The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
roundabout said:The guy is loaded, has connections and buys races.
Nothing to do with abstract concepts like style
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
Ferminal said:yeh, nah...
JimmyFingers said: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
Rule No. 1: That a federation may never wilfully expose its own athletes.thehog said:What rules are they?
zebedee said:Rule No. 1: That a federation may never wilfully expose its own athletes.
thehog said:What rules are they?
thehog said:What rules are they?
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?
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”.
Netserk said:
Now quote where it says that Katusha hadn't been warned by the LC.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
JimmyFingers said:They didn't warn Katusha
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.
JimmyFingers said:So am I wrong then?
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”.
JimmyFingers said:Quoted for posterity
nayr497 said:Vino seems more and more like an organized crime member than a cyclist...
"We are open to the UCI, we have nothing to hide," Vinokourov said of the upcoming audit. "We are transparent.