Kreuziger going down?

[LaFlorecita]

I am so happy about the timing. Puts you Contador fan boys in your place.

Huh? How

 

[LaFlorecita]

Also, why should this guy get a ride in the Tour against those that are clean?

Are you trying to bait here?
"Those that are clean" who are they? They're certainly not on team Tinkoff-Saxo. So he would never get a ride against those that are clean.

 

[Ferminal]

There's no evidence of him doping since 2012. He just found the same legal stuff that is putting old mate Schumi out of a job.

 

[IndianCyclist]

“This team has a really appropriate procedure for selecting new riders, which includes a full review of the full medical file and biological passport. We expect a prospective rider to give us access to all their data for our medical staff to review. In fact in the last few years, we’ve declined signing riders based on the fact that we believe that there were potential abnormalities,” Feltrin said.

“In the case of Roman, our medical staff indicated that there were no fluctuations in the passport that couldn’t be justified,” Feltrin said.

Two important question arise from Feltrin's statement. Who are the riders that they rejected because of potential abnormalities and what the fluctuations in Roman's passport that they felt were justified? Some light on this pls.

 

[stutue]

Are you trying to bait here?
"Those that are clean" who are they? They're certainly not on team Tinkoff-Saxo. So he would never get a ride against those that are clean.

Kreuzinger wouldn't be riding against his own team.

I'm talking about clean opponents in other teams. I've no idea who else in Tinkoff is doping, including Contador.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Two important question arise from Feltrin's statement. Who are the riders that they rejected because of potential abnormalities and what the fluctuations in Roman's passport that they felt were justified? Some light on this pls.

Translation: Tinkoff hoped Kreuziger would continue to dope hard and stay under the radar.

Kreuziger would never be able to deliver results without doping. Mediocre talent.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Kreuzinger wouldn't be riding against his own team.

I'm talking about clean opponents in other teams. I've no idea who else in Tinkoff is doping, including Contador.

Ah I misunderstood your post. English is not my first language

Still curious about those clean opponents

 

[stutue]

Aren't we all

Bear in mind that at the very least there will be clean opponents who never made it into the peloton....

 

[Netserk]

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

He was favourite to win the Giro he was pulled from. Bigger than Kreuziger.

 

[Red Rick]

This case stinks of corruption. Are the UCI the only organisation that can start a case because of the blood passport?

Not that I think Kreuziger is clean. It's just the timing that's so goddamn ****ing convenient

 

[murali]

Come now Hitch, a quick glance through posting stats would clearly illustrate that addressing the clinic as such wouldnt be far off incorrect.

So called SKY critic posters

Hitch 22k +
La Florecita 14+
The Hog 13+
Benotti, Netserk 12k+
Blackcat 7k+
Sniper, Hugh Januss, DirtyWorks 5k+
Dear Wiggo 4k+

Compare that to the so called pro-SKY posters

MartinVickers(currently banned), Jimmy Fingers 2k+

Now I realise that some of you post in other sections regularly but many do not so the whole SKY debate is incredibly one sided, thus the reason it gets dragged into everything. Throw in the more balanced posters like hrotha, Zam, Ferminal, Libertine who are also SKY sceptics and it becomes even more lopsided. I think it would require 100 or more SKY bots to keep up with the other side.

can we have a separate thread for personal bashing?'
from wht i hav seen in this forum, most of the posters are biased to a great extent. But that doesnt mean that they dont air sensible comments or participate in mature discussion. Some otherwise mature ppl post seemingly rash opinions at times. but they are also the first to accept tht they might have become a bit harsh.

A respected poster like Afrank had made wonderful observations, had taken sides, and also had come in to stop fights. I am not endorsing one poster. all i am saying is: number of posts count for nothing. its the opinions aired that matter.

The specific fan section you talked about are known to be not only rude but also unapologetic. number of posts as a metric shows nothing. So, plz refrain from name-calling or alleging allegiances. You will invariably end up hurting someone's feeling.

peace.
(ack: to the one gentleman who gave this same advice to me when i first joined this forum.)
=============

coming to the topic,

this blood passport is known to all right? if there are suspect variations, then why is UCI/CAFD not taking action when they spot it. Only roman's name is out now. but how many riders had such variations? There are many riders who were underperforming in one team. the moment they change team, they start performing much better. but in the case of Kreu, he had a not so good season in 2011,2012. he had a better season in 2013(comparatively). if they had to raise flags, it should have been for the previous year.

so why is UCI targeting Kreuziger just one week before tour?

 

[spalco]

Not that I think Kreuziger is clean. It's just the timing that's so goddamn ****ing convenient

What's convenient about the timing exactly? Would it be better to have this come out in september and Kreuziger getting banned retroactively, putting doubt on whatever happened in the Tour, especially if Contador does well?

I'm honestly baffled about this discussion here. There's nobody in this thread who has both the expertise and the concrete information to say whether the passport case against Kreuziger is valid or not, not even JV (probably).

So I'll trust the official experts over Kreuziger's hired guns easily. When did the Clinic turn from "**** the cheaters" to "anything that ****s Sky is good"? Take off your tinfoil hats.

 

[Red Rick]

Come now Hitch, a quick glance through posting stats would clearly illustrate that addressing the clinic as such wouldnt be far off incorrect.

So called SKY critic posters

Hitch 22k +
La Florecita 14+
The Hog 13+
Benotti, Netserk 12k+
Blackcat 7k+
Sniper, Hugh Januss, DirtyWorks 5k+
Dear Wiggo 4k+

Compare that to the so called pro-SKY posters

MartinVickers(currently banned), Jimmy Fingers 2k+

Now I realise that some of you post in other sections regularly but many do not so the whole SKY debate is incredibly one sided, thus the reason it gets dragged into everything. Throw in the more balanced posters like hrotha, Zam, Ferminal, Libertine who are also SKY sceptics and it becomes even more lopsided. I think it would require 100 or more SKY bots to keep up with the other side.

What a load of crap

The Sky threads are one sided because the rational posters all agree that there's something awfully wrong with how everything is handled by Sky, it's riders, it's managers or the UCI. Pro-Sky posters are generally biased, and often trolls. The reason these threads are so big, is because a) some Sky/clinic related **** happens almost every day and b) there are people who irrationally dismiss every argument that Sky might be dirty.

FWIW, all the Sky-critic posters you've listed have at some point acknowlegded that they think Contador (or Nibali for that matter) is doping. There's not that much heated discussion going on there cause a) there's not that much shady news coming out about them and b) everyone kind of agrees that they're juicing, and they don't make a huge deal out of it cause they love the sport anyway and they kind of want their favourite doper to win

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

There's no evidence of him doping since 2012. He just found the same legal stuff that is putting old mate Schumi out of a job.

No evidence of him doping in 2009, either, though...

Why on earth would that performance enhancing stuff be legal if you can just keep going and going? Do you think it's plant-based? What are the odds of that.

Ha, it's crazy. Contador could (IMO, should) have won every race he entered since Algarve with the "form" he had throughout the year, and he's yet to hit his peak, if everything pans out. Granted his form / health was only so-so ( ) when Purito beat him, but he could have won that, as well.

 

[peloton]

Enough with the Sky talk in this thread, you can talk about Sky in many other threads here.

Now that there is a case opened and presuming Kreuziger will get banned, when does the ban start? From today, last year or once the case has been decided?

 

[stutue]

What a load of crap

The Sky threads are one sided because the rational posters all agree that there's something awfully wrong with how everything is handled by Sky, it's riders, it's managers or the UCI. Pro-Sky posters are generally biased, and often trolls. The reason these threads are so big, is because a) some Sky/clinic related **** happens almost every day and b) there are people who irrationally dismiss every argument that Sky might be dirty.

FWIW, all the Sky-critic posters you've listed have at some point acknowlegded that they think Contador (or Nibali for that matter) is doping. There's not that much heated discussion going on there cause a) there's not that much shady news coming out about them and b) everyone kind of agrees that they're juicing, and they don't make a huge deal out of it cause they love the sport anyway and they kind of want their favourite doper to win

You are saying the Kreuzinger bust is corrupt. Why?

Lay out your thinking...

 

[pmcg76]

What a load of crap

The Sky threads are one sided because the rational posters all agree that there's something awfully wrong with how everything is handled by Sky, it's riders, it's managers or the UCI. Pro-Sky posters are generally biased, and often trolls. The reason these threads are so big, is because a) some Sky/clinic related **** happens almost every day and b) there are people who irrationally dismiss every argument that Sky might be dirty.

FWIW, all the Sky-critic posters you've listed have at some point acknowlegded that they think Contador (or Nibali for that matter) is doping. There's not that much heated discussion going on there cause a) there's not that much shady news coming out about them and b) everyone kind of agrees that they're juicing, and they don't make a huge deal out of it cause they love the sport anyway and they kind of want their favourite doper to win

I am not saying there is anything irrational with believing SKY are dodgy but fact is SKY get dragged into everything and that is because so many have an obsession with SKY and fall over themselves trying to bash them anyway they can. Also have to laugh at the notion that only the pro-SKY camp are the trolls. Some of the biggest trolls here are on that list.

I fall into the unbelieving camp when it comes to Froome etc but that doesn't mean I want to see SKY dragged into every thread which is more or less what is currently happening. Try looking at the post count for any SKY related thread and tell me the posters listed are not all high up on the post counts for those threads.

 

[PeterB]

So I'll trust the official experts over Kreuziger's hired guns easily.

This may become interesting. As someone noted earlier, UCI's problem with BP is that it can't be used to accuse rider of doping if there is any fraction of possibility that values can be explained otherwise. I am not very familiar with previous BP cases which UCI won but at least here we are told that there are experts (including team's staff reviewing values before hiring of Kreuziger) who claim that irregularities can be explained by other reasons than doping. Note that noone denies that irregularities exist, it is just a question of their explanation.

It would be too simple to assert that UCI's experts are more trustworthy only because they are UCI's experts. But, unlike Kreuziger's experts, UCI's experts had two opportunities to reconsider their opinion - yet they did not do so. That's what in my opinion adds value to their opinion.

Of course if Kreuziger's experts did not claim the opposite, their opinions would not be used in this argument.

In any case, I saw so many people enjoying label of an "expert", opinion of whom you really would not want to take as an advice, that I can very well imagine that some of the opinions presented in this case have less validity than what we presently think.

It's less conspiracy and more stupidity than you might want to believe.

Great remark (referring to UCI). As JV probably has first-hand experience from dealing with them, I think this pretty much clarifies why we are seeing seemingly unexplainable circumstances such as timeline of this case...

 

[Netserk]

I have under half the amount of posts in Sky thread as Vickers, and several of those are as a mod. The difference between someone like him and me is that I'm not obsessed with Sky and post far more in non-sky threads than sky threads, unlike him, so I do find it funny for you to put me in the Sky obsessed group.

 

[zigmeister]

I'm all for trying to clean up the sport. But the protocols, procedures and complete lack of rhyme and reason regarding how they go about handling passport cases is a huge problem.

What a complete cluster f&^k.

 

[timmers]

can we have a separate thread for personal bashing?'
from wht i hav seen in this forum, most of the posters are biased to a great extent. But that doesnt mean that they dont air sensible comments or participate in mature discussion. Some otherwise mature ppl post seemingly rash opinions at times. but they are also the first to accept tht they might have become a bit harsh.

A respected poster like Afrank had made wonderful observations, had taken sides, and also had come in to stop fights. I am not endorsing one poster. all i am saying is: number of posts count for nothing. its the opinions aired that matter.

The specific fan section you talked about are known to be not only rude but also unapologetic. number of posts as a metric shows nothing. So, plz refrain from name-calling or alleging allegiances. You will invariably end up hurting someone's feeling.

peace.
(ack: to the one gentleman who gave this same advice to me when i first joined this forum.)
=============

coming to the topic,

this blood passport is known to all right? if there are suspect variations, then why is UCI/CAFD not taking action when they spot it. Only roman's name is out now. but how many riders had such variations? There are many riders who were underperforming in one team. the moment they change team, they start performing much better. but in the case of Kreu, he had a not so good season in 2011,2012. he had a better season in 2013(comparatively). if they had to raise flags, it should have been for the previous year.

so why is UCI targeting Kreuziger just one week before tour?

How would you categorize some one who claims it is a conspiracy, people who work for the UCI are cheats and take bribes, and another team has the UCI in their pocket?

I would say take a chill pill find some facts not evidence as that may be not factual and lodge your complaint with the relevant authorities or if they are not available post them on a cycling forum.

As an aside I always thought that Kreuziger would be better than Nibali back in the day so I am surprised but a guy big ringing on climbs like in Suisse is a worry!

 

[leon993]

Nope, you're wrong. Here's the timeline:

2013
June 28th - The UCI sends a letter to Kreuziger asking for an explanation for his values.
October 3rd - Kreuziger replies and sends two expert reports.

---HERE BE DRAGONS---

2014
May 30th - The UCI contacts Kreuziger to let him know his explanation has been rejected. A BP process would therefore start at some point. Kreuziger starts working on his defense.
June 6th-15th - Contador beats Froome at Dauphine.
June 14th-22th - Tour de Suisse. Kreuziger starts and finishes because of reasons.
June 28th - Tinkoff-Saxo decides to go public.

So, as you see, you're wrong. You might know corruption when you see it, and there might be corruption at play here, but I would question your ability to see things objectively in this case.

Keuziger participated in Tour de Suisse (June 14-22) with view to be in TS team for TDF. It was old news already at the time, that UCI had rejected Kreuziger's explanations, and will start a BP process sometime (May 30).

It therefore is most likely that it is ASO who have demanded that Kreuziger is pulled out of TDF. So any conspiracy claims about UCI and Sky must include ASO as well IMO. But most probable it is old dispute btw ASO and Riis.

Looking at the timeline though one thing spring to mind. June 28 2013 was UCI first approach to Kreuziger. One week before TDF 2013!

 

[Ferminal]

No evidence of him doping in 2009, either, though...

Why on earth would that performance enhancing stuff be legal if you can just keep going and going? Do you think it's plant-based? What are the odds of that.

Ha, it's crazy. Contador could (IMO, should) have won every race he entered since Algarve with the "form" he had throughout the year, and he's yet to hit his peak, if everything pans out. Granted his form / health was only so-so ( ) when Purito beat him, but he could have won that, as well.

Yeh if he adds BBs to whatever has been working for him so far...

Though maybe not compatible if this thing is EPO-like.

 

[Red Rick]

On the contrary, your previous post is an apposite example of why so many clinic threads revolve around Sky.

It is precisely because people such as yourself will twist every occurrence to fit your prejudices.

You are saying the Kreuzinger bust is corrupt. Why?

Lay out your thinking...

Kreuziger blood values were suspicious in 2011 and 2012, more than one and a half year ago. They decided press charges now, just one week before the Tour, just now that Contador has regained his form of old and Froome looks vulnerable. It's either corrupt or incredibly lazy from the UCI.

I think the UCI is a bigger problem for the sport than doping itself

 

[stutue]

Right...so you think that the UCI has sat on a dodgy passport dating back to a time when Kreuzinger was riding for a totally different team to Contador.

And now they want to use it to weaken Contador's chances against Froome because the UCI is in the pocket of Sky.

Surely maximum impact would have been to release this mid-tour, taking Contador's team down to eight men and taking all the media heat from Sky and putting it onto Contador.

As I said earlier, far more likely to have been released pre-Tour to avoid negative publicity during the Tour or releasing it after the Tour when it would have devalued Contador's (potential) win or podium position.

The last thing the UCI want is another scandal. It would be the end of Cookson.