I can't find it written anywhere but I understand the UCI's portion of the appeal will be handled by the UCI's independent anti doping body. A bit confused by what this means as it is a new entity.Netserk said:
Poor thing...Netserk said:
He is not suspended any longer. He rode Milano - Torino, Lombardia, Paris - Bourges and Paris - Tours at the end of the season.mrhender said:Poor thing...
UCI/WADA can't afford to lose this one...
Wonder how long this is going to drag out...
Maybe as long as he will be provisionally suspended..
Maybe so..Netserk said:He won't. There's nothing UCI can do. He is free to race, just like Alberto in 2011.
He can't get suspended until CAS rules it (which will happen, eventually). He is free to race until that, wherever the team sends him.mrhender said:Maybe so..
But they established new precedence last time they provisionally suspended him.. I would guess they would attempt to do the same again..
I could be wrong. But I don't think he will be racing any important races..
eventually...? you mean when the verdict is handed out?peloton said:He can't get suspended until CAS rules it (which will happen, eventually). He is free to race until that, wherever the team sends him.
I don't think UCI can do anything to prevent another AC case. Unless they ask CAS to speed up, which we saw how it worked the last time, dragged for ages.mrhender said:eventually...? you mean when the verdict is handed out?
What if Kreuziger throws lawyers at them for two years..?
I think they will do everything in their power to prevent another AC development.. Especially since Kreuziger has the ability of being a game changer for coming GT's..
peloton said:I don't think UCI can do anything to prevent another AC case. Unless they ask CAS to speed up, which we saw how it worked the last time, dragged for ages.
I do wonder why UCI waited for the final day to appeal, as it was clear they had to appeal to begin with.
Yes.. Under normal circumstances I would agree..BradCantona said:Isn't it just standard practice, to give yourself the most possible time to put your case together? I wouldn't consider it a judgement on how strong they consider their case to be
Will be interesting to see if he will fight this hard, or only appear to do so while in the meantime drawing up the white flag...neineinei said:The only special thing about Kreuzigers case is that he is screaming and fighting. This used to be what cyclists did when they were faced with a bio passport case, but they all lost, and then riders with bio passport cases against them just retired instead. Hoste, Barredo, Menchov.
Pellizotti is the only one who's come back after a bio passport ban, and he is still at Androni after three years.
Still it is not wise to cooperate too much. Menchov retired but didn't admit anything. He got two years and only lost the results from the 2009, 2010 and 2012 Tours de France. Leonardo Bertagnolli admited it all (to the Police), got 2 years and 10 months and lost all results from 3003 to 2011.
LOL Cookson still has to listen to the lawyers. And no lawyers like to do things swiftly within the deadline, because their salary is calculated by the hours or days. They file the petition late to maximize their own profit because they can claim I am still doing legal research for this particular issue. It is so typical in the law practice. I believe Europe is the same thing as here.mrhender said:Yes.. Under normal circumstances I would agree..
But Cookson made this anything but standard practice when he went public as the accuser claiming both ignorance to the case and serious abnormalities..
Then they altered the whole praxis of how to consider a ABP case re: treating it as a positive A-sample, resulting in provisional suspension, only then to claim it a individual judgement (based on level of cooperation from team it seems)
The point is..
Cookson invested his persona in this.. They changed rules because of this..
Then only to keep quiet until asked about it at the Tour 2015 presentation..
(funny event to choose for proclamation btw)
If you are so PR-offensive in a case as they have been so far..
Why then let the clean verdict sink in.. He said nothing at the tour presentation he couldn't have said the day of the verdict..
I'am probably reading too much into this..
But i don't like it.. Smells like PR strategies all too much..
Especially with the "independent" tribunal coming up..
I guess this case is going to be the treshold -to prevent any future criticism of the upcoming Tribunal..
Not sure the UCI know what they're doing on this one. Or its rigged?So at least we now know that the 'serious anomalies' were:
1) rising trend of hemoglobin during Giro 2012
2) increased reticulocyte level between Aug 2011 and April 2012. However the limit values (calculated for Mr. Kreuziger) were never reached.
The Kreuziger's defense references:
1) the spread of blood values of individual racers in 'Haematological and iron metabolism parameters in professional cyclists during the Giro d'Italia 3-weeks stage race' by R.Corsetti et al.,
2) treatment of Hypothyroidism by substitute hormone L-Thyroxine, which might result in the similar blood values based on 'Effects of Thyroid Hormone on A1C and Glycated Albumin Levels in Nondiabetis Subjects with Overt Hypothyroidism' by Kim et al.
3) Also says some blood samples were not stored and transported properly (according to WADA guidelines) and should't be taken into account but this obviously an attorney way of working.
UCI experts say those works don't apply. Mr. Kreuziger's experts say the works referenced by UCI experts don't apply (not enough study subjects, not under 3-week race conditions).