Kreuziger going down?

[King Boonen]

Great to see people listening to the mods. This thread is basically unreadable with skybots and fantadors everywhere.

 

[JimmyFingers]

In other news a rider got pinged, called Kreuziger apparently

 

[bigcog]

Someone on another forum says UCI has won all 9 blood passport cases it has brought up to now, with this and the JTL one outstanding. Not good odds then on being cleared.

 

[King Boonen]

In other news a rider got pinged, called Kreuziger apparently

Someone should start a thread about it...

 

[DirtyWorks]

Your point on little fish is going to be impossible to explain to the satisfaction of the conspiracy minded.

I see what you did there. That's a subtle personal attack suggesting JV1973's opinion is valid and opposing opinions are conspiracy theorists. nice.

But what I would ask that you consider is that in an environment where highly effective doping is receding, but yet to be eliminated,

Really? you are going to play that card? We've been there before. Cleanest peloton ever.

They would "need" the doping to succeed in any form, and in great quantities, so the risk of being caught increases quite a bit.

Does it? Really? Froome's inhaler/TUE nonsense blows up and inexplicably the sanctions start.

I really do appreciate you wasting time here. Really. You are the best PR guy for cycling and I've been following for decades now. But, there's no transparency, no confidence the sport is run any better than it was under Verbruggen/McQuaid and Verbruggen before that.

Honest question not related to the thread, is Hein still involved in UCI business?

 

[Merckx index]

Someone on another forum says UCI has won all 9 blood passport cases it has brought up to now, with this and the JTL one outstanding. Not good odds then on being cleared.

If they are really ready to proceed with this case, then the evidence is probably very good. Many cases are not brought despite very suspicious profiles because it's so hard to rule out other explanations, and because of built-in barriers (Ashenden notes that the software is not programmed to flag parameters that are more or less steady throughout a GT, though they should change). The famous "one in a million" Armstrong profile in 2009 or 10 is a good example. Though it was certainly suspicious, it was nowhere remotely close to that probability.

But I ask again: Why did they wait so long? It doesn't take two years to run the software, then give the data to a panel. Pretty apparent to me that the 2011 data were borderline. The 2012 data might have been confirmatory, increased the confidence of a panel, but it still took them another year plus to notify RK.

 

[ferryman]

Someone should start a thread about it...

We all listening folks - KREUZIGER. Take your petty stuff to the other threads where you can bicker (within reason) to you hearts content. It's not difficult, or is it, go on prove me wrong...

 

[DirtyWorks]

The timeline doesn't match up well with the conspiracy scenario: the process started a year ago, not when Contador beat Froome, and so far we don't know that the UCI forbade Tinkoff-Saxo from having Kreuziger race the Tour, as he hasn't been suspended yet (that said, it looks like there was external pressure, either from the UCI or from ASO).

I wouldn't mind it being brought up as a possibility, because it sure looks like the UCI and Sky are cozy, and there's precedent for this kind of thing. But the problem is this narrative is being brought up as a near certainty and it's basically monopolizing the whole thread.

I agree that the time line does not strictly line up. But, the timing is fantastic. so fantastic you don't think anyone at the UCI might have, you know, moved it along *before* cycling's biggest event?

If I've contributed to the sense of near-certainty, then I'll dial it back. We know there are "dark forces" at the UCI doing various things that make no sense at all until years later. The best way to look at it is it's one possibility.

 

[Netserk]

Great to see people listening to the mods. This thread is basically unreadable with skybots and fantadors everywhere.

Great to see people report this stuff instead of filling threads with off topics meta-complaints...

 

[JimmyFingers]

Great to see people report this stuff instead of filling threads with off topics meta-complaints...

Like the one you just made, you mean?

 

[hrotha]

Great to see people report this stuff instead of filling threads with off topics meta-complaints...

I didn't even know that thing was back in order.

 

[King Boonen]

Great to see people report this stuff instead of filling threads with off topics meta-complaints...

On topic, The timeline is long, but then the experts they use may take a while each time. I believe they review the data independently and then are required to meet if they do not all agree. If they are academics then arranging a meeting time to suit them all is going to be a logistical nightmare, I can easily see these things taking a long time.

The current time of year is "conference season" for academics and university researchers, so I'm not surprised if things like this come out around this time of year. It would be interesting to see if other cases have been announced at a similar time or other periods of low activity for the reviewers.

 

[ferryman]

I didn't even know that thing was back in order.

Yep, it is.

 

[Almeisan]

Assuming all top riders microdose EPO or modify their blood in some way more subtle than just straight out EPO era. a lot of profiles are going to be suspicious.

We know Armstrong's comeback values were rated extremely unlikely by certain experts, just going to assume for now they are reputable experts.
No case was opened.

UCI can just cherry pick riders they want to open a case on since most of them are going to be in the grey area of suspiciousness but not an outright analytical positive.
And other riders can get away with it and get protection.

If UCI has some bone to grind with Astana or Katusha or SaxoTinkoff or Sky or whatever team, they just let one of their grey area riders 'test positive'.


And no one is ever going to know if there are double standards being used.

 

[Benotti69]

Assuming all top riders microdose EPO or modify their blood in some way more subtle than just straight out EPO era. a lot of profiles are going to be suspicious.

We know Armstrong's comeback values were rated extremely unlikely by certain experts, just going to assume for now they are reputable experts.
No case was opened.

UCI can just cherry pick riders they want to open a case on since most of them are going to be in the grey area of suspiciousness but not an outright analytical positive.
And other riders can get away with it and get protection.

If UCI has some bone to grind with Astana or Katusha or SaxoTinkoff or Sky or whatever team, they just let one of their grey area riders 'test positive'.


And no one is ever going to know if there are double standards being used.

Yes, the BP is in-genius in that it lets riders blood dope but to what UCI would decide would be acceptable. But as with Froome's TUE it is only a small part of the program, an important but small part.

I would hazard a guess that lots of Ferrari's riders have similar BPs to RKs for the same years.

 

[JV1973]

My opinion is that doping is even more prevalent in teams due to the need to appease and please sponsors who appear to be unwilling to align their brands with pro cyclists.

The problem with cycling is simple. UCI mismanagement for personal financial gain has kept this sport in the tiny little cesspit that it inhabits. I don't see Cookson as being the person to bring the sport out of the cesspit merely by his non commitment to making anti doping a properly funded independent body only answerable to the likes of WADA.

Till we see that along with doping in sports a crime throughout the Western world people will cheat and as federations don't care whether athletes cheat as long as they dont get caught nothing will change.

EPO changed the face of cycling, but now that its usage has been curtailed (not eradicated) doesn't make the sport clean.

Ok. I can respect that opinion.

 

[King Boonen]

Assuming all top riders microdose EPO or modify their blood in some way more subtle than just straight out EPO era. a lot of profiles are going to be suspicious.

We know Armstrong's comeback values were rated extremely unlikely by certain experts, just going to assume for now they are reputable experts.
No case was opened.

UCI can just cherry pick riders they want to open a case on since most of them are going to be in the grey area of suspiciousness but not an outright analytical positive.
And other riders can get away with it and get protection.

If UCI has some bone to grind with Astana or Katusha or SaxoTinkoff or Sky or whatever team, they just let one of their grey area riders 'test positive'.


And no one is ever going to know if there are double standards being used.

I think this argument is flawed.

The problem with the BP is it lets people sit in that grey area and nothing can be done to them, because they can easily argue against the experts in that case.

I think when the UCI bring a case then the rider is going to have to have strayed a lot, they can't afford to lose cases because it will damage the BP.

Whether you believe that the UCI are using the BP to allow people to dope, albeit to a lower level than the past, or that they really do want to catch the dopers, they need BP cases to be successful or it will fall out of favour.


My guess is Kreuziger's passport is a pretty obvious failure, unless they are getting more confident because of past successes. I think Kreuziger is the biggest name to have a passport case brought against him isn't he?

 

[mihhint]

Hmmmm.

I guess this explains the uninspired performance in Suisse, seeing these dates.

 

[Merckx index]

.

I think Kreuziger is the biggest name to have a passport case brought against him isn't he?

Pellizotti and Dekker are big names, though the latter was technically sanctioned for EPO, which was discovered because he was targeted for passport testing. Pellizotti’s case is instructive. His abnormalities were made public in May 2010, ten months after the samples were given. He was suspended for the season by his team, then the suspension removed at the end of the season. He was sanctioned by CAS in spring of 2011. So his case moved much faster than Kreuziger's, and keep in mind he was one of the earlier ones, when UCI still was finding its way on this new anti-doping technique.

Two other riders, Caucchioli and DeBonis, were sanctioned about the same time, in May or June 2010. This was about two years after the program began. A third, Valjavac, was suspended by his team at the same time but was exonerated by his federation. UCI appealed, and later the suspension was upheld by CAS.

So yes, it can take a while, but three years is still a long time. I think in many cases a clear decision can't be made, so the rider is targeted, or put on some kind of watch list, which can certainly result in a great extension of the time between an initial violation and any action. There was one rider, I think Valjavac, who was actually under suspicion for years prior to the passport, during the off-score days. I take it that Kreuziger's 2011 samples could have been judged in that manner. But if the rider is notified, as he was in 2013, it should be because UCI thinks it has a very strong case, and that was still more than a year after the 2012 samples.

I am leaning towards the view that UCI is just very slow, but I think it's still valid to ask why. These scientists shouldn't take that long. For heavens sake, this is the age of internet conferences. I'm sure they're being paid well for this; if they can't come to a conclusion in a timely manner, find someone else. I've spent much of my time reviewing grant proposals, which are often very long and complex, I would say require far more time and effort than a passport case, and it doesn't take me months.

Also, IMO there is no excuse for the timing. His appeal or rebuttal or whatever you want to call it was filed last October. If they thought they had a very strong case against him before that, it shouldn't have taken that long to make a judgment on the appeal. They should have resolved this over the winter, before the season started.

 

[Fzotrlool]

Hmmmm.

I guess this explains the uninspired performance in Suisse, seeing these dates.

Yep. And/or perhaps why he wasn't riding Dauphine with Contador.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Assuming all top riders microdose EPO or modify their blood in some way more subtle than just straight out EPO era. a lot of profiles are going to be suspicious.

We know Armstrong's comeback values were rated extremely unlikely by certain experts, just going to assume for now they are reputable experts.
No case was opened.

UCI can just cherry pick riders they want to open a case on since most of them are going to be in the grey area of suspiciousness but not an outright analytical positive.
And other riders can get away with it and get protection.

If UCI has some bone to grind with Astana or Katusha or SaxoTinkoff or Sky or whatever team, they just let one of their grey area riders 'test positive'.

And no one is ever going to know if there are double standards being used.

Would that be a committee of experts or is it Zoroli?

Remember Armstrong's profiles from 2009 and 2010 and no case opened.

Nothing has changed from then.

To the above two posts - one of the issues Ashenden had with Lance's profile not being flagged to take forward as a case was this: out of the panel of 9 experts, only 3 look at a file and decide whether it should go forward. Where UCI had leeway that was cause for concern was in which 3 experts were chosen to look at any particular file. Apparently some of them were more hardcore anti-doping and others were less likely to be suspicious. So UCI could sort of "game the system" by selecting easier experts to rule on favored riders.

I don't have the link for that handy at the moment, but IIRC, it was interview he did with Velonews about how the biopassport system worked.

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.

You and I were both called Sky fans recently over the Henao stuff.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Not quite the Ashenden piece I was looking for, but useful information:

Those suspicious profiles are sent for a preliminary review by one of the experts on the sport’s Passport panel.

In my experience, the most common outcome from that preliminary review is for the expert to advise the sport that there is nothing to be concerned about.

So in that sense, the expert serves as a safety filter to sift out the really suspicious results and to disregard the rest. Sophisticated dopers seek to game the system by masking their doping practices to a sufficient extent that they fail to raise the suspicion of the expert, who must wade through 10 or 20 profiles at a time that each might contain 30 or more separate blood results.

So you start off with only one expert as the gatekeeper on whether a case even goes forward.

 

[matikff]

So no one is wondering about these "high" profile busts after Froomegate? Not saying that Kreuz (or Ulissi) did nothing wrong, but the timing is just perfect to keep eyes off something else..

 

[King Boonen]

.
Pellizotti and Dekker are big names

As big as Kreuziger? I'm not sure but yes, good point.

I am leaning towards the view that UCI is just very slow, but I think it's still valid to ask why. These scientists shouldn't take that long. For heavens sake, this is the age of internet conferences.

Hehehe, getting older academics (and even younger ones) to use internet conferencing and even telephone conferencing is a losing battle, for two reason:

1) They hate it, academics are used to talking in groups, at conferences and meetings, and that's about the only way to get them to actually set enough time aside to do it. I've been on many, many conference calls for differing reasons and it's very obvious that most of them don't want to be there, want to push their own agenda or are doing something else at the same time (even holding a different meeting in their office. I know this because it happened when I was there).

2) They like their travel. Meeting in Switzerland? Yes please...

Also, IMO there is no excuse for the timing. His appeal or rebuttal or whatever you want to call it was filed last October. If they thought they had a very strong case against him before that, it shouldn't have taken that long to make a judgment on the appeal. They should have resolved this over the winter, before the season started.

This is a good point, but again, it could just be the slow process. I'm assuming the appeal is handled in the same way, it goes out to the academics, they review it and then have to meet if they disagree. I can easily see that taking 4-6 months in terms of getting the reviews in then setting up a meeting, possibly longer if it includes holidays like Christmas.

For example, one of my latest papers took 6 months from the initial submission to it being published and this was in an open-access, online only journal that can publish articles whenever it wants. The majority of that time was down to the reviewers, our edit took 2 weeks.


I completely agree that the time-scale is too long and suspect, but I do think that could just be the way it is in some cases.


Sorry for the heavy edit, I don't think I deleted anything that has resulted in my misrepresenting anything from your post, but if I have tell me and I'll put it back.

 

[Merckx index]

A
Hehehe, getting older academics (and even younger ones) to use internet conferencing and even telephone conferencing is a losing battle

Well, I'm one of these old guys, and I embrace it.

For example, one of my latest papers took 6 months from the initial submission to it being published and this was in an open-access, online only journal that can publish articles whenever it wants. The majority of that time was down to the reviewers, our edit took 2 weeks.

The difference is that someone's career is at stake. When there is urgency--a major discovery, and scientists trying to be the first to publish--the review process, as I'm sure you know, is greatly expedited. It can be done. And when a decision about whether to strip someone of his job for two or more years is involved, the same if not greater urgency ought to be in effect. Remember, the rider is continuing to compete, and maybe getting results which might have to be nullified.

I can understand being slow in the initial phase, when they are trying to see if a profile is suspicious enough to warrant a further review (though the software is supposed to take most of these cases out of the scientists' hands). But when it gets to the point when they think they have a case, things ought to move much faster. There have been less than a dozen or so cases so far, so it's not like the pipeline is clogged.