|
News in July
|
| Jacdk |
Posted on 17-07-2014 16:43
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 910
Joined: 20-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Miguel98 wrote:
Actually, the only statement that they have released, if you can call it a statement, is that Tiernan Locke's contract has been terminated.
Yep
https://www.plymou...story.html |
| |
|
|
| ianrussell |
Posted on 17-07-2014 17:18
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3440
Joined: 09-10-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Jacdk wrote:
ianrussell wrote:
Re: Kreuziger, 3 experts have already had to agree there is no natural explanation for the results so, unless there is something exceptional, almost all cases that have got this far will end in a ban.
And 3 other experts have all said that it can be other things then doping.
So its a case of he says she says , but we all know people still believe UCI more, so i will be very surprised if UCI doesnt before Vuelta comes out with a 2 year ban.
But at least Tinkoff most likely will get Sagan and a few others so they dont have to relay so much on the same riders in all the GT´s
The difference being the 3 (supposedly) independent experts that actually sat on the panel have agreed there can be no reasonable explanation in their opinion. Anyone else throwing their hat in the ring after the event is likely irrelevant in the sanctioning process (unless there is something truly exceptional). |
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 17-07-2014 17:53
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
weirdskyfan64 wrote:
sutty68 wrote:
Thats Great news for the Aussie riders in the peleton 
And Cadel Evans.
Having a race named after you whilst still racing is rather strange. But then again, isn't Cadel's career more or less over by now?
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| SSJ2Luigi |
Posted on 17-07-2014 20:09
|
World Champion
Posts: 11971
Joined: 21-07-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
Shonak wrote:
weirdskyfan64 wrote:
sutty68 wrote:
Thats Great news for the Aussie riders in the peleton
And Cadel Evans.
Having a race named after you whilst still racing is rather strange. But then again, isn't Cadel's career more or less over by now?
not as over as everybody claims. still a solid top 10 GC contendor in my opinion (8th in the Giro, 11th in suisse) |
| |
|
|
| Jacdk |
Posted on 17-07-2014 22:00
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 910
Joined: 20-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
ianrussell wrote:
Jacdk wrote:
ianrussell wrote:
Re: Kreuziger, 3 experts have already had to agree there is no natural explanation for the results so, unless there is something exceptional, almost all cases that have got this far will end in a ban.
And 3 other experts have all said that it can be other things then doping.
So its a case of he says she says , but we all know people still believe UCI more, so i will be very surprised if UCI doesnt before Vuelta comes out with a 2 year ban.
But at least Tinkoff most likely will get Sagan and a few others so they dont have to relay so much on the same riders in all the GT´s
The difference being the 3 (supposedly) independent experts that actually sat on the panel have agreed there can be no reasonable explanation in their opinion. Anyone else throwing their hat in the ring after the event is likely irrelevant in the sanctioning process (unless there is something truly exceptional).
Yes i know after Armstrong UCI has begun a regime of "guilty no matter what" if there are irregularities and those 3 UCI experts are no more trustworthy than any expert Kreuziger or Locke produced.
Which just leads to the most important thing, and thats this whitchhunt needs to stop, either you are proven to be doping without a shadow of doubt or you are left to ride. and no irregularities are not 100% proof.
Its really that simply. |
| |
|
|
| Miguel98 |
Posted on 17-07-2014 22:39
|
World Champion
Posts: 10497
Joined: 23-06-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Discuss. |
| |
|
|
| SSJ2Luigi |
Posted on 17-07-2014 22:42
|
World Champion
Posts: 11971
Joined: 21-07-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
everybody should get a second chance 
|
| |
|
|
| ianrussell |
Posted on 17-07-2014 22:57
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3440
Joined: 09-10-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
@jacdk Let's agree to disagree 
The experts on the panel should be independent, the statistical analysis is handled by WADA now not the UCI anymore as I understand it, they certainly have a much greater chance of being objective than an "expert" produced by an accused rider...
The bio passport is a wonderful tool but its application is, if anything, highly likely to be conservative - 3 appointed experts have to independently think someone is cheating beyond doubt for a case to be progressed. The main problem is the timescales involved but that's another story...
Bio passport analysis is thankfully solid evidence these days with the scheme being verified as valid by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) albeit being used in only a limited number of cases.
Ashenden's explanation when he used to be involved:
“It won’t catch every single rider who had doped. A large part of this is due to the margins of tolerance we must allow to ensure that riders are not wrongly accused of doping – which means that there are riders who we suspect are doping after we’ve reviewed their profile, but these riders are not sanctioned via the Passport because we must allow a large margin of tolerance. They are however closely targeted, which increases the likelihood that they will be caught in the future.”
Edited by ianrussell on 17-07-2014 23:01
|
| |
|
|
| Tafiolmo |
Posted on 17-07-2014 23:20
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1962
Joined: 10-04-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
Rumour that Pinot might sign for Sky, if it turns out to be true, don't know how that's going to work for the TdF in the future. |
| |
|
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 17-07-2014 23:41
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8290
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Tafiolmo wrote:
Rumour that Pinot might sign for Sky, if it turns out to be true, don't know how that's going to work for the TdF in the future.
Brailsford was just stirring the pot with an off-hand comment at a press conference that sparked this. It seems much more likely that Pinot will re-sign at FDJ where he is undisputed leader.
|
| |
|
|
| admirschleck |
Posted on 18-07-2014 01:58
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6690
Joined: 11-10-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Gotta love this guy.
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 25-11-2024 07:21
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 18-07-2014 06:28
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
ianrussell wrote:
Jacdk wrote:
ianrussell wrote:
Re: Kreuziger, 3 experts have already had to agree there is no natural explanation for the results so, unless there is something exceptional, almost all cases that have got this far will end in a ban.
And 3 other experts have all said that it can be other things then doping.
So its a case of he says she says , but we all know people still believe UCI more, so i will be very surprised if UCI doesnt before Vuelta comes out with a 2 year ban.
But at least Tinkoff most likely will get Sagan and a few others so they dont have to relay so much on the same riders in all the GT´s
The difference being the 3 (supposedly) independent experts that actually sat on the panel have agreed there can be no reasonable explanation in their opinion. Anyone else throwing their hat in the ring after the event is likely irrelevant in the sanctioning process (unless there is something truly exceptional).
Irrelevant? Since Kreuziger was asked by UCI to bring explanation and he delivered the others experts opinions, i doubt it is irrelevant...
You also usually ask someone for an explanation and then you ignore it?
Edited by Avin Wargunnson on 18-07-2014 06:28
|
| |
|
|
| ianrussell |
Posted on 18-07-2014 07:11
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3440
Joined: 09-10-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
I said I think it will ultimately prove irrelevant to him being sanctioned. Three people who should be independent and who are now under an independent organisation in WADA have delivered their verdict. Of course Kreuziger must be allowed to defend himself but coming up with a plausible explanation is challenging.
See my more detailed follow up post above. |
| |
|
|
| dark_x2012 |
Posted on 18-07-2014 07:19
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 857
Joined: 13-05-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
I hate UCI's opinion - "You're guilty, unless you prove you're not." If they ban Kreuziger without a clear sample that shows he's doped(I agree he has most probably used some PED's), they'll just show they are a mafia that ruins cycling. Why didn't they check Sky's bio passports since 2011 and then started checking every other team to show they're "fighter against doping". |
| |
|
|
| ianrussell |
Posted on 18-07-2014 07:35
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3440
Joined: 09-10-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
It's WADA's scheme to administer now not the UCI's...
Again read my long post above, there is a large degree of tolerance built into the system meaning it won't catch as many as it could just those where the level of manipulation is considered irrefutable. Again bio passport analysis has been backed by another independent body in CAS (see above again). It is considered solid evidence for a reason... |
| |
|
|
| kubys |
Posted on 18-07-2014 08:04
|
Domestique
Posts: 704
Joined: 07-05-2013
PCM$: 300.00
|
Interesting about this Kreuziger thing is that WADA is concerned about his 11/12 results and pointed them out as "impossible" even though, they were "shit" in comparsion with last and this year. 
Die hard fan of Tom Boonen and Quickstep since 2004.
|
| |
|
|
| Cycling Rookie |
Posted on 18-07-2014 12:18
|
Under 23
Posts: 92
Joined: 30-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
As you can tell I`m a newbie.
Can someone please tell me what the rules are for teams that are told that there is a irregularity on one of their riders blood passport.
It seems that Saxo let Kreuzinger ride on ..innocent till proven guilty,whereas Sky stopped Locke and Heino riding immediately..guilty till he`s found innocent.
Or is a rule in place and teams ignore it anyways?
Thanks.
Edited by Cycling Rookie on 18-07-2014 12:19
|
| |
|
|
| ianrussell |
Posted on 18-07-2014 12:51
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3440
Joined: 09-10-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Cycling Rookie wrote:
As you can tell I`m a newbie.
Can someone please tell me what the rules are for teams that are told that there is a irregularity on one of their riders blood passport.
It seems that Saxo let Kreuzinger ride on ..innocent till proven guilty,whereas Sky stopped Locke and Heino riding immediately..guilty till he`s found innocent.
Or is a rule in place and teams ignore it anyways?
Thanks.
Not much time to find the perfect background article but here's a starter example concerning LLS from last year on the general concept of suspension when under investigation https://inrng.com/2013/04/luis-leon-sa...uspension/
A search on the excellent Inrng site will yield more detailed articles on the rules if memory serves but basically it's a grey area where they don't have to suspend them but many do to avoid (an even greater) PR disaster.
Edited by ianrussell on 18-07-2014 12:52
|
| |
|
|
| Cycling Rookie |
Posted on 18-07-2014 14:04
|
Under 23
Posts: 92
Joined: 30-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Thanks Ian for that.
Certainly a very grey area. |
| |
|
|
| Jacdk |
Posted on 18-07-2014 15:58
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 910
Joined: 20-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Cycling Rookie wrote:
As you can tell I`m a newbie.
Can someone please tell me what the rules are for teams that are told that there is a irregularity on one of their riders blood passport.
It seems that Saxo let Kreuzinger ride on ..innocent till proven guilty,whereas Sky stopped Locke and Heino riding immediately..guilty till he`s found innocent.
Or is a rule in place and teams ignore it anyways?
Thanks.
Sky didn't stop Locke , Locke was left to ride and be a part of team Sky until he got his ban.
Kreuziger hasn't received anything yet and is still considered "Innocent" until WADA/UCI decide its time to hand in the ban. |
| |
|
