Kreuziger out of Tour. Bio irregularities.

frenchfighter

Yeah right, its not a good policy from the UCI - seems like they are making it up as they go along.

No_Ta_Doctor

frenchfighter wrote:

Yeah right, its not a good policy from the UCI - seems like they are making it up as they go along.

Agree entirely. Very strange. A rider should be either free to ride or suspended. Not free to ride unless he decides to ride, in which case he's suspended.

This is the sort of area I thought Cookson would have been strongest in - making sure protocols and processes were open, transparent, understandable and followed precisely. Disappointing.

Pokerface

Cookson now saying that the UCI will treat Bio cases the same as a positive A-sample. And provisionally suspend the rider straight away. But, they will also endeavour to deal with the cases faster so that they don't drag on for years.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cookson ... tive-tests

Bakunin

The Kreuziger case is both interesting and disturbing.

The time lapse is just silly, while questions about the passport is now a positive.

The UCI has experts, but so does RK.

Even though we are taking about biological variables, it is so subjective.

Is a Jackson Pollack art? How does one assess a good Pollack from a bad one?

ad_snow

http://pelotoncafe.com.au/team-tinkoff- ... n-cookson/

frenchfighter

Great stuff.. Lets see what the Cookson can say about this. Not fit for purpose.

I would assume there are a few open bio passport cases that the UCI are looking into but that no one knows about. All of these riders should also be provisionally suspended or else Cookson is not true to his word.

mike6

I would assume the UCI has a writen set of measures in place since the Bio Passport came into being. Would it not take time and possibly even a vote to change the system regarding what happens to the athlete in this situation. It may be that Cooksons is bound by the system in place when he took over and it might take time to amend it, you know what institutions are like, especialy in cycling.

Pokerface

Interesting article on the Bio Passport process and why it takes so long for cases to proceed: http://cyclingtips.com.au/2014/08/anti- ... rt-system/

gsk82

most teams have the humility to withdraw their riders when there's suspicion, so its not that surprising that no one put a rule in writing for it.

mm1

Good interview on cyclingtips.com.au with Robin Parisotto (Australian scientist and doping expert) about the Kreuziger case saying that it fits the expected timescales

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2014/08/anti-doping-expert-parisotto-explains-inherent-delays-in-biological-passport-system/

Kreuziger was informed 6 months into his contract (June 2013) with Saxo that he was under investigation, hard to believe that Oleg wasn't aware before this June.

Oops, Pokerface has already posted.

frenchfighter

Kreuziger appealing to CAS about the temporary suspension and Tinkoff hope it is lifted before the Vuelta.

In a carefully worded statement, Kreuziger has suggested that his blood values "only approached the limits (of the Biological Passport) on one occasion, which was caused by extreme dehydration after (an unsuccessful) mountain stage of the Giro d’Italia 2012." He also claims three experts backing his claim that the CAFD panel is wrong in its judgement.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kreuzig ... suspension

frenchfighter

DeVlaeminck

gsk82 wrote:

most teams have the humility to withdraw their riders when there's suspicion, so its not that surprising that no one put a rule in writing for it.

Most teams withdraw riders because they don't want the adverse publicity or because they feel the rider is under pressure due to the case not because of humility.

I've got no problem with Tinkoff entering Kreuziger in a race - it's up to the UCI to suspend riders not the team or the rider themselves. If the evidence is there then charge him, if it isn't there (yet) then let him continue racing.

mike6

DeVlaeminck wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

most teams have the humility to withdraw their riders when there's suspicion, so its not that surprising that no one put a rule in writing for it.

Most teams withdraw riders because they don't want the adverse publicity or because they feel the rider is under pressure due to the case not because of humility.

I've got no problem with Tinkoff entering Kreuziger in a race - it's up to the UCI to suspend riders not the team or the rider themselves. If the evidence is there then charge him, if it isn't there (yet) then let him continue racing.

I think the problem is that the Passport can only flag up "Anomalies" in an athletes values, It is not an indicator of a positive for doping. If the anomaly can be explained, beyond reasonable boubt, given that the anomaly from the norm is slight, it can be overlooked. If the athlete had been ill at the time or altitude training or severely dehydrated etc, then there is room for discussion.
It is imperfect, but It is a step in the right direction as It may still flag up the results of doping when the products have been flushed from the system. Traditional dope testing can only find PEDs still in the system, they are also no good for blood transfusion detection whereas the Bio Passport system can show blood values have changed.

DeVlaeminck

mike6 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

most teams have the humility to withdraw their riders when there's suspicion, so its not that surprising that no one put a rule in writing for it.

Most teams withdraw riders because they don't want the adverse publicity or because they feel the rider is under pressure due to the case not because of humility.

I've got no problem with Tinkoff entering Kreuziger in a race - it's up to the UCI to suspend riders not the team or the rider themselves. If the evidence is there then charge him, if it isn't there (yet) then let him continue racing.

I think the problem is that the Passport can only flag up "Anomalies" in an athletes values, It is not an indicator of a positive for doping. If the anomaly can be explained, beyond reasonable boubt, given that the anomaly from the norm is slight, it can be overlooked. If the athlete had been ill at the time or altitude training or severely dehydrated etc, then there is room for discussion.
It is imperfect, but It is a step in the right direction as It may still flag up the results of doping when the products have been flushed from the system. Traditional dope testing can only find PEDs still in the system, they are also no good for blood transfusion detection whereas the Bio Passport system can show blood values have changed.

Either the biopassport is evidence of doping or it isn't. Sure it's a different kind of evidence to finding the dope in the system, it's one step removed from that, but it still has to be "an indicator of a positive for doping" otherwise it can't be used as a basis to suspend/ban people.

Also surely it's not up to the rider to explain their blood values "beyond reasonable doubt" it's up to the uci to show why they can't be explained beyond reasonable doubt - your post implies the burden of proof being on the accused.

Dorset_Boy

But in doping cases it is up to the accused to prove they are clean, not the other way round.

DeVlaeminck

Dorset Boy wrote:

But in doping cases it is up to the accused to prove they are clean, not the other way round.

No it's not. I am guessing you are talking about strict liability if you test positive. I wouldn't class that as having to prove you are clean more a case of providing mitigation but in any case surely not relevant to the biopassport/Kreuziger.

RichN95.

Dorset Boy wrote:

But in doping cases it is up to the accused to prove they are clean, not the other way round.

No, it isn't. Doping cases aren't opened unless there's pretty solid evidence in place (i.e. proof from the prosectution). It's impossible for a rider to prove they are clean - all they can do is refute the prosecution's proof.

Paulie W

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Either the biopassport is evidence of doping or it isn't. Sure it's a different kind of evidence to finding the dope in the system, it's one step removed from that, but it still has to be "an indicator of a positive for doping" otherwise it can't be used as a basis to suspend/ban people.

Also surely it's not up to the rider to explain their blood values "beyond reasonable doubt" it's up to the uci to show why they can't be explained beyond reasonable doubt - your post implies the burden of proof being on the accused.

Anomalies in the passport may indicate doping but may indicate other things - e.g. illness, altitude training, flawed data. Athlete Passport Management Unit (APMU) nominated experts examine these anomalies in context and if three of them agree that the only reasonable explanation is that the rider was doping they will create a dossier with all the proof supporting this conclusion. The dossier is sent to the UCI - they dont create it. At this point, riders have the opportunity to challenge these conclusions perhaps providing their own contradictory expert evidence, perhaps by adding additional context that the three experts didnt have. If the UCI dont buy it then disciplinary proceedings begin.

This is all about expert interpretation not about absolute certainty.

mike6

DeVlaeminck wrote:

mike6 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

most teams have the humility to withdraw their riders when there's suspicion, so its not that surprising that no one put a rule in writing for it.

Most teams withdraw riders because they don't want the adverse publicity or because they feel the rider is under pressure due to the case not because of humility.

I've got no problem with Tinkoff entering Kreuziger in a race - it's up to the UCI to suspend riders not the team or the rider themselves. If the evidence is there then charge him, if it isn't there (yet) then let him continue racing.

I think the problem is that the Passport can only flag up "Anomalies" in an athletes values, It is not an indicator of a positive for doping. If the anomaly can be explained, beyond reasonable boubt, given that the anomaly from the norm is slight, it can be overlooked. If the athlete had been ill at the time or altitude training or severely dehydrated etc, then there is room for discussion.
It is imperfect, but It is a step in the right direction as It may still flag up the results of doping when the products have been flushed from the system. Traditional dope testing can only find PEDs still in the system, they are also no good for blood transfusion detection whereas the Bio Passport system can show blood values have changed.

Either the biopassport is evidence of doping or it isn't. Sure it's a different kind of evidence to finding the dope in the system, it's one step removed from that, but it still has to be "an indicator of a positive for doping" otherwise it can't be used as a basis to suspend/ban people.

Also surely it's not up to the rider to explain their blood values "beyond reasonable doubt" it's up to the uci to show why they can't be explained beyond reasonable doubt - your post implies the burden of proof being on the accused.

As I said, It is and it isnt. It is evidence that the athletes blood values are out of kilter with there normal values, It is not "evidence" of doping. Unless the PEDs are still in the system the passport can only show anomailes indicating the possible "effects" of doping. If a slight anomaly cant be explained to the satisfaction of the UCI, or the values are way off normal, then it is evidence of doping.
Would the JTL case prove that?

DeVlaeminck

That just restates an error you made previously - evidence needn't be conclusive proof - of course a biopassport can be evidence of doping why else do you think they have them?

mike6

DeVlaeminck wrote:

That just restates an error you made previously - evidence needn't be conclusive proof - of course a biopassport can be evidence of doping why else do you think they have them?

If you read my post that is what I said. In certain circumstances it flags up the increased fitness, and changes in blood values, gained from doping, but usualy not the PED in question. Thats why they have the passport, It shows up the "Effects" of doping even after the PEDs are out of the system. A routine dope test would miss that.
Some were asking what the point of the Bio Passport was.

frenchfighter

Oleg talks about suing the UCI:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/exc ... th-the-uci

RichN95.

frenchfighter wrote:

Oleg talks about suing the UCI:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/exc ... th-the-uci

Oleg asking why the UCI is needed while simultaneously showing why the UCI is needed.

Pross

Oleg seems confused here. He wants to sue the UCI for failing to inform him of irregularities and yet he is apparently keen for his rider to appeal so that he can ride in the Vuelta. So is he basically saying he accepts there are irregularities but he doesn't give a toss and will let his rider race if at all possible? Maybe it's not confusion thinking about it, maybe he is just failing to hide the fact doping is only a problem to him if he 'loses millions'.

mike6

Pross wrote:

Oleg seems confused here. He wants to sue the UCI for failing to inform him of irregularities and yet he is apparently keen for his rider to appeal so that he can ride in the Vuelta. So is he basically saying he accepts there are irregularities but he doesn't give a toss and will let his rider race if at all possible? Maybe it's not confusion thinking about it, maybe he is just failing to hide the fact doping is only a problem to him if he 'loses millions'.

Old Oleg is just another over inflated ego who thinks huge personal wealth means he should always get exactly what he wants, and everything should be done to please him, in any situation.

RideOnTime

frenchfighter wrote:

Nasal congestion I guess.

tailwindhome

iainf72 wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

It is basically three independent experts saying he is not guilty and some doping authorities saying he is.

You know that for a passport case to go ahead, 3 anti-doping experts need to agree independently?

From what I've heard, for the UCI to go ahead with these things they need to be pretty sure. I believe under McQuaid, Verbiest used to try and block the cases and Pat / Gripper had to push them through.

Via Inner Ring

Kreuziger’s non-expert advice?

Back to Tiernan-Locke’s case for a moment because he relied on the advice of Dr Kingsley Hampton for his “thirsty” hypotheis. The same doctor is part of Roman Kreuziger’s team. The Czech rider’s expedited case to ride the Vuelta is being heard in the next 24 hours. But a hearing over a possible athlete bio-passport violation is due and UKAD’s comments won’t be enjoyable reading for Kreuziger. As the excerpt above illustrates Dr Hampton’s credibility on the subject of the bio-passport gets skewered on page after page.

andyp

Was just about to post that. Given how his hypothesis is dismantled piece by piece in the UKAD reasoned decision, it doesn't bode well for Kreuziger if Dr Hampton is his main expert.

RichN95.

Kreuziger's appeal to CAS has failed so the temporary suspension remains. Ill thought out Russian tweets to follow.