|
News in July
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 01-08-2014 15:17
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8290
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Meanwhile ,Kreuziger just got himslef a new lawyer and says that he hopes his case will move on before Christmas. Gosh, i hope it will be "solved" sooner...
He again repeated that he send his data to three experts without mentioning his name before the results came back. All of them said there is nothing abnormal in his biological passport data.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
I understand the process. Problem is, that on exactly same data (at least i hope riders are provided same data as UCI have, to defend themselves) are for someone "clear signs of doping" and for other experts "nothing abnormal". So who is right?
I don't know how to say this, but I think you are being rather naive here. Either, as you hint, he has given different data to three experts (or Riis/Tinkov/Team Doctor/Private Doctor have arranged for that) or he has sent it to three 'experts' who, in reality don't know what they are doing or are on his side for some reason (nationality, money, helping him dope).
The three guys on the UCI's board are independent and, not only that, doing this analysis is pretty much their entire job description. So trust them when they say something is up. They are the only good guys here.
Edited by CountArach on 01-08-2014 15:18
|
| |
|
|
| Jacdk |
Posted on 01-08-2014 16:34
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 910
Joined: 20-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
The Hobbit wrote:
I think what people aren't getting is they don't just find an abnormality, or an irregularity, immediately, they might notice something like a slight rise or decrease in a value, which inherently isn't enough to suggest someone is doping as it is more likely natural. The cyclist could then be put on a list to watch, or recommended for more tests. The only way you can prove something is to take lots of data and compare it to see if there is an issue. They do act as soon as they see something dodgy, they just don't announce it, as that would look seriously stupid since a lot of the time it is probably natural.
I think most fully understand how the bio-passport works, which is also the problem. What is being done here by UCI is equilliant to your countrys police arresting you for illegal music because you listen to music.
The data might suggest doping but unless its actually proven, i see a huge problem in any rider being banned, because we are not just talking about a ban, its also that riders livelihood and those rights should be better protected. Particular when we have a hugely corrupt org. like UCI. |
| |
|
|
| Jacdk |
Posted on 01-08-2014 17:07
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 910
Joined: 20-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
ShortsNL wrote:
-APMU runs the investigation, not CADF/UCI. APMU is funded by WADA. APMU then makes recommendations to CADF/UCI based on their research. APMU found the naturally unexplainable data. This is not something was thought up down the hall of Cookson's office.
-They didn't find a positive, that is not how the bio passport works. They look at his physiological values for lengthy periods of time, to be able to say with certainty if something unnatural has happened:
Spoiler The software rings an alarm bell if an athlete’s numbers deviate from an established patten. When this happens an expert with a background in clinical haematology, sports medicine and/or exercise physiology reviews the data from the system. The expert has four options:
do nothing because the data look normal to the human eye/brain
recommend the athlete is placed on a list for target testing
alert the athlete that they could be suffering from a serious illness
state improbable natural causes, a likely doping case
In the event of the fourth option, the procedures continue for the APMU. Two more experts are asked to evaluate the data and they can each recommend one of the four options above. All three must review the same data set and only if each concludes that, in the words of WADA’s procedural manuals, “it is highly likely that a prohibited substance or prohibited method had been used and unlikely that it is the result of any other cause” will the case proceed.
Above taken from INRNG.
It doesn't actually matter who runs the investigation. The problem is still the same that they do not have a positive sample, they have some data that might suggest something is wrong, but they dont actually have positive sample
Are you suggesting that the bio passport is not a reliable way of finding out drug cheats? That the fact that APMU has sent this case to the UCI/CADF somehow means he isn't actually doping? Can you really make a case for such a statement?
Of course i am suggesting that the bio-passport is a highly unreliable way of catching anything, and if this was going by normal legal concepts, this would be the equivalent of hearsay which incase you dont know, isn't actually a very trustworthy source of any information. This is disgrace to the cycling world.
-Kreuziger hasn't been banned because he hasn't had his anti-doping hearing yet. See here and here. As we saw in the JTL case, this procedure can take up to another 7-8 months, before the rider actually gets banned.This has nothing to do with the UCI dragging its feet, it's simply how long the process takes.
So its normal for a case to take over 2½ years? if thats the case then i hope you can see the huge problem. Because what should a team and rider do in the meantime? should Kreuziger stop racing until his ban? should the team fire him, suspend him? Also the Locke case was because he appealed the decision that it took longer, which is absolute fair, so considering that kreuziger can appeal we wont see a decision anytime soon and it could take at least another year . I hope you can see the obvious problem there.
-You are stating that the UCI has done nothing on Roman's case since the Tour. How do you know that? We don't know what happened because there haven't been any news reports on it. Don't say nothing has happened if you can't back it up.
I do not really care whats going on behind the scene, because clearly when Kreuziger is starting in two races soon, something clearly hasn't happened. And UCI have a problem when they send out a letter informing of case in May and we are now in Aug and still no suspension or date on when the case is being decided.
If you are expecting the UCI to say anything, think again. They haven't released anything on the JTL case (not even that they would start an investigation on him) until he was suspended by them, so why should they do now in Roman's case?
-You can put "quotation marks" around the words doping and rejected but that doesn't make them any less of a fact. APMU have caught him doping based on his values. The explanation by Kreuziger was rejected because he couldn't substantially disprove the analysis done by APMU. If anything, you should consider putting quotation marks on Roman's "explanation" by his "experts". After all, all we know about them is what Roman has told us (which by the way, is practically nothing).
Dont really care if UCI says anything, the proof is in da pudding as you say, If you compare the Locke case to Kreuziger you can clearly see a huge massive time-difference. Locke was withdrawn from racing 29. Sept. 2013 and in July 2014 he was banned. So UCI doesnt need to say anything, they need to get their butt in gear and either acquit him or ban him.
Also again its not a positive doping sample, so of course i put "" since there isent a positive doping sample, all this is, is a witch hunt by UCI because doping has hurt the cycling sport in some circles, even though everyone knows that doping is and always will be a huge part of cycling.
You are spinning the story based on your own opinion, instead of basing your opinion on the facts at hand: you are misrepresenting facts as false information and you are misrepresenting false information as fact. By doing this you are simply spreading lies on the forum.
Trying to come with a personal attack and call me a liar is just moronic so please either raise your level of debating or just stop commenting on my posts, clearly the facts are right there for anyone to see and just because you misrepresent them and claim that a irregularities in a bio-passport is the same as a positive doping sample does not make it so. It clearly isn't |
| |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 01-08-2014 17:12
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7681
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
It's not the equivalent of hearsay, it's based on clear evidence, you evidently have no understanding of the word.
|
| |
|
|
| Jacdk |
Posted on 01-08-2014 17:20
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 910
Joined: 20-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
It's not the equivalent of hearsay, it's based on clear evidence, you evidently have no understanding of the word.
The only one who seem to have a problem understanding it seems to be you.
Its data irregularities not a positive sample so even claiming its clear evidence is ludicrous. |
| |
|
|
| felix_29 |
Posted on 01-08-2014 17:27
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3054
Joined: 08-08-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Jacdk wrote:
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
It's not the equivalent of hearsay, it's based on clear evidence, you evidently have no understanding of the word.
The only one who seem to have a problem understanding it seems to be you.
Its data irregularities not a positive sample so even claiming its clear evidence is ludicrous.
Imagine the year 1996. You've lots of values from Bjarne Riis and suddenly, his hct jumps to 60%. Just some "data irregularities" and no "clear evidence"...  |
| |
|
|
| Jacdk |
Posted on 01-08-2014 17:48
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 910
Joined: 20-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
felix_29 wrote:
Imagine the year 1996. You've lots of values from Bjarne Riis and suddenly, his hct jumps to 60%. Just some "data irregularities" and no "clear evidence"...
Thanks for confirming my point, I can imagine a lot of things, but that doesn´t make it clear. |
| |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 01-08-2014 17:55
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7681
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Jacdk wrote:
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
It's not the equivalent of hearsay, it's based on clear evidence, you evidently have no understanding of the word.
The only one who seem to have a problem understanding it seems to be you.
Its data irregularities not a positive sample so even claiming its clear evidence is ludicrous.
Again you're struggling with basic English. The values shown in the data are evidence. You can subsequently take differing conclusions for that evidence. Hearsay is rumour, not necessarily based on anything substantial, whereas the blood values are clear concrete evidence.
|
| |
|
|
| Dusen |
Posted on 01-08-2014 18:00
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1173
Joined: 30-07-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
Jacdk wrote:
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
It's not the equivalent of hearsay, it's based on clear evidence, you evidently have no understanding of the word.
The only one who seem to have a problem understanding it seems to be you.
Its data irregularities not a positive sample so even claiming its clear evidence is ludicrous.
Again you're struggling with basic English. The values shown in the data are evidence. You can subsequently take differing conclusions for that evidence. Hearsay is rumour, not necessarily based on anything substantial, whereas the blood values are clear concrete evidence.
I agree that it most likely means something that the bloodvalues have changed.
But i think that i have heard somewhere that, it can be from injury or sickness and not doping by default.
Think what jacdk is getting at here is, that it is not 100% bulleprof evidence like an A test and B test for EPO fx.
With really bad luck, riders could get banned on their blood values, and not have had any contact with doping. I know they check things like that, but it can still happend 
Overall i support the blood pass, but there is questions to be asked.
Just my 2 cents. |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 25-11-2024 03:38
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Jacdk |
Posted on 01-08-2014 18:17
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 910
Joined: 20-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
Jacdk wrote:
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
It's not the equivalent of hearsay, it's based on clear evidence, you evidently have no understanding of the word.
The only one who seem to have a problem understanding it seems to be you.
Its data irregularities not a positive sample so even claiming its clear evidence is ludicrous.
Again you're struggling with basic English. The values shown in the data are evidence. You can subsequently take differing conclusions for that evidence. Hearsay is rumour, not necessarily based on anything substantial, whereas the blood values are clear concrete evidence.
Your lame personal attack aside also don't try to change what you said. You used "clear Evidence"
The values shown are not clear evidence of anything, since the irregularity can be caused by anything from basic illness, using a asthma spray to eating or drinking almost anything, a good wine or steak and yes also be using doping.
So yes it is basically like listening to hearsay, its nothing but a indication and its s disgrace that in a western world any org. disregard basic legal rights and just go on a witch hunt.
Edited by Jacdk on 01-08-2014 18:23
|
| |
|
|
| johnnyjur |
Posted on 01-08-2014 19:23
|
Domestique
Posts: 633
Joined: 01-04-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Well, apparently, Rohan Dennis will ride the Vuelta for BMC (!) according to Daniel Benson
|
| |
|
|
| admirschleck |
Posted on 01-08-2014 19:24
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6690
Joined: 11-10-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
johnnyjur wrote:
Well, apparently, Rohan Dennis will ride the Vuelta for BMC (!) according to Daniel Benson
Wait, how is that even possible?
|
| |
|
|
| johnnyjur |
Posted on 01-08-2014 19:26
|
Domestique
Posts: 633
Joined: 01-04-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
admirschleck wrote:
johnnyjur wrote:
Well, apparently, Rohan Dennis will ride the Vuelta for BMC (!) according to Daniel Benson
Wait, how is that even possible?
I have no idea. He says a story should be up on CN very soon. the lineup should be: sanchez, evans, gilbert, morabito, nerz, warbasse, wyss, quinziato and Dennis.
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 01-08-2014 19:29
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
wtf that's not possible unless he go fired by Garmin and hired by BMC in the last hour.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| Dusen |
Posted on 01-08-2014 19:29
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1173
Joined: 30-07-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
johnnyjur wrote:
admirschleck wrote:
johnnyjur wrote:
Well, apparently, Rohan Dennis will ride the Vuelta for BMC (!) according to Daniel Benson
Wait, how is that even possible?
I have no idea. He says a story should be up on CN very soon. the lineup should be: sanchez, evans, gilbert, morabito, nerz, warbasse, wyss, quinziato and Dennis.
Thats a strong team from BMC. No contender for the Vuelta win, but a very strong team, that could finish well in the GC and win a stage or two. |
| |
|
|
| Anderis |
Posted on 01-08-2014 19:31
|
Domestique
Posts: 471
Joined: 13-09-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Confirmed. https://www.cyclin...ing-garmin
Big blow for Garmin to lose him. He said few weeks ago that he was happy with the team and wouldn't mind renewal for 2015. I wonder what has happened to cause such a weird move.
Edited by Anderis on 01-08-2014 19:31
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 01-08-2014 19:35
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
WTF. Is it now legal to just leave the team cause you feel like it mid season? Isn't there such a thing as contracts?
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| Dusen |
Posted on 01-08-2014 19:36
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1173
Joined: 30-07-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
baseballlover312 wrote:
WTF. Is it now legal to just leave the team cause you feel like it mid season? Isn't there such a thing as contracts?
There is.
BMC must have paid Garmin some money to resolve the contract with Dennis.
Only way i can see it going down.
Huge lose for Garmin. But great gain for BMC
Saw him in Tour of California, he was riding very well. |
| |
|
|
| Jacdk |
Posted on 01-08-2014 19:37
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 910
Joined: 20-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
admirschleck wrote:
johnnyjur wrote:
Well, apparently, Rohan Dennis will ride the Vuelta for BMC (!) according to Daniel Benson
Wait, how is that even possible?
Only way is as someone mention if he got his contract terminated and BMC hired him.
I have no clue how else unless there is some obscure rule that allows for a rider to change team mid/end season.
Edited by Jacdk on 01-08-2014 19:40
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 01-08-2014 19:38
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
Why would he do that. That just opened the door. I could see this happening a lot now. Could be chaos.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
