December 17, 2017 Login  


2 years too late (Roman Kreuziger)
Last Post 10/23/2014 02:10 PM by Orange Crush. 1 Replies.
Printer Friendly
Sort:
PrevPrev NextNext
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
79pmooney

Posts:1759

--
10/23/2014 01:28 PM
UCI is taking WAY TOO LONG with the Roman Kreuziger case and Tinkoff-Saxo has every right to be pissed.  Kreuziger showed abnormal passport results March and August of 2011, then again April 2012 and thru the 2012 Giro.  Seems that no mention of this was made.  T-S picked him up going into the 2013 season.  Why wasn't this settled or proceedings at least started?  From Velonews, June 2013, "UCI first notified Kreuziger in June 2013 that CAFD regarded his data as suspect, and he subsequently informed his team."

http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/06/news/tinkoff-saxo-sidelines-roman-kreuziger-pending-doping-inquiry_333747#ZAr5D9T5tZpXs7Va.99

Since then, T-S has used barely used
Kreuziger, while paying him the entire time I believe.

THis is wrong by UCI on several counts IMO.  One, teams should know if a rider they are interested in has something hanging over him.  There should be a background check system.  This should not be a public knowledge thing; I agree that secrecy should be kept re: unfinished drug cases, but a potential employer should be able to contact UCI and ask if so-and-so is clean and ready to race (and do it in an environment where another team cannot learn that so-and-so was being inquired about.  That requires a trusted employee at UCI with ethics.  I believe people who fit that bill still exist.

UCI should be able to do their business a lot faster.  Why was the Kreuziger case coming to light 13 months after the last shady passport?  I can see 3 months so they know all is in order, but 13?

And last: UCI should get that teams are a business.  Rider pay is real.  They need those riders they are paying to produce.  There needs to be some awareness at UCI that their decisions and even more, their lack of timely action, are costing these businesses for real.  Tinkoff can afford it.  A lot of teams cannot.  Bad for UCI but good for the sport on the whole (IMO) is that UCI stepped on Tinkoff's toes.  He will speak up!  And things will change, perhaps not entirely to UCI's liking!

Ben
Orange Crush

Posts:2017

--
10/23/2014 02:10 PM
This is a good discussion

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2014/09/biological-passport-what-can-teams-learn-from-the-tiernan-locke-case/

Passport evaluation in not done by UCI directly but by CADF which is supposedly independent so there is only so much UCI could or should do to put pressure on them, frustrating as timeline may be.

According to article, Saxo received Kreuzigers's passport from CADF when they considered giving him a contract (as is their right) but either the anomalies weren't clear enough or Saxo didn't look or want to look hard enough. The Tiernan-Locke case was almost parallel.
You are not authorized to post a reply.

Active Forums 4.1
NOT LICENSED FOR PRODUCTION USE
www.activemodules.com

Latest Forum Posts
Uh-oh....Froomey gets popped posted in The Dark Side

Is 2018 gonna be Porte's year? posted in Professional Racing

Another wow! (Geometry from years ago) posted in The Coffee Shop

2018 Goals - What you got? posted in The Coffee Shop

Training for gravity funny posted in The Coffee Shop

Zwift.... holy crap! posted in The Coffee Shop

Froome confirms to try The Double posted in Professional Racing

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