Team Astana's shameful legacy

Page 18 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 11, 2013
55
0
0
Cookson saying that Astana are going to get fined for missing Beijing, probably won't be more than the price to win a one day race.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
strange that the corrupt uci crew of mc quaid denied license to katusha (in a much weaker case recognized by cas) compared to the 'anti-corruption' cookson uci.

the funny thing is, having almost a bullet-proof case against astana i doubt cas could overturn.

i dont get it :rolleyes:
 
You know what is funny but when Thomas Frei was busted and told his story, he said there had been no pressure to dope by team management at Astana. Not that it wasn't happening but that there wasn't pressure to do so.

Ironically this was when Godefroot, Bruyneel were in charge(07-08). Maybe things changed when Vino returned.
 
roundabout said:
The guy is loaded, has connections and buys races.

Nothing to do with abstract concepts like style
To my point, exactly: Vino's popularity amongst the "milieu" of cycling is fake, he has a lot of enemies, and his "connections" are/will desert. He's too much of a symbol for what is dirty in cycling, he's a liability, always has been, he is done. And Nibali's "I won't name" latest statement probably gave chills to our friend Bjarne, another symbol ;).
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
python said:
strange that the corrupt uci crew of mc quaid denied license to katusha (in a much weaker case recognized by cas) compared to the 'anti-corruption' cookson uci.

the funny thing is, having almost a bullet-proof case against astana i doubt cas could overturn.

i dont get it :rolleyes:
McQuaid tried to nail Katusha but couldn't, because there are rules to the process. If Cookson and the UCI had done the same to Astana, the same thing would have happened.

It's very straightforward
 
May 13, 2011
651
0
0
thehog said:
What rules are they?
Likely whatever rules of administrative justice apply to CAS and therefore the UCI. I'm reasonably versed in administrative justice foundations in my home country, but not Switzerland. I would say though that Katusha a did not seem to get a warning to improve behavior and b seemed to be singled out arbitrarily. What the UCI seems to ha e done with Astana is make the rules really clear and give them a chance once the rules are clear.

That said, the decision is probably baked in already and now til June or August is just the illusion of fair process. Happens more often than not.
 
Dec 11, 2013
1,138
0
0
Andre Greipel ‏@AndreGreipel · 13h13 hours ago
Padova case.Always same names named but now it would be nice to see more action->fast action as we want trust from public for our sport

Matt Brammeier ‏@Mattbrammeier85 · 19m19 minutes ago
@AndreGreipel we can only dream
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
thehog said:
What rules are they?
As I understand it, the team has to be warned before they can be denied a World Tour license. They didn't warn Katusha, so CAS overturned it. The same would have happened with Astana. They are being audited so may still be thrown out if that audit finds evidence of management complicity in the doping. And whether the sponsors/country will want to continue with the team is a matter of debate.

Read much?
 
JimmyFingers said:
As I understand it, the team has to be warned before they can be denied a World Tour license. They didn't warn Katusha, so CAS overturned it. The same would have happened with Astana. They are being audited so may still be thrown out if that audit finds evidence of management complicity in the doping. And whether the sponsors/country will want to continue with the team is a matter of debate.

Read much?
http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/7899/5048/0/FINAL20AWARD20303120(internet).pdf

6.
In the License, the License Commission indicated inter alia the following:
“It emerges from the UCI evaluation file that the Team has employed a large number of riders who have been subject to anti-doping proceedings and sanctions.

In addition, the Commission outlines the recent case “Alexander Kolobnev”, which occurred during the Tour de France 2011. On 25 October 2011 the Russian Cycling Federation Anti-Doping Commission sanctioned the rider with a reprimand for anti-doping rule violation.

All these facts may evoke doubts with regard to the Team’s attitude towards doping.

Considering the aforementioned remarks as regards doping, the Commission urges the new management of the Team to use every endeavour to reinforce its fight against doping in order to restore the reputation of the Team in this regard and to avoid the occurrence of new doping cases within the Team.

Indeed, the Commission considers that further failures in terms of ethics could expose the Team to the withdrawal of its license”
.
Read much? :rolleyes:
 
JimmyFingers said:
Err, yes, that doesn't give CAS' reason for overturning the UCI's decision, just says must do better.

I was paraphrasing INRNG:

http://inrng.com/2014/12/astana-uci-licence/

It's a good piece: informative, balanced, coherent.

So clearly has no place in the Clinic
Now quote where it says that Katusha hadn't been warned by the LC.

JimmyFingers said:
They didn't warn Katusha
Or are you completely unable to admit it when you are wrong? :rolleyes:
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
Random Direction said:
Likely whatever rules of administrative justice apply to CAS and therefore the UCI. I'm reasonably versed in administrative justice foundations in my home country, but not Switzerland. I would say though that Katusha a did not seem to get a warning to improve behavior and b seemed to be singled out arbitrarily. What the UCI seems to ha e done with Astana is make the rules really clear and give them a chance once the rules are clear.

That said, the decision is probably baked in already and now til June or August is just the illusion of fair process. Happens more often than not.
Quoted for posterity
 
JimmyFingers said:
So am I wrong then?
Wrong that Katusha wasn't warned? Yes you were wrong. Let me know when you are able to admit it.

Wrong in paraphrasing inrng that they had been warned? Yes you were wrong. Please quote where he writes that. In a different piece (today's) he explicitly states that they had been warned, not to mention that he did so back when it happened as well.

http://inrng.com/2014/12/spot-the-difference-ferrari/

The current troubles of Astana mirror the Katusha team’s past difficulty in getting a licence. On 18 November 2011 the Katusha team was given a “severe warning” that “the team would be likely to have its license withdrawn in the event of a new doping case”.
Anything else you're not sure that you are wrong about?
 
JimmyFingers said:
Quoted for posterity
Oh so some other poster was wrong as well. Clearly you weren't wrong then to say the same :rolleyes:

Oh the irony with your first post ending with "Read much?"...

...

You know everyone can be wrong, but not many manages to do so while they mock others for not reading up and then fail to admit that they were wrong when giving a link proving that they were indeed wrong. So sad.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2
Similar threads
Bauer the new DS at Astana

ASK THE COMMUNITY