And now Max Iglinskiy done for EPO

joelsim

frenchfighter wrote:

Well honestly I find that reassuring.

That has made me laugh. Cheers ff. :P

Pokerface

frenchfighter wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Look, we can all read all the evidence from all the experts we like, but none of us really understand it. We may know a soundbite or two about rectics or whatever, but we don't know if they're accurate.

But we do know this. Biological passport cases that have gone to a full hearing have, ultimately, a 100% conviction rate. No-one has managed to discredit the passport at the level of evidence that is required to press these cases. It has been peer reviewed by many many people over the years.

Maybe Kreuziger will be the first to discover a failing. But I know where my money is.

Well the 100% success rate is not surprising is it? I mean it is their test and their expert's opinions, however impartial you think they are. Software flags the tests then three people look at the test results and if all agree the model says doping then it goes further. The rider says he is guilty or he spends a lot of time and money on appealing. The appeal has to essentially disprove the model's results and if no doping is concluded they are effective saying the three experts were wrong and the model is flawed. As you can imagine this is almost never going to happen is it? Think about it for a little while. I just cannot see that scenario happening which is why stating that 100% of bio passport cases have resulted in convictions, so for any further cases raised I am going to say the rider is categorically a doper, is simply not a reliable way of thinking in my view.

A couple of things:
The 'system' flags up suspicious results. These are then reviewed. If the reviewer warrants it, it gets reviewed by a second expert. If they both agree, it goes to a third. If all 3 agree - then a case begins.

The case is presented to the rider - who can then respond with their own experts. If the UCI agree with the Rider's experts, the case is dropped. If not, it progresses again. We are not told about the cases that do not progress, so there may actually be instances where the UCI has agreed with the expert of the Rider.

Furthermore, the Rider is not trying to disprove the 'model' or prove the system is flawed - they simply have to show convincing evidence that can explain their suspect values.


And when I spoke of the expert opinions in the matter that say Roman K is guilty - these are the experts acting on behalf of the UCI. I can't say who they are specifically in this case. But I'm not just referring to Twitter 'experts'.

joelsim

Pokerface wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Look, we can all read all the evidence from all the experts we like, but none of us really understand it. We may know a soundbite or two about rectics or whatever, but we don't know if they're accurate.

But we do know this. Biological passport cases that have gone to a full hearing have, ultimately, a 100% conviction rate. No-one has managed to discredit the passport at the level of evidence that is required to press these cases. It has been peer reviewed by many many people over the years.

Maybe Kreuziger will be the first to discover a failing. But I know where my money is.

Well the 100% success rate is not surprising is it? I mean it is their test and their expert's opinions, however impartial you think they are. Software flags the tests then three people look at the test results and if all agree the model says doping then it goes further. The rider says he is guilty or he spends a lot of time and money on appealing. The appeal has to essentially disprove the model's results and if no doping is concluded they are effective saying the three experts were wrong and the model is flawed. As you can imagine this is almost never going to happen is it? Think about it for a little while. I just cannot see that scenario happening which is why stating that 100% of bio passport cases have resulted in convictions, so for any further cases raised I am going to say the rider is categorically a doper, is simply not a reliable way of thinking in my view.

A couple of things:
The 'system' flags up suspicious results. These are then reviewed. If the reviewer warrants it, it gets reviewed by a second expert. If they both agree, it goes to a third. If all 3 agree - then a case begins.

The case is presented to the rider - who can then respond with their own experts. If the UCI agree with the Rider's experts, the case is dropped. If not, it progresses again. We are not told about the cases that do not progress, so there may actually be instances where the UCI has agreed with the expert of the Rider.

Furthermore, the Rider is not trying to disprove the 'model' or prove the system is flawed - they simply have to show convincing evidence that can explain their suspect values.


And when I spoke of the expert opinions in the matter that say Roman K is guilty - these are the experts acting on behalf of the UCI. I can't say who they are specifically in this case. But I'm not just referring to Twitter 'experts'.

Let's tell ff the truth. The panel of experts consists of me, deejay and Edmund Blackadder.

frenchfighter

Pokerface wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Look, we can all read all the evidence from all the experts we like, but none of us really understand it. We may know a soundbite or two about rectics or whatever, but we don't know if they're accurate.

But we do know this. Biological passport cases that have gone to a full hearing have, ultimately, a 100% conviction rate. No-one has managed to discredit the passport at the level of evidence that is required to press these cases. It has been peer reviewed by many many people over the years.

Maybe Kreuziger will be the first to discover a failing. But I know where my money is.

Well the 100% success rate is not surprising is it? I mean it is their test and their expert's opinions, however impartial you think they are. Software flags the tests then three people look at the test results and if all agree the model says doping then it goes further. The rider says he is guilty or he spends a lot of time and money on appealing. The appeal has to essentially disprove the model's results and if no doping is concluded they are effective saying the three experts were wrong and the model is flawed. As you can imagine this is almost never going to happen is it? Think about it for a little while. I just cannot see that scenario happening which is why stating that 100% of bio passport cases have resulted in convictions, so for any further cases raised I am going to say the rider is categorically a doper, is simply not a reliable way of thinking in my view.

A couple of things:
The 'system' flags up suspicious results. These are then reviewed. If the reviewer warrants it, it gets reviewed by a second expert. If they both agree, it goes to a third. If all 3 agree - then a case begins.

The case is presented to the rider - who can then respond with their own experts. If the UCI agree with the Rider's experts, the case is dropped. If not, it progresses again. We are not told about the cases that do not progress, so there may actually be instances where the UCI has agreed with the expert of the Rider.

Furthermore, the Rider is not trying to disprove the 'model' or prove the system is flawed - they simply have to show convincing evidence that can explain their suspect values.


And when I spoke of the expert opinions in the matter that say Roman K is guilty - these are the experts acting on behalf of the UCI. I can't say who they are specifically in this case. But I'm not just referring to Twitter 'experts'.

You are basically repeating what I have said...

System, 1/2/3 experts, defence, conviction. 100% of all cases we have heard about have resulted in convictions hence why everyone says the rider in any new case is guilty.

Not explicitly but effectively that is what they are doing isn't it. If they 'show convincing evidence that can explain their suspect values' then this is saying the experts were not 'expert' enough and the model should be adapted to account for this flaw, thus preventing other riders going through the grinder unnecessarily.

This is highly likely to happen openly (admit that the defendant has shown convincing evidence) because otherwise it casts a shadow on their program and sets a precedent. They just cannot lose these cases. I will happily be proven wrong in this case though.

A couple of questions I have already asked you:
do his performances since he was beating the best of them in his teens to the present day (where he has achieved his best result - 5th in Tour working as semi-leader) look doped to you?
what is the main reasoning these uci experts are giving that you have absolute faith in?

joelsim

When compared with other known dopers?

The main reason is that even to an untrained eye those values are stupidly suspicious.

joelsim

On a typical doping thread the majority on here hammer me for lack of evidence. Not this one.

Even the most optimistic people have seen the figures and thought 'Ah'.

Pokerface

frenchfighter wrote:

You are basically repeating what I have said...

System, 1/2/3 experts, defence, conviction. 100% of all cases we have heard about have resulted in convictions hence why everyone says the rider in any new case is guilty.

Not explicitly but effectively that is what they are doing isn't it. If they 'show convincing evidence that can explain their suspect values' then this is saying the experts were not 'expert' enough and the model should be adapted to account for this flaw, thus preventing other riders going through the grinder unnecessarily.

This is highly likely to happen openly (admit that the defendant has shown convincing evidence) because otherwise it casts a shadow on their program and sets a precedent. They just cannot lose these cases. I will happily be proven wrong in this case though.

A couple of questions I have already asked you:
do his performances since he was beating the best of them in his teens to the present day (where he has achieved his best result - 5th in Tour working as semi-leader) look doped to you?
what is the main reasoning these uci experts are giving that you have absolute faith in?

You keep talking about the 'model' and the 'system' as if it's some brainless automaton. It's not. It's human beings analysing data, AFTER it's been flagged up.

Not all flagged up data leads to a Passport case. Not all Passport cases proceed to bans. The ones that do - so far have all been upheld. Why? Well, probably because the riders were guilty.

You're coming across all very tinfoil hat if you think the UCI will push through cases, and that CAS will uphold them just because they are afraid of losing and having a weakness in their system be revealed.


As to you other questions - you DO realise that all sorts of riders dope at various parts of their careers and that it's not always GC contenders, right? And that a good rider might dope because he wants to be better, or he might dope after a bad year to improve. Mediocre riders dope to stay in the Pro ranks. Bad riders dope to get into the Pro ranks.

It is inconceivable to think he was clean when he was younger and started doping later on? Or even that he has doped all the way through? Do you not know of other riders that doped throughout their careers without getting caught? Or only caught late on?

And are results the only yardstick by which you assess the likelihood of a rider having doped?

Lastly - you ask what reasoning the UCI experts have given that I have faith in? It's not so much their reasoning as the fact they say they don't buy Roman K's excuses. You read the 'evidence' supporting his side and choose to believe in his innocence. I simply believe in the UCI's disbelief - and that is good enough for me. It's a fundamental difference of opinion.

Maybe it's because in some small way I have to abide by the anti-doping regulations myself - that I have faith in the system to not only catch cheats, but protect the innocent (like myself) from being mistakenly convicted.

Most importantly, I believe in CAS. If they review all the evidence from both sides and still think Roman K is guilty, then he is, without a doubt in my mind, guilty. It should be the same for you, unless you also want to question the integrity of the highest court in sport?

jerry3571

Sorry if this has already been pointed out.
Just seen this on the BBC about systematic doping by Russian athletes and so this may mean the Italian/ Eastern European divide at Astana may exist?? Not saying the Italians aren't doping, god forbid, but they might have a smarter doping system where they are not getting caught. The Eastern Europeans may be getting advice from the old doctors from their past where older practices are common but are more easily flagged up by the Doping Controls (vampires )
I thought a bigger rider like Iglinsky would have a better Doc who would have been a bit smarter about doping.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/30324812

frenchfighter

Joelsim wrote:

On a typical doping thread the majority on here hammer me for lack of evidence. Not this one.

Even the most optimistic people have seen the figures and thought 'Ah'.

What are they?

How do they compare to Hesjedals to take one person?

Joelsim wrote:

When compared with other known dopers?

The main reason is that even to an untrained eye those values are stupidly suspicious.

Do you get scared by big numbers and colourful graphs?

frenchfighter

Pokerface wrote:

You keep talking about the 'model' and the 'system' as if it's some brainless automaton. It's not. It's human beings analysing data, AFTER it's been flagged up.

Not all flagged up data leads to a Passport case. Not all Passport cases proceed to bans. The ones that do - so far have all been upheld. Why? Well, probably because the riders were guilty.

You're coming across all very tinfoil hat if you think the UCI will push through cases, and that CAS will uphold them just because they are afraid of losing and having a weakness in their system be revealed.


As to you other questions - you DO realise that all sorts of riders dope at various parts of their careers and that it's not always GC contenders, right? And that a good rider might dope because he wants to be better, or he might dope after a bad year to improve. Mediocre riders dope to stay in the Pro ranks. Bad riders dope to get into the Pro ranks.

It is inconceivable to think he was clean when he was younger and started doping later on? Or even that he has doped all the way through? Do you not know of other riders that doped throughout their careers without getting caught? Or only caught late on?

And are results the only yardstick by which you assess the likelihood of a rider having doped?

Lastly - you ask what reasoning the UCI experts have given that I have faith in? It's not so much their reasoning as the fact they say they don't buy Roman K's excuses. You read the 'evidence' supporting his side and choose to believe in his innocence. I simply believe in the UCI's disbelief - and that is good enough for me. It's a fundamental difference of opinion.

Maybe it's because in some small way I have to abide by the anti-doping regulations myself - that I have faith in the system to not only catch cheats, but protect the innocent (like myself) from being mistakenly convicted.

Most importantly, I believe in CAS. If they review all the evidence from both sides and still think Roman K is guilty, then he is, without a doubt in my mind, guilty. It should be the same for you, unless you also want to question the integrity of the highest court in sport?

No. I said there are three experts (humans) that look at the data after it is flagged by the model. Of course action taken against a rider which is not upheld is showing that the experts were wrong in this case and the model should be adjusted. With regard them blindly sticking by their experts, well I don't think this is completely the case yet bear in mind that it is simply a matter of opinion as it is due to interpretation. Therefore they could easily disagree with any defence prosecution without anyone being too fussed.

Tinfoil. Not me I'm afraid.

Yes I realise many situations are possible with dope. I do however, forgive me if I am being overly naive here :roll: , think that it is highly unlikely someone from Kreuziger's background would have been doping (we are talking serious blood transfusions here) since we was a teenager. Nothing in his performances suggest of someone who has doped and given the amount of money in his family it is not like he needs to dope to simply get a wage (ie/. not doping to be best in the World). He also came 5th in the hardest race in the World, against seriously tough competition, whilst not being outright leader...ie/. a better performance by FAR than any other GT he has raced in yet his values for that race are not under question.

I understand your point with regard sticking with the UCi experts and have little against it.

Absolutely I would question anyone and any organisation and the higher up they are the more my questioning would be apparent. Power can easily corrupt and people are human whatever their position in life.

sherer

jerry3571 wrote:

Sorry if this has already been pointed out.
Just seen this on the BBC about systematic doping by Russian athletes and so this may mean the Italian/ Eastern European divide at Astana may exist?? Not saying the Italians aren't doping, god forbid, but they might have a smarter doping system where they are not getting caught. The Eastern Europeans may be getting advice from the old doctors from their past where older practices are common but are more easily flagged up by the Doping Controls (vampires )
I thought a bigger rider like Iglinsky would have a better Doc who would have been a bit smarter about doping.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/30324812

Russian isn't in Eastern Europe, in fact most of what people refer to as Eastern Europe is actually Central Europe.

I said before this is two teams in one and Nibbles said the same thing too, yes one side my be doping but that doesn't mean any of the Italians are.

Both sides make a compelling argument, not sure how unbiased the UCI experts are, have they ever argued against banning a rider ?

The only independent people the process are CAS.

What did the Czechs let Roman off ?

dish_dash

sherer wrote:

Russia isn't in Eastern Europe

Not all maybe, but a good chunk of it is!

blazing_saddles

You all do realise that all this is just FF laying the groundwork for ignoring the
sanction confirmation when it comes?
Totally consistent with the stance he took on Bertie's clenbuterol bust and
Piti's Puerto bag.

joelsim

Blazing Saddles wrote:

You all do realise that all this is just FF laying the groundwork for ignoring the
sanction confirmation when it comes?
Totally consistent with the stance he took on Bertie's clenbuterol bust and
Piti's Puerto bag.

Aye, but he's only fooling himself.

joelsim

Froome's personal doctor, Bermon, allegedly one of those bribed by the Russians.

andrewjoseph

Am I correct in thinking that RK only made known his 'thyroid problem ' after all this started? He hadn't informed UCI or even team doctors?

I'm sure I've read he stated they didn't take his illness and treatment into account because he hadn't told them.

If so, why keep it secret from people who need to know?

bompington

The honourable tradition of the backdated TUE, of course...

joelsim

To be fair to Roman, none of us have seen his passport values when he was training with Ferrari for a year.

frenchfighter

andrewjoseph wrote:

Am I correct in thinking that RK only made known his 'thyroid problem ' after all this started? He hadn't informed UCI or even team doctors?

I'm sure I've read he stated they didn't take his illness and treatment into account because he hadn't told them.

If so, why keep it secret from people who need to know?

It is not a secret. It is not something he need to 'declare'. He has since made it crystal clear in his appeal along with supporting documentation and we shall see whether the doping authorities appreciate this as just cause for explaining his values.

Point 1.:
http://kreuziger.a1.esports.cz/wp-conte ... letter.pdf

joelsim

frenchfighter wrote:

andrewjoseph wrote:

Am I correct in thinking that RK only made known his 'thyroid problem ' after all this started? He hadn't informed UCI or even team doctors?

I'm sure I've read he stated they didn't take his illness and treatment into account because he hadn't told them.

If so, why keep it secret from people who need to know?

It is not a secret. It is not something he need to 'declare'. He has since made it crystal clear in his appeal along with supporting documentation and we shall see whether the doping authorities appreciate this as just cause for explaining his values.

Point 1.:
http://kreuziger.a1.esports.cz/wp-conte ... letter.pdf

You would have thought that if his medication had the capacity to increase his Hct level from 43 to 48 in the last week of a GT then it would have been pertinent to mention it to the authorities at some point. I wonder whether the L-Thyroxine was administered at the same time as the blood bag.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like his reticulocite levels are only elevated during the racing season. Does he not have acute thyroid problems when he is not racing?

andrewjoseph

frenchfighter wrote:

andrewjoseph wrote:

Am I correct in thinking that RK only made known his 'thyroid problem ' after all this started? He hadn't informed UCI or even team doctors?

I'm sure I've read he stated they didn't take his illness and treatment into account because he hadn't told them.

If so, why keep it secret from people who need to know?

It is not a secret. It is not something he need to 'declare'. He has since made it crystal clear in his appeal along with supporting documentation and we shall see whether the doping authorities appreciate this as just cause for explaining his values.

Point 1.:
http://kreuziger.a1.esports.cz/wp-conte ... letter.pdf

So you knew some time ago he had this problem? The journalists all knew? The UCI knew? And, as has been mentioned, he was required to sign a declaration about meds several times a year! Meds that influence blood values.

UCI: 'Roman your blood values look odd, why is that? '
RK: 'I take meds for my thyroid problem '
UCI: 'but that's news to us! '
RK: 'yeah, had it for years and I didn't think I needed to mention it because the meds are not illegal '
UCI: 'but we still need to know! '
RK: 'well I'm telling you now '

If the meds have the potential to alter blood values, don't you think it was in his best interests to tell people at the start?

It's just an excuse for his doping.

frenchfighter

Why would he know how his medication alters his blood values?

disgruntledgoat

frenchfighter wrote:

Why would he know how his medication alters his blood values?

Because manufacturers generally list a series of potential side effects which you'd think a professional athlete, working under strict liability, would check out. Also, you'd imagine he'd familiarise himself with the active ingredients if he's going to be taking it on a long term basis.

andrewjoseph

frenchfighter wrote:

Why would he know how his medication alters his blood values?

Are you really that innocent, or just blinded by riders with panache?

For his job, his responsibility, his reputation!

He could have asked his team doctors, but apparently didn't, but you'd think his endocrinologist would have mentioned it.

frenchfighter

Who knows, people are human. Not that it matters anyway other than stopping him going through this grinder if the authorities eventually clear him based on this reason.

joelsim

frenchfighter wrote:

Who knows, people are human. Not that it matters anyway other than stopping him going through this grinder if the authorities eventually clear him based on this reason.

You're deluded. He is toast for at least 2 years.

Wonder whether he asked Michele about the effects of the other drugs he was taking. Sorry my mistake, he hadn't heard that Ferrari had been banned 5 years prior to when he trained with him, nor that he had a reputation of any description. It had passed him by as you would expect.

frenchfighter

Alright I've had enough of your one-eyed ramblings. You are now on temporary block so I don't have to waste my time reading your comments on this subject.

The_Boy

frenchfighter wrote:

Alright I've had enough of your one-eyed ramblings. .

It also does irony.

joelsim

More trouble for those good folks of Astana including the Italian contingent and some who have moved on

http://www.gazzetta.it/Ciclismo/06-12-2 ... 8040.shtml

blazing_saddles

Joelsim wrote:

More trouble for those good folks of Astana including the Italian contingent and some who have moved on

http://www.gazzetta.it/Ciclismo/06-12-2 ... 8040.shtml

If Aru gets popped, FF with have more bullets to dodge.
Another one of his panache filled favourites.