Kreuziger going down?

[Race Radio]

Makes sense.. Cookson however, did also say this



I consider the situation of letting him back in on the roster was the tipping point..
Had they not, none of this would had happened....

I still think that his team put him back in, mostly to force a more speedy decision... They probably didn't expect this...

Good point, I had missed that part.

What I would be interested in knowing are what legal maneuvering has been happening. All of this is pretty new, it would not surprise me if the UCI gets out maneuvered on one of these cases

 

[Netserk]

Good point, I had missed that part.

What I would be interested in knowing are what legal maneuvering has been happening. All of this is pretty new, it would not surprise me if the UCI gets out maneuvered on one of these cases

Starting to stink just a tiny bit?

 

[Race Radio]

Starting to stink just a tiny bit?

Nope. If anything makes more sense. It is good they plugged that loophole.

 

[Netserk]

Nope. If anything makes more sense. It is good they plugged that loophole.

Changing rules(policies) as they go along is good?

Surely it would've been better if they changed it before a/the case?

 

[Race Radio]

Changing rules(policies) as they go along is good?

Surely it would've been better if they changed it before a/the case?

Policy change is constantly happening. The change made the process more in line with existing WADA code. They should have had it that way when the Bio-Passport was introduced

 

[Netserk]

Policy change is constantly happening. The change made the process more in line with existing WADA code. They should have had it that way when the Bio-Passport was introduced

How often do they do similar changes? (that affect the thing that caused them to change)

 

[thehog]

Nice straw man argument. Feel free to tell me where I stated that riders with foreign sounding names should be banned from competition indefinitely.

UCI has bungled the process beyond repair, but I don't feel he should be let ride based on a technicality. If the data suggests doping, I would prefer that he be removed from competition and serve a ban.

Then the UCI should open proceedings against the rider.

Many riders are sent letters for a "please explain", should they all be suspended as well?

This is nothing like a positive A sample simply on the basis the UCI via the Federation has not opened proceedings. If you wish to suspended RK on this basis alone then ban all riders who receive a letter.

Sadly CAS have upheld the decision from the UCI. Mainly due to 4.6 which allows the UCI to do what they want to this regard. Perhaps the European court will be more forthcoming with regards to the right to free trade.

 

[mrhender]

Good point, I had missed that part.

What I would be interested in knowing are what legal maneuvering has been happening. All of this is pretty new, it would not surprise me if the UCI gets out maneuvered on one of these cases

Yes... An interesting and possibly very important issue..
this is why his comment makes me scratch my head..

Firstly -Beeing undermined or losing a case in wich he has personally advocaded for would be a huge blow...¨

Accepting this logic would demand that he got this thoroughly examined by his lawyers as well as a feeler issued to CAS / WADA...

Now I won't speculate as to any favors called in, but he seems highly confident to use his own interpretation of what is odd team behaviour or not...

To consider the actions of TS I would claim it to be anything but odd...
Why have all the commotion during the tour, and maybe as Feltrin said not use the necessary enrgy on the case... It makes perfect sense as well as putting him back on the roster does..

1. generate pressure to speed things up
2. gain public backing
3. possible contract issues, of when/how they can let him of the hook

Furthermore Cookson claims to have no knowledge on the case...

So why doesn't he just say it as it is and try to change the rules so that no-one with an open case can ride...?

Instead he puts himself on the line, risking a lot if he looses...

I'am no legal expert, but I can't think of any lawyer advice worse than using his personal opinion of team behaviour in a case he knows nothing about to change the rules.. On a individual basis that is....

Hmmmm....

 

[skidmark]

Reading between the lines as a casual (ie. non-insider) fan when it happened, my feeling was that Tinkoff-Saxo knew what was going on with Kreuz (obviously), and since it was the Tour de freakin' France and he had just been told that his excuses hadn't been accepted, they wanted to avoid a crazy Rasmussen '07 nightmare and took him out; any other scenario of timing (like, if he was still under investigation but hadn't yet been told his excuses had been rejected) and he would've been in. The subsequent decision to let him race again 'because he's had time to deal with this' was total garbage, obviously, since he'd been dealing with it for a year and pro cyclists have the focus to go up a mountain fast without sudden terror in their heart that they'll get caught doping.

It also seems like the UCI didn't really make a formal communication with teams about changing policy, and probably just assumed that they'd be so risk-averse and terrified of the bad press associated with having a possible doper ('the Team Sky approach', let's call it) that they'd never, ever let him race while he was under investigation. I sort of get it in the sense that the Contador and Valverde situations happened pre-Armstrong, and now the scrutiny would be even more intense than it ever has been for doping in cycling... but Kreuz is a big rider. I have little doubt that Saxo would have provisionally suspended JTL at the slightest pressure if he was on their team, and I have little doubt that pretty much any team but Sky would have tried to have Kreuz race while under investigation. Either way, glad this comes to a head now rather than just dragging on and wasting careers (hey, did Ezequiel Mosquera ever ACTUALLY get sanctioned, or has he been provisionally suspended for 3 years?) Sometimes the speed of these things is frustrating.

 

[Race Radio]

How often do they do similar changes? (that affect the thing that caused them to change)

You are welcome to research that if you care to make something out of nothing but I don't care. The change brought the process more in line with the WADA code. It was approved by WADA. CAS upheld it.

 

[del1962]

Reading between the lines as a casual (ie. non-insider) fan when it happened, my feeling was that Tinkoff-Saxo knew what was going on with Kreuz (obviously), and since it was the Tour de freakin' France and he had just been told that his excuses hadn't been accepted, they wanted to avoid a crazy Rasmussen '07 nightmare and took him out; any other scenario of timing (like, if he was still under investigation but hadn't yet been told his excuses had been rejected) and he would've been in. The subsequent decision to let him race again 'because he's had time to deal with this' was total garbage, obviously, since he'd been dealing with it for a year and pro cyclists have the focus to go up a mountain fast without sudden terror in their heart that they'll get caught doping.

It also seems like the UCI didn't really make a formal communication with teams about changing policy, and probably just assumed that they'd be so risk-averse and terrified of the bad press associated with having a possible doper ('the Team Sky approach', let's call it) that they'd never, ever let him race while he was under investigation. I sort of get it in the sense that the Contador and Valverde situations happened pre-Armstrong, and now the scrutiny would be even more intense than it ever has been for doping in cycling... but Kreuz is a big rider. I have little doubt that Saxo would have provisionally suspended JTL at the slightest pressure if he was on their team, and I have little doubt that pretty much any team but Sky would have tried to have Kreuz race while under investigation. Either way, glad this comes to a head now rather than just dragging on and wasting careers (hey, did Ezequiel Mosquera ever ACTUALLY get sanctioned, or has he been provisionally suspended for 3 years?) Sometimes the speed of these things is frustrating.

Not so sure about this, last year Lulu was withdrawn by his team, BMC didn't race Ballan, under these circumstances would an MPCC team would race a rider either?

 

[fmk_RoI]

The change made the process more in line with existing WADA code.

WADA: "The Code does not prevent a provisional suspension in this case, nor does it make it a mandatory requirement."

 

[Netserk]

You are welcome to research that if you care to make something out of nothing but I don't care. The change brought the process more in line with the WADA code. It was approved by WADA. CAS upheld it.

So why are you brushing it aside with "Policy change is constantly happening"? I don't care that the change was good and both WADA and CAS liked it. The issue for me is that they changed it during a specific case in order to affect that case, because it didn't go as they had hoped. I'm puzzled if you don't think there is any problem with that at all.

 

[Race Radio]

So why are you brushing it aside with "Policy change is constantly happening"? I don't care that the change was good and both WADA and CAS liked it. The issue for me is that they changed it during a specific case in order to affect that case, because it didn't go as they had hoped. I'm puzzled if you don't think there is any problem with that at all.

I don't have a problem with it because it is what should have been done a long time ago.

if you feel that strongly you can take it to CAS......oh wait, that already happened.

 

[thehog]

So why are you brushing it aside with "Policy change is constantly happening"? I don't care that the change was good and both WADA and CAS liked it. The issue for me is that they changed it during a specific case in order to affect that case, because it didn't go as they had hoped. I'm puzzled if you don't think there is any problem with that at all.

This I agree with. Policy does not change on the fly Not with WADA nor the UCI. There is a governance model in place.

Policy cannot change without majority stakeholder approval. The new 2015 regulations were drafted and tabled in 2013.

CAS hasn't upheld the policy. Only the provisional suspension which the UCI can do under rule 4.6. Which basically is a cover all for riders bringing the sport in to disrepute.

 

[Netserk]

I don't have a problem with it because it is what should have been done a long time ago.

if you feel that strongly you can take it to CAS......oh wait, that already happened.

So you don't think there is anything at all to criticize UCI for regarding the policy change?

 

[Race Radio]

WADA: "The Code does not prevent a provisional suspension in this case, nor does it make it a mandatory requirement."

I am referring to treating Biological Passport cases as the equivalent of positive A-sample drug test. CAS, WADA, and the UCI agree.

 

[Race Radio]

So you don't think there is anything at all to criticize UCI for regarding the policy change?

Nope.......

 

[djpbaltimore]

Then the UCI should open proceedings against the rider.

Many riders are sent letters for a "please explain", should they all be suspended as well?

This is nothing like a positive A sample simply on the basis the UCI via the Federation has not opened proceedings. If you wish to suspended RK on this basis alone then ban all riders who receive a letter.

Sadly CAS have upheld the decision from the UCI. Mainly due to 4.6 which allows the UCI to do what they want to this regard. Perhaps the European court will be more forthcoming with regards to the right to free trade.

In case you missed it, I haven't exactly been applauding the way the case has been handled by the UCI. I hope the process can be improved in the future and accomplished in a much more timely fashion. But I feel the salient fact is that the blood passport indicated that Roman doped while at Astana.

I would have no problem provisionally suspending any rider with passport anomalies.

 

[thehog]

I would have no problem provisionally suspending any rider with passport anomalies.

Any rider?

So at which point do you suspend the rider? When they first receive a letter? When they send back a response?

Because if this is indeed a "change in policy" then it must be implemented across the board. Which clearly the UCI is being selective on this specific case.

The point being is if there is a new "policy" then where is this "policy"?

But, yes, understand you're just as frustrated at he UCI as others.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Any rider?

So at which point do you suspend the rider? When they first receive a letter? When they send back a response?

Because if this is indeed a "change in policy" then it must be implemented across the board. Which clearly the UCI is being selective on this specific case.

The point being is if there is a new "policy" then where is this "policy"?

But, yes, understand you're just as frustrated at he UCI as others.

You obviously raise valid technical points about implementation. And I acknowledge that I am not in any position where I can adequately answer questions regarding the specifics.

I hope a policy gets codified and used in a fair and impartial manner down the line. Right now, UCI seem to be 'winging it'. But, like RR seems to support, I like the direction the UCI is heading with reconciling the passport with the A-B sample testing system. The devil will definitely be in the details moving forward.

 

[thehog]

You obviously raise valid technical points about implementation. And I acknowledge that I am not in any position where I can adequately answer questions regarding the specifics.

I hope a policy gets codified and used in a fair and impartial manner down the line. Right now, UCI seem to be 'winging it'. But, like RR seems to support, I like the direction the UCI is heading with reconciling the passport with the A-B sample testing system. The devil will definitely be in the details moving forward.

The problem is it's not policy. It's a reaction to a specific event. If the view is to make a passport proceedings into an A sample then it can only be done when an actual case is open via the Fed, not before as in this situation.

When don't know when letters are sent to athletes. If this case is a precedent then we should expect all riders who get letter to be suspended.

If RM was suspended from his first letter then he'd effective be on the sidelines for over a year now in limbo with no proceedings to respond to.

Additionally if riders are suspended from the point of the letter then the public also knows who has a potential passport case.

Finally implementing new policy should have governance. Otherwise it's creates the dictatorial entity the UCI has been in the past. Changing policy on he fly doesn't make sense form that point of view as you need input from the various stakeholders. Is it legal? Is it compliant? Do the riders, teams want a say? etc.

That shouldn't be a supported position.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Only the provisional suspension which the UCI can do under rule 4.6. Which basically is a cover all for riders bringing the sport in to disrepute.

And the equivalent of Hein Verbruggen's infamous, "I can make anyone test positive." remark. It's just another way to control actors in the sport. It's terrible governance.

I don't think that's too controversial.

 

[djpbaltimore]

That shouldn't be a supported position.

There has to be a happy medium between keeping a rider in limbo in perpetuity and allowing a rider to compete when there is a high likelihood of stripping of results. I side closer to the former even if the legal grounds are admittedly more shaky. But sport is not exactly a court of law and the CAS ruling seems to underline that point.

 

[thehog]

There has to be a happy medium between keeping a rider in limbo in perpetuity and allowing a rider to compete when there is a high likelihood of stripping of results. I side closer to the former even if the legal grounds are admittedly more shaky. But sport is not exactly a court of law and the CAS ruling seems to underline that point.

No the sport is not a court of law but it is bound by law.

I'm surprised that some support the concept that "policy" can be changed 'on the fly' with zero consultation of the stakeholders.

If that approach was followed in all cases bio-passport or other we'd be back in the dark days of cycling.

The reason the UCI is called a "governing body" is that they govern, not rule.

I'm sure the riders and teams would like a say whether an athlete is suspended at the point of receiving a letter. That changes the very manner in which they employ their riders and it has legal and fiduciary implications for than manner in which they are paid. This is not the type of policy change that is "done on the fly". That would be absurd.