|
Tour De France 2014 Pre-race thread
|
| Riis123 |
Posted on 28-06-2014 21:39
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5075
Joined: 07-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Dizzle wrote:
Riis123 wrote:
The @tinkoff_saxo team for @letour probably: Contador, Rogers, Roche, Paulinho, Hernandez, Bennati, Tosatto, Mørkøv and Majka.
- Veloropa
I honestly expected Zaugg after his last stage in Suisse. Surprised by Tosatto, but oh well. Braschel is kinda sick, so I understand that. But this case about Majka is kinda odd, especially since he is being so vocal about it.
Would totally pick Zaugg over Paulinho - has not shown anything.
Indeed, but you know, Contadors' preferences... |
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 28-06-2014 22:38
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Riis123 wrote:
Havent heard about this case before, but this sounds like bullshit. They have basically have had a year to decide whether or not the two experts' explanations were right and then decides to bring it up 1 week before the Tour.
I hope someone who actually know something about this case would post something which explains this better (Aquaris), but so far, Im not impressed by how they have handled that. This is obviously a huge blow for Saxo and the race in general.
I don't know much more about this than what's been posted in this topic recently.
At first I also thought Sky had pushed the Postal imitation to the point of having UCI nailing their rivals for doping. After reading ShortsNL message it looks far from obvious though.
It's oh-so-predictable and yet tiring as hell to read the Danes suddenly jumping in to defend the guy from 'their' team, despite, how should I call it ?, its obviously nasty habits.
It's been rightfully mentioned, and leads me to a rhetorical question : is it really surprising that a guy who pays a haematologist to write training plans that half of the cyclists on this forum could equate or better, and probably still pays the old 'a-quarter-of-your-yearly-salary' price for that, is caught with strange blood values ?
Surely we're discussing a guy who's ridden for Liquigas, Astana and Saxo-Tinkoff. Blame me for connecting the dots...
Funny thing to notice : his strange blood values are from 2011-2012. When was his best season again ? The answer can only prove two things : either doping is useless, either he didn't exactly stop when he joined Saxo-Tinkoff. |
| |
|
|
| Riis123 |
Posted on 28-06-2014 23:05
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5075
Joined: 07-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Dno if you are talking about me as the danes jumping in his defense. I obviously still somewhat have somes links to that team since its the only kinda danish team we have got, but Im basically just tired to see a guy that I like be caught and especially at this point, right before the Tour with Contador looking 10x better than last year.
Secondly I still dont get have UCI how handled this case. I read a article on the case where Feltrin (from Saxo Tinkoff) had the same problems:
1. The values are from 2011 and 2012, why havent UCI informoed Tinkoff Saxo about that back then? They have obviously looked at his passport themselves when they signed him, but couldnt find anything abnormal or suspicies. Now, I know he (Feltrin) is hihgly subjective and you can also argue that you as a team should at least have some concerns about a guy like Ferrari. I dont deny that, all I dont understand is just the proces
2. How can you use 8 months to look at what the two experts said and deciding whether its legitimate or not? I dont get how it possibly can take so long time and the suddenly in late May telling he has 3 weeks to justify the abnormalities?
Edited by Riis123 on 28-06-2014 23:06
|
| |
|
|
| jacobjc88 |
Posted on 28-06-2014 23:29
|
Domestique
Posts: 424
Joined: 13-03-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Danes jumping in his defense? What the heck are you talking about?
Never jumped in his defense, just stated that this case should have been finished a long time ago. 2011-2012 were the years he had suspicious blood values, we are in 2014 now. Why is the UCI taking so long?
I even wrote that he should be punished, if he cheated (which he obviously have, since there is no logical explanation).
This reminds me a lot of the JTN and Henao were both riders also should have had a ban. Kreuziger should aswell.
I don't really seen any Danes, except for Kritzo (maybe, haven't read whole thread) that jumps in his defense?
All we say is that the timing for something which happened in 2011-2012 couldn't be worse which is the UCI fault. They are slow as **** and this needs to be better for the sake of cycling.
Present:
Tinkoff-Saxo - AG2R - Colombian riders
Past:
Francisco Mancebo - Illes balears - Carlos Sastre - Kelme - Robbie McEwen
|
| |
|
|
| Jacdk |
Posted on 29-06-2014 01:47
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 910
Joined: 20-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
admirschleck wrote:
Jacdk wrote:
I would be cautious around such a untrustworthy source and where does he get it from?
The guy is from Poland, he's a cycling geek, is writing for oldest cycling Polish site (rowery.org) and looks to be part of bikepure.org crew. All of his tweets seems to be fair and accurate, so I am failry sure we can trust him.
Ok, and yes the tweet seems to come from Majka´s facebook page which was later deleted so i guess its a initial angry reaction from a very young rider who didn´t have to think it true.
Anyways Majka is still right, Riis and Tinkoff is gambling with his health and at this stage having a giro in the legs makes it seem foolish to send him to the tour also, its a pointless thing and even though Majka is good he wont be worth anything to contador.
My bet is that he will stop after the first week because of "illness" |
| |
|
|
| Jacdk |
Posted on 29-06-2014 02:07
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 910
Joined: 20-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Aquarius wrote:
Riis123 wrote:
Havent heard about this case before, but this sounds like bullshit. They have basically have had a year to decide whether or not the two experts' explanations were right and then decides to bring it up 1 week before the Tour.
I hope someone who actually know something about this case would post something which explains this better (Aquaris), but so far, Im not impressed by how they have handled that. This is obviously a huge blow for Saxo and the race in general.
I don't know much more about this than what's been posted in this topic recently.
At first I also thought Sky had pushed the Postal imitation to the point of having UCI nailing their rivals for doping. After reading ShortsNL message it looks far from obvious though.
It's oh-so-predictable and yet tiring as hell to read the Danes suddenly jumping in to defend the guy from 'their' team, despite, how should I call it ?, its obviously nasty habits.
It's been rightfully mentioned, and leads me to a rhetorical question : is it really surprising that a guy who pays a haematologist to write training plans that half of the cyclists on this forum could equate or better, and probably still pays the old 'a-quarter-of-your-yearly-salary' price for that, is caught with strange blood values ?
Surely we're discussing a guy who's ridden for Liquigas, Astana and Saxo-Tinkoff. Blame me for connecting the dots...
Funny thing to notice : his strange blood values are from 2011-2012. When was his best season again ? The answer can only prove two things : either doping is useless, either he didn't exactly stop when he joined Saxo-Tinkoff.
Their team? firstly Tinkoff is russian and that isent danish, second most dont excactly consider him a likeable fellow.
Put that aside i personally would jump onto this no matter what rider it had been, if it was Team Sky and Porte who suddenly got shot down by UCI and risked being taken out mid-race, i would have reacted the exact same way and question the motives from UCI because they have had plenty of time and no despite what some might think this is not Saxobank´s or Kreuzigers fault ,
UCI clearly have a agenda against some riders and teams where others gets a free pass like the fact that UCI allowed Froome to ride with a 40mg Prednisolone daily prescription , which now might be illegal since it has to also be approved by WADA.
Just to make it clear 40mg is a lot and Froome won that race.
But i don't trust UCI and their methods seems highly questionable particular in this and a few other cases where they seem to acquit for the same substance with one rider and ban in identical circumstances with another rider.
And i just gotta laugh at your accusations because if you are right and Kreuziger is doped, what does that make everyone who beat him? eh, because Kreuziger isn't exactly Joe Waterboy and he can ride.
Edited by Jacdk on 29-06-2014 02:22
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 22-11-2024 23:53
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Strydz |
Posted on 29-06-2014 02:24
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5894
Joined: 02-08-2011
PCM$: 1625.00
|
@Jacdk
The U.C.I wouldn't be moving forward with this case unless they had a solid case against Kreuziger, look at the small amount of Bio Passport cases they have brought against riders and you will see that they have pretty much been successful in proving the rider has been upto something. Nobody is questioning that the timing and length of this case is odd but once this has been done and dusted id expect the outcome to be that Kreuziger has been caught. I am not the greatest fan of the UCI and I also have my reservations about the Bio Passport but it would have to be real head in the sand stuff if you think he hasn't been cheating.
Hells 500 Crew and 6 x Everester
Don Rd Launching Place
Melbourne Hill Rd Warrandyte
Colby Drive Belgrave South
William Rd The Patch
David Hill Rd Monbulk
Lakeside Drive Emerald
https://www.everesting.cc/hall-of-fame/ |
| |
|
|
| Jacdk |
Posted on 29-06-2014 05:24
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 910
Joined: 20-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Strydz wrote:
@Jacdk
The U.C.I wouldn't be moving forward with this case unless they had a solid case against Kreuziger, look at the small amount of Bio Passport cases they have brought against riders and you will see that they have pretty much been successful in proving the rider has been upto something. Nobody is questioning that the timing and length of this case is odd but once this has been done and dusted id expect the outcome to be that Kreuziger has been caught. I am not the greatest fan of the UCI and I also have my reservations about the Bio Passport but it would have to be real head in the sand stuff if you think he hasn't been cheating.
If UCI had a solid case against Kreuziger you can be 100% sure that they would have had him up for a ban. Which hasn't happened yet, and considering how long the case have been going on, you have to admit its kinda strange that they so close to Tour De france finally says "hey Kreuziger you lying piece of garbage we don't believe you and we will now make our final decision" so you're right UCI has proven again and again that all it takes is a questionable value and that any rider is guilty until proven innocent not the other way around like in any normal working legal system.
So of course people should/are questioning the timing, anyone knows that Kreuziger is Contador's absolute top helper and that without him it will be a huge blow for Contador who know pretty much have no one to help him in the big mountains and for a possible tour victory, So remembering Armstrong, i wouldn't put it past some UCI officials to have been getting a extra bonus.
As to Kreuziger and what he has done, well he used to be on Astana and that team isn't exactly known for its anti-doping agenda but i haven't seen anything out of the ordinary with him, Kreuziger has always been a excellent rider and have had a steady climb to the top.
So until there is absolute definitive proof that he has used doping, he is innocent, exactly like Froome and Porte despite their quick rise and questionable climb to the top.
Also its worth noting that from Oct. 2013 to May.2014 UCI had absolute no contact with Tinkoff-Saxobank or Kreuziger
"He offered the explanation, based on two medical expert opinions independently of each other, that the fluctuations in his blood passport profile were not abnormalities and did not indicate anti-doping violations, which was submitted to the UCI by 3 October 2013.”
The rider had no further contact with the UCI until receiving a letter of 30 May 2014. He was advised that the CAFD’s Experts Panel did not accept his explanation.
So no matter what everyone hopefully can agree that UCI has shown a frighting lack in how they deal with cases, if they are working on a case they should have been done within no more than 3months where they either acquit or inform the rider that they now are building a case against him so teams have a chance of dealing with this rider, after all a rider still has rights and its insane how much it seems like UCI seem like the spanish inquisition.... (hope everyone get that reference)
Edited by Jacdk on 29-06-2014 05:44
|
| |
|
|
| ShortsNL |
Posted on 29-06-2014 08:27
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 898
Joined: 17-11-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
My main issue with Roman/TCS:
If you're so sure about your innocence why not go public? Why still the secrecy?
-Why not release you bio passport data from 2010-2013 to the public?
-Why not reveal the abnormalities the Cadf found in your profile?
-Why not name a legit cause for them?
-Why not share the names and the reports of the experts you hired?
-Why not release a dossier with the correspondence between you and the Uci?
Why not actually back anything you're saying up with real info, so we can, you know, actually have a reason to believe a word you're saying?
To me this Just looks like one big attempt to discredit the Uci because they are unable to prove their own innocence.
|
| |
|
|
| atlanta |
Posted on 29-06-2014 08:45
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1220
Joined: 31-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Gutted Kreuziger is missing out, i want Froome to win but i am really gutted. Kreuziger would have probably been 3rd if he did not have to work for AC last year. |
| |
|
|
| jph27 |
Posted on 29-06-2014 09:03
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7339
Joined: 20-03-2010
PCM$: 900.00
|
The delays are seemingly due to further testing being conducted to validate Kreuziger's defence. That's why it's taken so long, I guess. |
| |
|
|
| Roman |
Posted on 29-06-2014 10:35
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4386
Joined: 29-05-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Allright, maybe Kreuziger is a doper, but why exactly they found some problems right now from 2-3 years ago, just before Le Tour and release absolutely no prove to public. It seems amazingly weird and if nothing comes from it, big thanks to UCI for ruining maybe the best opportuninty of Kreuziger's career...
|
| |
|
|
| Jacdk |
Posted on 29-06-2014 14:48
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 910
Joined: 20-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
ShortsNL wrote:
My main issue with Roman/TCS:
If you're so sure about your innocence why not go public? Why still the secrecy?
-Why not release you bio passport data from 2010-2013 to the public?
-Why not reveal the abnormalities the Cadf found in your profile?
-Why not name a legit cause for them?
-Why not share the names and the reports of the experts you hired?
-Why not release a dossier with the correspondence between you and the Uci?
Why not actually back anything you're saying up with real info, so we can, you know, actually have a reason to believe a word you're saying?
To me this Just looks like one big attempt to discredit the Uci because they are unable to prove their own innocence.
Wait.... are you really trying to defend UCI? |
| |
|
|
| Jacdk |
Posted on 29-06-2014 14:52
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 910
Joined: 20-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
jph27 wrote:
The delays are seemingly due to further testing being conducted to validate Kreuziger's defence. That's why it's taken so long, I guess.
It doesn't take 7 months to test
In the legal system there are laws that state that a defendant has a right to a speedy trial because everyone knows how it can affect people and it should be no different in UCI. |
| |
|
|
| Strydz |
Posted on 29-06-2014 15:11
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5894
Joined: 02-08-2011
PCM$: 1625.00
|
Jacdk wrote:
jph27 wrote:
The delays are seemingly due to further testing being conducted to validate Kreuziger's defence. That's why it's taken so long, I guess.
It doesn't take 7 months to test
In the legal system there are laws that state that a defendant has a right to a speedy trial because everyone knows how it can affect people and it should be no different in UCI.
How do you know that it doesn't take that long? This isn't like the legal systems you are trying to compare this case too. A lot of what goes on with these cases are done behind closed doors so we don't know yet why it has taken the time that it has, from what I can see Kreuziger was flagged, been asked to explain the abnormalities which then requires retesting and he has obviously disputed the findings which again would add time to the case. You have to remember we have basically only got one side of this story and have not heard much from the UCI. You can't really heap all the blame onto the governing body at this stage without actually knowing the process, it will come ou soon enough. Would you have been happy with him riding the Tour, helping Contador to a victory then the story comes out that he had been flagged and was allowed to race whilst under suspicion? Imagine the outcry if that had happened
Hells 500 Crew and 6 x Everester
Don Rd Launching Place
Melbourne Hill Rd Warrandyte
Colby Drive Belgrave South
William Rd The Patch
David Hill Rd Monbulk
Lakeside Drive Emerald
https://www.everesting.cc/hall-of-fame/ |
| |
|
|
| ShortsNL |
Posted on 29-06-2014 15:11
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 898
Joined: 17-11-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Jacdk wrote:
ShortsNL wrote:
My main issue with Roman/TCS:
If you're so sure about your innocence why not go public? Why still the secrecy?
-Why not release you bio passport data from 2010-2013 to the public?
-Why not reveal the abnormalities the Cadf found in your profile?
-Why not name a legit cause for them?
-Why not share the names and the reports of the experts you hired?
-Why not release a dossier with the correspondence between you and the Uci?
Why not actually back anything you're saying up with real info, so we can, you know, actually have a reason to believe a word you're saying?
To me this Just looks like one big attempt to discredit the Uci because they are unable to prove their own innocence.
Wait.... are you really trying to defend UCI?
Wait what? How are you coming to that conclusion? Because I am not immediately believing the Tinkoff-Saxo propaganda machine, and jumping on the UCI-bash bandwagon, I therefore must be defending them??
Please... if you want to criticize the UCI feel free. There is lots of stuff out there backed up by evidence that suggests bad sports administration. For example the way they handled Froome's TUE according to the JDD.
But really, don't try to put a label on me because I am not directly believing what Roman and TCS are saying. In Holland we have a saying for that: fried air.
Isn't it obvious? Roman/TCS are going public with their case (which by the way, is still that Roman has been caught with a violation in his bio passport, whether you like it or not) and are trying to make everything sound as much like UCI is the one who did everything wrong here. It's just to make Roman/TCS look not as bad, and it seems like you are falling for it.
The solution isn't that hard: Roman/TCS just have to put their money where their mouths are and actually back up their statements with evidence. Like for example what Horner did after the Vuelta.
|
| |
|
|
| dark_x2012 |
Posted on 29-06-2014 16:12
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 857
Joined: 13-05-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
Even though I believe Kreuziger is a dopehead , I still find it quite strange that UCI started investigating him and have skipped all Sky's(Froome's) doping cases. Come on  Brian, stop giving Froome so much unfair advantages. |
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 30-06-2014 06:37
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
I came home yesterday from the trip to discover such a news. 
I never had too much illusions about Roman being totally clean, especially with those Ferrari stories from his Liquigas times, followed by Astana move, but on the other hand, he was pretty believable performer throuhout his career (after his early-pro explosion).
So while i hope that he will give reasonable explanation or will pay for his possible doping sins, i dont get the UCI actions.
Why UCI has 8 months to debate about two experts conclusions and rider has 10 days to bring another one, as oficials were not happy with first two? 20 days extension to that is really generous (...not), when they had almost a year. Why need for third expertiese anyway??? Why are those experts accredited, when conclusions of two of them does not matter to UCI? Either they should say expertiese is a bullshit, or let the rider go.
Now it sounds like a conspiracy written by Dan Brown, but timing is perfect for anyone, who wants Contador as weak as possible in the Tour.
What gives me the most negative feeling about the whole thing, is why Kreuziger did not come out with this case earlier. That can be the biggest pointer to him being not so sure about his innocence and way how to prove it. He was never good with media or general cycling public, but if he has explanation and not just bullshit after bullshit excuses, he should come out now and tell everybody, not hide behind Saxo lawyers. But he said he is ready to face the fast court, so maybe he solid reasons to back it up.
At least i have more time to follow Sagan and König in the Tour 
Edited by Avin Wargunnson on 30-06-2014 06:39
|
| |
|
|
| Riis123 |
Posted on 30-06-2014 10:43
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5075
Joined: 07-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Team Saxo Tinkoff: Contador, Roche, Majka, Rogers, Hernandez, Paulinho, Tosatto, Mørkøv and Bennati.
Kinda what was to be expected, alltho I would have liked Breschel and Zaugg on the team instead of Tosatto and Paulinho. |
| |
|
|
| b3n3v3nt3 |
Posted on 30-06-2014 10:48
|
Stagiare
Posts: 160
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Indeed, at least Zaugg seems to be in a much, much better shape. Paulinho hasn't done anything worthy this season. |
| |
|
