Kreuziger going down?

[DirtyWorks]

As del points out, your argument doesn't hold water. Whatever was going with Haneo wasn't because of a BP violation like Kreuziger. JTL was, and was withdrawn from competition and stayed there.

Cookson telling the world RK has positive values, then maintaining appropriate silence on other cases is proof positive the UCI is a reliable, transparent anti-doping actor. Except for that Armstrong character, oh and the Chicken, oh and every other time they've been shown to not sanction positives.

So, of course we're going to believe the half-broken story the UCI put out on Henao and trust Cookson outing RK, not following sanction protocol by passing the sanction onto RK's federation is somehow best for the sport.

 

[ledilot]

Tinkov-Saxo should have acted in a reasonable way and kept a rider with a suspected passport violation off their roster.

Really!
Thats exactly what mr. Cookson said.

Only thing is WADA doesn't accept such thing as 'suspended by the team'.
At least mr. Cookson should have known that.

 

[del1962]

Cookson telling the world RK has positive values, then maintaining appropriate silence on other cases is proof positive the UCI is a reliable, transparent anti-doping actor. Except for that Armstrong character, oh and the Chicken, oh and every other time they've been shown to not sanction positives.

So, of course we're going to believe the half-broken story the UCI put out on Henao and trust Cookson outing RK, not following sanction protocol by passing the sanction onto RK's federation is somehow best for the sport.

Wasnt it RK's team that announced his passport problems to the world, prior to the TDF, this is what put it out in the open a year after they first knew.

 

[SeriousSam]

It's noteworthy that the same people that insist on an idiotic "due process" model of thinking about evidence (only positives and doctor associations count, otherwise we need to assume they're clean) are the ones that aren't bothered about due process when it comes to sanctioning.

Quite incredible. That's exactly backwards.

 

[red_flanders]

It's noteworthy that the same people that insist on an idiotic "due process" model of thinking about evidence (only positives and doctor associations count, otherwise we need to assume they're clean) are the ones that aren't bothered about due process when it comes to sanctioning.

Quite incredible. That's exactly backwards.

It helps people feel their guy is OK and the other guy is bad. Tribalism trumps logic again.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Wasnt it RK's team that announced his passport problems to the world, prior to the TDF, this is what put it out in the open a year after they first knew.

Mr. Kreuziger apparently announced it himself. Again, why is this even a question?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kre...bnormalities-pulled-from-tour-de-france-squad

As a reminder, there was some consternation regarding an agenda somehow Sky has to be brought into every doping thread and then this means Sky is bad or whatever offense imagined.

No special agenda required. Just comparing recent doping stories. All different. They aren't even bothering to pretend to follow the WADA standard for RK.

Why should the UCI be treated as a fair dealer in anti-doping? The last three well known cases show otherwise.

 

[JimmyFingers]

People were bringing Oli Cookson up in relation to this, not just comparing recent BP cases.

When JTL was signed by Sky and subsequently got pinged Sky got crap here for poor judgement, yet no mention has been made of Tinkov-Saxo signing |Kreuziger when he was already under investigation for BP violations. No criticism as far as I can see for the team attempting to field a rider than has probably doped in the past and forcing the UCI to intervene for the good of the sport.

JTL was suspended and stayed suspended, Henao was withdrawn by the team voluntarily, yet its Cookson and Sky getting criticism, not Oleg and Kreuziger.

Massive double standards

 

[red_flanders]

People were bringing Oli Cookson up in relation to this, not just comparing recent BP cases.

When JTL was signed by Sky and subsequently got pinged Sky got crap here for poor judgement, yet no mention has been made of Tinkov-Saxo signing |Kreuziger when he was already under investigation for BP violations. No criticism as far as I can see for the team attempting to field a rider than has probably doped in the past and forcing the UCI to intervene for the good of the sport.

JTL was suspended and stayed suspended, Henao was withdrawn by the team voluntarily, yet its Cookson and Sky getting criticism, not Oleg and Kreuziger.

Massive double standards

Tinkoff brought it up. Also, isn't one of his main beefs with the UCI that he didn't know about a BP violation for RK? That he should have been informed, and by not doing so the UCI were operating like "amateurs" and "bureaucrats" who don't understand the investment he makes in riders like RK?

Who knows who's telling the truth between all these clearly compromised players.

 

[Netserk]

People were bringing Oli Cookson up in relation to this, not just comparing recent BP cases.

When JTL was signed by Sky and subsequently got pinged Sky got crap here for poor judgement, yet no mention has been made of Tinkov-Saxo signing |Kreuziger when he was already under investigation for BP violations. No criticism as far as I can see for the team attempting to field a rider than has probably doped in the past and forcing the UCI to intervene for the good of the sport.

JTL was suspended and stayed suspended, Henao was withdrawn by the team voluntarily, yet its Cookson and Sky getting criticism, not Oleg and Kreuziger.

Massive double standards

So if UCI is 'forced' to break the rules it's okay, but if a rider is 'forced' to break the rules it's what?

Massive double standards?

 

[Journey Man]

I think Tinkoff has some valid points. If a rider has a blood passport anomaly then that should be clear, i.e. the rider should be placed under investigation. The investigation needs to be comprehensive, concise and the conclusions need to be unequivocal for there to be a sanction. Once there is a sanction, it needs to be imposed.

The timeframe here is ridiculous. The rider should have been investigated and the conclusions drawn in a timely fashion. This current system benefits no one.

As to Sky... How the UCI dealt with them is the failing of the UCI, not Sky and therefore I don't see how Sky can be criticised. With that said, if Henao had a BP anomaly, it does indeed appear strange that the UCI's interest wasn't at least piqued.

 

[TheSpud]

People were bringing Oli Cookson up in relation to this, not just comparing recent BP cases.

When JTL was signed by Sky and subsequently got pinged Sky got crap here for poor judgement, yet no mention has been made of Tinkov-Saxo signing |Kreuziger when he was already under investigation for BP violations. No criticism as far as I can see for the team attempting to field a rider than has probably doped in the past and forcing the UCI to intervene for the good of the sport.

JTL was suspended and stayed suspended, Henao was withdrawn by the team voluntarily, yet its Cookson and Sky getting criticism, not Oleg and Kreuziger.

Massive double standards

Reminds me of this -> http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=22639

 

[neineinei]

I think Tinkoff has some valid points. If a rider has a blood passport anomaly then that should be clear, i.e. the rider should be placed under investigation. The investigation needs to be comprehensive, concise and the conclusions need to be unequivocal for there to be a sanction. Once there is a sanction, it needs to be imposed.

The timeframe here is ridiculous. The rider should have been investigated and the conclusions drawn in a timely fashion. This current system benefits no one.

As to Sky... How the UCI dealt with them is the failing of the UCI, not Sky and therefore I don't see how Sky can be criticised. With that said, if Henao had a BP anomaly, it does indeed appear strange that the UCI's interest wasn't at least piqued.

Henaos values from mid January 2014 weren't interesting to CADF at the time. Sky worried they might get interesting to them later and made an effort to obtain data that would give them and Henao a way of explaining the values, should CADF at some future date ask for an explanation. They had learned from the JTL case where JTL's values weren't alarming to SKY when they signed him, but later made the alarm go off at CADF.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Henaos values from mid January 2014 weren't interesting to CADF at the time. Sky worried they might get interesting to them later and made an effort to obtain data that would give them and Henao a way of explaining the values, should CADF at some date ask for an explanation. They had learned from the JTL case where JTL's values weren't alarming to SKY when they signed him, but later made the alarm go off at CADF.

At least. That's what Cookson told us. Whether CADF were even aware, or how Sky became aware is anyone's guess.

My guess is Zorzoli gave Brailsford a call. A heads up.

 

[red_flanders]

Reminds me of this -> http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=22639

Which was utterly debunked by this:

If the forum was "inherently" anti Froome then there would have been threads about Froome before he overnight turned himself into the most physiologically dominant cyclist that ever lived.

I think however that if you search for clinic references for Froome pre August 2011, you'll get as many hits as you'll find of Froome's references of Bilharzia before he decided he needed an excuse- 0

Same goes for Sky. You'll find a strong correlation between them lying through their teeth and their popularity in the clinic.

Which proves there's nothing inherently anti Sky or Froome here at all. Just anti lying and cheating.

 

[TheSpud]

At least. That's what Cookson told us. Whether CADF were even aware, or how Sky became aware is anyone's guess.

My guess is Zorzoli gave Brailsford a call. A heads up.

No, it was reported that SKY informed the UCI, etc. - look at the Sergio Henao thread -> http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=22047&highlight=henao

You should recognise post #7 ...


Also here -> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sergio-henao-taken-off-sky-roster-due-to-test-anomalies

 

[Netserk]

No, it was reported that SKY informed the UCI, etc. - look at the Sergio Henao thread -> http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=22047&highlight=henao

You should recognise post #7 ...


Also here -> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sergio-henao-taken-off-sky-roster-due-to-test-anomalies

'Cause the official story is always the truth?

 

[TheSpud]

'Cause the official story is always the truth?

Its usually a good starting point. Anyway if you're going to poo-poo official stories / news releases / etc. why bother following the sport (or any sport for that matter) or posting on here about it.

 

[Netserk]

Its usually a good starting point. Anyway if you're going to poo-poo official stories / news releases / etc. why bother following the sport (or any sport for that matter) or posting on here about it.

Because one might enjoy watching the sport? Why else?

 

[neineinei]

At least. That's what Cookson told us. Whether CADF were even aware, or how Sky became aware is anyone's guess.

My guess is Zorzoli gave Brailsford a call. A heads up.

The teams have access to the riders ADAMS. The result of the tests are there for them to see when it has been posted by the lab (possibly somewhat delayed so CADF can evaluate if there is need for targeted testing before the team/rider sees it).

Henao's questionable readings came from two out-of-competition tests carried out during the off-season, the first of which took place on October 30 of last year, while the second reading was taken on January 14, 2014. It is the second reading from January that led Sky to ask questions. Sky, like all WorldTour teams, have access to rider data via ADAMS.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/does-colombias-anti-doping-stand-up-to-scrutiny

 

[DirtyWorks]

Who knows who's telling the truth between all these clearly compromised players.

This is the best summary. And yet, some posts would **STILL** have the reader trusting the UCI. Like this gem: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1545755&postcount=590

UCI intervenes for the good of the sport.

I've got a bridge for sale that is always busy in a metropolis near you. It's true because I say it is!

 

[TheSpud]

Because one might enjoy watching the sport? Why else?

Fair enough

 

[DirtyWorks]

...yet its Cookson and Sky getting criticism, not Oleg and Kreuziger.

Massive double standards

No.

Oleg uses "cleanest peloton ever" BS, hired a tainted DS and never apologizes for any of it. It's clear where his priorities lie and while doping is clearly not okay to me there's nothing to say or do about it.

Give up on this because it's a dead end.

 

[TheSpud]

This is the best summary. And yet, some posts would **STILL** have the reader trusting the UCI. Like this gem: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1545755&postcount=590

UCI intervenes for the good of the sport.

I've got a bridge for sale that is always busy in a metropolis near you. It's true!

Its funny how people troop out the bolded bit. Huge difference between being absolutely gullible and believing you can sell me London Bridge to believing perfectly reasonable stories from teams & the governing body.

I agree that the UCI in the past was a shocker, but (in my view) you cant tarnish Cookson with the same brush as Verbruggen (that'll put the cat among the pigeons ...).

 

[BYOP88]

Its funny how people troop out the bolded bit. Huge difference between being absolutely gullible and believing you can sell me London Bridge to believing perfectly reasonable stories from teams & the governing body.

I agree that the UCI in the past was a shocker, but (in my view) you cant tarnish Cookson with the same brush as Verbruggen (that'll put the cat among the pigeons ...).

All that's changed with the UCI is they have a new president, I'm sure most of the team from the last 10+ years are still there in the shadows.

 

[del1962]

What I don't understand if Tinkov's team could spot (as he claims) one riders anomolies, then why couldnt they spot RK's anomolies

I see two most likely scenarios

1. Tinkov is talking bull
or
2. Having had their fingers burned by RK, they had a closer look at this rider Tinkov is making vlaims about.