabric of the sport.

By the way just because big bags of blood full of epo is not the drug of choice does not mean the peloton is cleanER. Once a rider crosses the line of cheating whether 1 steroid pill or a full on program he is no longer clean.

Your boy Talanksy doesn't think Levi aint cool since he rides his Granfondo!!

Give us more credit than the riders who are dumb enough not to do a Scott Mercier and think taking PEDs. Cool guys wouldn't ride as pros, Punto.

I dont remember any of the people involved in cheating in the reasoned decision giving any of the ill gotten gains back! All appear to be doing well on the back of their cheating!

I don't know it was 70%. And I didn't in 2005. But if you ask me to define a percentage that I think were riding the Tour clean in 2005, then that's what I'd answer, because that's my belief. And in 2005, at the moment I was asked this question, my belief was 80-85%.

But my belief carries no more weight than yours.