October 21, 2014 Login  


Kreuziger,Tinkoff-Saxo, UCI and Cookson
Last Post 08/10/2014 03:43 PM by Orange Crush. 2 Replies.
Printer Friendly
Sort:
PrevPrev NextNext
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
79pmooney

Posts:1156

--
08/05/2014 12:19 PM
A mess!  This looks a lot like UCI/McQuaid of old.  I hope Cookson can pull his head out, admit he has been heavy handed, that a clear uniform standard needs to be in place and put good people in charge to make it happen.

T-S hires Kreuziger early 2013, knowing of his alleged involvement with Dr. Ferrari in 2006-7 but not of the irregularities in his biopassport 2011 and '12.  They learned of that June 2013.  (Wikipedia)  This May it came up again and T-S benched him for the Tour. Now UCI wants to provisionally suspend him citing Rule 242, "…the Anti-Doping Commission or one of its members may ban the Rider from participating in Events for such time that the violation, in the opinion of the Anti-Doping Commission or such member, is likely to affect the Rider’s results." (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kreuziger-to-appeal-to-cas-after-uci-biological-passport-suspension)

"... for such time that the violation ... is likely to affect the Rider’s results."  Huh?  So UCI is claiming that the abnormalities detected two and three years ago are affecting today's results?  And because of this, T-S is supposed to sit him down?  Do they pay him?  Can they not pay a rider under contract who is not formally penalized?  Sounds to me like UCI is changing the rules mid-stream and that T-S has a real case to take to civil court.  I suspect T-S would win easily.

I don't blame Mr Tinkoff one bit for being upset.  And I believe UCI is going to find out quickly they upset the wrong man.  Hopefully this will all work out for the good, but it is making Brian Cookson look bad and probably doing real harm to his efforts to overhaul UCI.

This is not really about whether Kreuziger drugged.  It is about UCI knowing about these passport "abnormalities" that did not actually cross UCI's own line but not giving T-S the information it needed to make sound business decisions.  This appears to be UCI making closed door judgement calls, then arbitrary rulings based on those calls that affect a rider, a team, sponsors and the sport.  I feel like I've heard this before.

Ben
ChinookPass

Posts:463

--
08/05/2014 02:15 PM
seems to me, if you are going to dope, you ought to just find another line of work. Hard to be surprised that the governing body would make it hard for you to race after that.

Not saying there aren't huge inconsistencies in the UCIs treatment of various riders...
Orange Crush

Posts:1202

--
08/10/2014 03:43 PM
I've always said that anti-doping is just as big a mess as doping itself. I guess that's why most sports just look the other way.
You are not authorized to post a reply.

Active Forums 4.1

Latest Forum Posts
"La Petite Reine" posted in The Dark Side

Rear wheel dish ? posted in Gear Advice


Rear D cable housing posted in Gear Advice

Ben, how tall are ya? posted in Gear Advice

Good for Quintana (UNICEF) posted in The Coffee Shop


No articles match criteria.
  Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy  Copyright 2008-2013 by VeloNation LLC