# Team Astana - Valentin Iglinskiy, EPO



## jmorgan

*Team Astana - Valentin and Maxim Iglinskiy, EPO*

Who still does EPO??? What an idiot. Also could explain Astana's Tour dominance (I mean it was super suspicious then) and this certainly doesn't help reinforce the team (lead by a known doper) or even cycling is truly clean yet. If he felt he needed to dope during the Eneco Tour im sure his older brother Maxim (who rode the TdF) doped also, just didn't get caught. 


UCI Statement on Valentin Iglinskiy



> UCI Statement on Valentin Iglinskiy
> 10 September 2014
> The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) announces that it has notified *Kazakh rider Valentin Iglinskiy* for an Adverse Analytical Finding of *EPO* in a sample collected in the scope of the *2014 Eneco Tour on 11 August 2014*.
> 
> The rider has the right to request and attend the analysis of the B sample.
> 
> In accordance with UCI Anti-doping Rules, the rider has been provisionally suspended until the adjudication of the affair.
> 
> At this stage of the procedure, the UCI will not comment any further.


----------



## jmorgan

Of course Astana denies helping him. But says he admitted to using PEDs.

Valentin Iglinskiy ? official statement | astana pro team


----------



## 55x11

jmorgan said:


> Who still does EPO??? What an idiot. Also could explain Astana's Tour dominance (I mean it was super suspicious then) and this certainly doesn't help reinforce the team (lead by a known doper) or even cycling is truly clean yet. If he felt he needed to dope during the Eneco Tour im sure his older brother Maxim (who rode the TdF) doped also, just didn't get caught.
> 
> UCI Statement on Valentin Iglinskiy


Does Tiernan-Locke's positive explain the Team Sky dominance in 2011-2013 period?
Does Ballan positive explain Cadel Evan's Tour win in 2011?
Does Kreuziger positive explain Contador or Majka performances?

I agree with you to some extent, but the idea that the teams are still actively involved in underground team-sponsored across-the-board doping of ALL of their athletes in the current climate is a bit ridiculous, don't you think?


----------



## den bakker

55x11 said:


> Does Tiernan-Locke's positive explain the Team Sky dominance in 2011-2013 period?
> Does Ballan positive explain Cadel Evan's Tour win in 2011?
> Does Kreuziger positive explain Contador or Majka performances?
> 
> I agree with you to some extent, but the idea that the teams are still actively involved in underground team-sponsored across-the-board doping of ALL of their athletes in the current climate is a bit ridiculous, don't you think?


well none of the three tested positive but that aside: 
TL did not ride on sky when his blood passport got him busted.


----------



## jmorgan

55x11 said:


> Does Tiernan-Locke's positive explain the Team Sky dominance in 2011-2013 period?
> Does Ballan positive explain Cadel Evan's Tour win in 2011?
> Does Kreuziger positive explain Contador or Majka performances?
> 
> I agree with you to some extent, but the idea that the teams are still actively involved in underground team-sponsored across-the-board doping of ALL of their athletes in the current climate is a bit ridiculous, don't you think?


Tiernan-Locke's abnormal bio passport values were from prior to him joining Team Sky.


I don't think it is always a team conspiracy, anyone can do anything they want to their bodies without the team knowing. But when the Manager of Team Astana was caught blood doping in 2007, while riding for Astana and now another rider gets popped for EPO, you have to wonder. The team in general has an issue and is not actively seeking to clean up the team or the sport. Negligence should not be an excuse. Every team should police their team or suffer the consequences when someone on the team tests positive.


----------



## spade2you

There. We got the doper. The rest of cycling is now clean.


----------



## 9W9W

spade2you said:


> There. We got the doper. The rest of cycling is now clean.


Whew! $hit. good catch... that one almost slipped through and ruined it for the rest of them.


----------



## Fignon's Barber

jmorgan said:


> Who still does EPO??? What an idiot.....
> 
> 
> UCI Statement on Valentin Iglinskiy


Don't you mean, "Who still gets CAUGHT doing EPO." Blood transfusions, when conducted properly and professionally, can still get past the doping controls.


----------



## jmorgan

Fignon's Barber said:


> Don't you mean, "Who still gets CAUGHT doing EPO." Blood transfusions, when conducted properly and professionally, can still get past the doping controls.


Exactly what I meant.

Just read Tyler Hamilton's book and it tells you just about everything you need to know to get away with it. 


Iglinskiy went to the Eneco Tour (7 day tour) glowing, and finished 96th, amature.


----------



## spade2you

A big name rider hasn't been nailed in quite a while. Perhaps punishing Armstrong further will help clean up cycling and distract us from what's going on under our noses.


----------



## sir duke

spade2you said:


> A big name rider hasn't been nailed in quite a while. Perhaps punishing Armstrong further will help clean up cycling and distract us from what's going on under our noses.


Nah, he's suffered enough, there's gotta be a Frenchman somewhere taking the wrong kind of aspirin, let's nail him. 
Martyrdom...never gets old does it? :cryin:


----------



## den bakker

sir duke said:


> Nah, he's suffered enough, there's gotta be a Frenchman somewhere taking the wrong kind of aspirin, let's nail him.
> Martyrdom...never gets old does it? :cryin:


when all you have is a hammer.


----------



## spade2you

den bakker said:


> when all you have is a hammer.


Really classy.


----------



## DrSmile

I thought it was accepted that EPO micro-dosing is undetectable and that's the way everyone does it now. How much micro-dosing do you have to do to come up positive? Or is this a timing problem where the controls showed up right after he micro-dosed?


----------



## den bakker

spade2you said:


> Really classy.


thanks for proving the point.


----------



## spade2you

den bakker said:


> thanks for proving the point.


That you can pull this crap and others can't?


----------



## den bakker

spade2you said:


> That you can pull this crap and others can't?


no really, you don't have to continue proving it. I think most got it now. but thanks.


----------



## Local Hero

I still don't get it. 

It feels like people started off personally neutral and arguing about a subject. Then they got mad at one another personally. Now they argue against each other personally without regard to the subject.


----------



## Coolhand

(Walk down the corridor)
M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
M: What?
A: That's it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I'm afraid it was.
M: It wasn't.
Pause
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
M: What?!
A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A: (Hums)
M: Look, this is ridiculous.
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Oh, all right.
(pays money)
A: Thank you.
short pause
M: Well?
A: Well what?
M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
M: I just paid!
A: No you didn't.
M: I DID!
A: No you didn't.
M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.
A: Well, you didn't pay.
M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
A: No you haven't.
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
M: Oh I've had enough of this.
A: No you haven't.
M: Oh Shut up.


----------



## sir duke

Coolhand said:


> (Walk down the corridor)
> M: (Knock)
> A: Come in.
> M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
> A: I told you once.
> M: No you haven't.
> A: Yes I have.
> M: When?
> A: Just now.
> M: No you didn't.
> A: Yes I did.
> M: You didn't
> A: I did!
> M: You didn't!
> A: I'm telling you I did!
> M: You did not!!
> A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
> M: Oh, just the five minutes.
> A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
> M: You most certainly did not.
> A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
> M: No you did not.
> A: Yes I did.
> M: No you didn't.
> A: Yes I did.
> M: No you didn't.
> A: Yes I did.
> M: No you didn't.
> A: Yes I did.
> M: You didn't.
> A: Did.
> M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
> A: Yes it is.
> M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
> A: No it isn't.
> M: It is!
> A: It is not.
> M: Look, you just contradicted me.
> A: I did not.
> M: Oh you did!!
> A: No, no, no.
> M: You did just then.
> A: Nonsense!
> M: Oh, this is futile!
> A: No it isn't.
> M: I came here for a good argument.
> A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
> M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
> A: It can be.
> M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
> A: No it isn't.
> M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
> A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
> M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
> A: Yes it is!
> M: No it isn't!A: Yes it is!
> M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
> (short pause)
> A: No it isn't.
> M: It is.
> A: Not at all.
> M: Now look.
> A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
> M: What?
> A: That's it. Good morning.
> M: I was just getting interested.
> A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
> M: That was never five minutes!
> A: I'm afraid it was.
> M: It wasn't.
> Pause
> A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
> M: What?!
> A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
> M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
> A: (Hums)
> M: Look, this is ridiculous.
> A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
> M: Oh, all right.
> (pays money)
> A: Thank you.
> short pause
> M: Well?
> A: Well what?
> M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
> A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
> M: I just paid!
> A: No you didn't.
> M: I DID!
> A: No you didn't.
> M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.
> A: Well, you didn't pay.
> M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
> A: No you haven't.
> M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
> A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
> M: Oh I've had enough of this.
> A: No you haven't.
> M: Oh Shut up.


On the internet, somewhere...


----------



## foto

sir duke said:


> On the internet, somewhere...


hmmm...somehow the transcript isn't quite as funny.


----------



## den bakker

EPO seems to be back.
Rabottini tests positive for EPO | Cyclingnews.com
makes one wonder if the detection threshold has changed a bit recently. 
if alone it could be a bad luck but combined with another case this year it seems unlikely. 


/this is a placeholder for the usual durhurs, no need to post them.


----------



## rufus

That sucks. I like he Neri Sottoli team, and Rabottini. and had hoped that the diLuca and santambrogio things were flukes, and they really were trying to race clean. Apparently not. 

As to the OP's question, I think pretty much everyone is still using EPO. Just the dosing methods have made it harder to detect.


----------



## atpjunkie

doping team (long list) under direction of former doping rider

tens shocked

so glad they cleaned the sport up


----------



## jmorgan

jmorgan said:


> Who still does EPO??? What an idiot. Also could explain Astana's Tour dominance (I mean it was super suspicious then) and this certainly doesn't help reinforce the team (lead by a known doper) or even cycling is truly clean yet. If he felt he needed to dope during the Eneco Tour* im sure his older brother Maxim (who rode the TdF) doped also*, just didn't get caught.
> 
> 
> UCI Statement on Valentin Iglinskiy



I called it. Maxim Iglinskiy tests positive for EPO.

Maxim Iglinskiy tests positive for EPO - VeloNews.com


----------



## deviousalex

DrSmile said:


> I thought it was accepted that EPO micro-dosing is undetectable and that's the way everyone does it now. How much micro-dosing do you have to do to come up positive? Or is this a timing problem where the controls showed up right after he micro-dosed?


From my understanding it's not un-detectable but your 'glow time' (i.e. the amount of time before you test negative) is much shorter. Also, it has to be injected into your veins and if you miss you'll increase your glow time.


----------



## Local Hero

jmorgan said:


> *I called it*. Maxim Iglinskiy tests positive for EPO.
> 
> Maxim Iglinskiy tests positive for EPO - VeloNews.com


Winner.


----------



## spade2you

Not so fast. The B sample could come back negative. At least Astana seems to think so.


----------



## DrSmile

spade2you said:


> Not so fast. The B sample could come back negative. At least Astana seems to think so.


What are the technicals of a sample coming up positive when it actually isn't? Is it just the specificity of the test or are there procedural differences for the B sample?


----------



## spade2you

DrSmile said:


> What are the technicals of a sample coming up positive when it actually isn't? Is it just the specificity of the test or are there procedural differences for the B sample?


T'was a joke.


----------



## DrSmile

spade2you said:


> T'was a joke.


I understand lol. But the B sample tests negative quite a bit and I'm trying to understand how that could be.


----------



## love4himies

DrSmile said:


> I understand lol. But the B sample tests negative quite a bit and I'm trying to understand how that could be.


Money mysteriously transferring hands.


----------



## den bakker

DrSmile said:


> I understand lol. But the B sample tests negative quite a bit and I'm trying to understand how that could be.


There was the Hamburger farce but what else?


----------



## DrSmile

den bakker said:


> There was the Hamburger farce but what else?


Off the top of my head Mayo and Santambrogio, but there were others.


----------



## deviousalex

DrSmile said:


> I understand lol. But the B sample tests negative quite a bit and I'm trying to understand how that could be.


The B sample can only be opened with the athlete present. This is supposed to prevent tampering with the sample. Two samples are taken when the test is performed and both are sealed in front of the athlete.

OTOH I'm not sure how this actually prevents tampering with the samples. What would stop someone from tampering with both the A & B and then putting a new seal on the B sample? Is there some sort of stub the athlete can retain that proves the seal on the B sample is part of the original seal?


----------



## den bakker

DrSmile said:


> Off the top of my head Mayo and Santambrogio, but there were others.


I hope so because that amounts to three over three decades. 
"quite a bit"? 
And Hamburgers was just a case of "try enough times and statistics is in your favour".
which seems to be the case for Santambrogio as well (it did show epo). close enough to the limit and this will happen, no magic, no corruption necessary.


----------



## DrSmile

den bakker said:


> I hope so because that amounts to three over three decades.
> "quite a bit"?
> And Hamburgers was just a case of "try enough times and statistics is in your favour".
> which seems to be the case for Santambrogio as well (it did show epo). close enough to the limit and this will happen, no magic, no corruption necessary.


If I can remember three there must be more. Cursory google searching also yields Marion Jones and cyclocross rider Vania Rossi. Both for EPO.


----------



## asgelle

deviousalex said:


> The B sample can only be opened with the athlete present.


That's not true (as is much of what follows).


----------



## den bakker

DrSmile said:


> If I can remember three there must be more. Cursory google searching also yields Marion Jones and cyclocross rider Vania Rossi. Both for EPO.


ok solid stuff as usual. again, how is a handful surprising?


----------



## DrSmile

I didn't say it was surprising. I was asking how / why it happens that often.


----------



## Local Hero

DrSmile said:


> What are the technicals of a sample coming up positive when it actually isn't? Is it just the specificity of the test or are there procedural differences for the B sample?


I've seen false positives in criminal defense. It is often caused by faulty, mis-calibrated, or unserviced equipment.


----------



## jmorgan

spade2you said:


> Not so fast. The B sample could come back negative. At least Astana seems to think so.



The real reason it is being contested is so that Astana (part of the MPCC) can race this weekend and the upcoming race that will have Nebali in Kazakhstan. So even if he knows he is positive they are doing this so the team can continue. Under MCPP if a team has 2 positives they have to suspend operations. If sample B is not tested in time its not a confirmed positive and they can still race. It would be nice to have the UCI or Tour impose some sanctions on the team for next year, would help deter doping when it affects the whole team (but this would make too much sense so it will never happen).


MPCC: Astana can continue racing until B sample confirms doping positive - VeloNews.com


----------



## BikeLayne

Team Astana should self suspend in spite of the B sample loophole rule. Just my opinion.


----------



## Local Hero

If the B sample comes up positive Astana should suspend but also call out all team that are participating and not current signatories of the voluntary anti-doping rules.


----------



## Alaska Mike

As Cookson pointed out, not lining up for a World Tour event could threaten their license, since UCI rules kinda trump MPCC rules. That said, they have ignored that one before (AG2R).

Let's be honest- they're struggling as it is to fill out the World Tour roster. I think strong words and maybe a fine will be all that Astana will face. It's not like a few years ago when there were eligible teams left out.


----------



## davidka

spade2you said:


> Not so fast. The B sample could come back negative. At least Astana seems to think so.


It was never going to come back negative. This was a stall to allow Astana to start Lombardia and Almata. Now Maxime had waived his B-sample test so that the "self suspended" Astana team is released from the expense and effort of participating in the otherwise required Tour of Beijing. 

If this chain of events doesn't cost Astana much more (World Tour level, fines, etc.) then it might turn out to be the most beneficial doping positive a team have ever been caught up with.


----------



## rydbyk

Until the punishment for doping is severe enough, this doping saga will NEVER end.

The punishment for both team and individual must be extreme. The team and sponsors must fear it enough to self regulate with genuine intent.

Also, on an individual level, the rider needs to know that they will be ruined/fined/never welcome back etc if ever caught doping.

Again, until this happens, not much will change imo.


----------



## atpjunkie

great stall. Ban us from the race we don't want to attend

so glad the sport is cleaned up


----------



## DrSmile

...and the UCI just announced that Astana WILL have a racing license for 2015. I wonder how much money changed hands... This is pretty disgusting.


----------



## atpjunkie

DrSmile said:


> ...and the UCI just announced that Astana WILL have a racing license for 2015. I wonder how much money changed hands... This is pretty disgusting.


nothing changes

and folks say there wasn't any scapegoating / sacrificial lambs


----------



## spade2you

atpjunkie said:


> nothing changes
> 
> and folks say there wasn't any scapegoating / sacrificial lambs


Silence, sympathizer!!!!!!!11


----------



## jmorgan

Here is what Astana is missing.

https://twitter.com/s_kruijswijk/status/520878499620716545

Seems like a bit of a reward self suspending.


----------



## thighmaster

55x11 said:


> Does Tiernan-Locke's positive explain the Team Sky dominance in 2011-2013 period?
> Does Ballan positive explain Cadel Evan's Tour win in 2011?
> Does Kreuziger positive explain Contador or Majka performances?
> 
> I agree with you to some extent, but the idea that the teams are still actively involved in underground team-sponsored across-the-board doping of ALL of their athletes in the current climate is a bit ridiculous, don't you think?


Across the board in secret doping is still the norm.


----------



## love4himies

And another Astana gets caught:

After third positive, UCI requests License Commission to review Astana WorldTour license - VeloNews.com



> “This follows the serious concerns raised by the fact that two Astana riders, Maxim and Valentin Iglinskiy recently tested positive for EPO and the notification this week that llya Davidenok has returned an Adverse Analytical Finding for anabolic androgenic steroids in a sample collected at the Tour de l’Avenir on 28th August 2014,” the statement reads.


----------



## spade2you

Times were different in 2014.


----------



## love4himies

spade2you said:


> Times were different in 2014.


You crack me up :lol:


----------



## Carverbiker

At this rate, Pretty soon LA will become a sympathetic figure in cycling! 😊


----------



## Wookiebiker

And another one caught ... From Velonews



> Victor Okishev, who rides for Astana’s reserve team, failed a test for steroids during the Asian championships last May and has been suspended.
> Read more at Fourth Astana rider turns in doping positive - VeloNews.com



Anybody even mildly surprised by this any longer?


----------



## LostViking

What a farce! 

Puts the point to the UCI now though doesn't it?

If they don't do something now, no one will take them seriously anymore.


----------



## spade2you

LostViking said:


> If they don't do something now, no one will take them seriously anymore.


Settle for banning Lance Armstrong from all running events?


----------



## mpre53

spade2you said:


> Settle for banning Lance Armstrong from all running events?


Pretty soon, he won't even be able to go for a casual swim in Lake Travis. :lol:


----------



## BikeLayne

Now Victor Okishev team Astana has tested positive for steriods. See cyclingnews.com.


----------



## atpjunkie

4 Astana riders total now

but wait, only Postal / Discovery had team wide doping


----------



## DrSmile

The first time I heard of team-wide doping was PDM, but Telekom and Festina are probably the best documented. If EPO was available before 1990 a lot of famous 80s cyclists would be discredited by now...

Also I'd like to point out that Nibali is sounding very Lance-ish right now calling his doping team mates idiots... If/when he gets popped I wonder if people will treat him with the same disdain?


----------



## mpre53

DrSmile said:


> The first time I heard of team-wide doping was PDM, but Telekom and Festina are probably the best documented. If EPO was available before 1990 a lot of famous 80s cyclists would be discredited by now...
> 
> Also I'd like to point out that Nibali is sounding very Lance-ish right now calling his doping team mates idiots... If/when he gets popped I wonder if people will treat him with the same disdain?


When he gets to "cinquecento negativo", run away.


----------



## atpjunkie

DrSmile said:


> The first time I heard of team-wide doping was PDM, but Telekom and Festina are probably the best documented. If EPO was available before 1990 a lot of famous 80s cyclists would be discredited by now...
> 
> Also I'd like to point out that Nibali is sounding very Lance-ish right now calling his doping team mates idiots... If/when he gets popped I wonder if people will treat him with the same disdain?


PDM = 7-8 riders doped in the 88 tour
The one that stands out in my memory was Gewiss @ Fleche Wallone
and TVM


----------



## spade2you

DrSmile said:


> The first time I heard of team-wide doping was PDM, but Telekom and Festina are probably the best documented. If EPO was available before 1990 a lot of famous 80s cyclists would be discredited by now...
> 
> Also I'd like to point out that Nibali is sounding very Lance-ish right now calling his doping team mates idiots... If/when he gets popped I wonder if people will treat him with the same disdain?


Just conspiracies from butt-hurt Lance fans?


----------



## Local Hero

spade2you said:


> Just conspiracies from butt-hurt Lance fans?


Leftover meme ...


----------



## BikeLayne




----------



## spade2you

Local Hero said:


> Leftover meme ...


----------



## DasBoost

Artur Fedosseyev tests positive for anabolic steroids. He rides for their Continental team. So that brings it too 5, with 2 of them on the Continental team and 1 on the reserve team.


----------



## Retro Grouch

Vino is probably wondering how Johan and Lance made doping look so easy


----------



## deviousalex

Retro Grouch said:


> Vino is probably wondering how Johan and Lance made doping look so easy


Vino needs to come out and say that Astana are being unfairly punished and are the scape goat for this whole generation of doping.


----------



## den bakker

Retro Grouch said:


> Vino is probably wondering how Johan and Lance made doping look so easy


they got away with it for quite a while no?


----------



## sir duke

den bakker said:


> they got away with it for quite a while no?


Did they learn nothing when Lance pulled on their lycra for his 'clean' comeback? On second thoughts looks like they learned plenty...:aureola:


----------



## AJL

sir duke said:


> Did they learn nothing when Lance pulled on their lycra for his 'clean' comeback? On second thoughts looks like they learned plenty...:aureola:


Yeah, seems like they did. Wonder why they are getting popped so much now?!


----------



## DasBoost

AJL said:


> Yeah, seems like they did. Wonder why they are getting popped so much now?!


This is what I was wondering; is it a case of the science catching up or are they just getting Keystone-Kops sloppy?


----------



## spade2you

Vino suspends the continental team. See? Problem solved. Nothing to see here.


----------



## DrSmile

Let's play Nostradamus... The UCI, when announcing the WorldTour teams in early December, will place Astana on a "provisionally approved" license that is contingent on there being no further cases. Their rationale will be that Astana has presented a strong case that these incidents were solitary and individual in nature and that Astana immediately fired these individuals upon discovering they had doped. They will somehow fabricate and cite legal guidelines that prohibits them from suspending a team without clear evidence of systematic doping and that the UCI could have been sued had they not issued the license to the team. Team Astana's bankroll will be slightly smaller and Brian Cookson will be seen driving around town in a spanky new Ferrari 458 with Kazakh plates.


----------



## love4himies

DrSmile said:


> Let's play Nostradamus... The UCI, when announcing the WorldTour teams in early December, will place Astana on a "provisionally approved" license that is contingent on there being no further cases. Their rationale will be that Astana has presented a strong case that these incidents were solitary and individual in nature and that Astana immediately fired these individuals upon discovering they had doped. They will somehow fabricate cite legal guidelines that prohibits them from suspending a team without clear evidence of systematic doping and that the UCI could have been sued had they not issued the license to the team. Team Astana's bankroll will be slightly smaller and Brian Cookson will be seen driving around town in a spanky new Ferrari 458 with Kazakh plates.


Nah, that sort of thing disappeared after Lance left the sport.


----------



## spade2you

Much better to just drink Nostradamus.


----------



## DasBoost

spade2you said:


> Vino suspends the continental team. See? Problem solved. Nothing to see here.


"Only 40% of the recent positives were on the World Tour team, so they got a stern talking to and some lectures; the Continental team though, oh boy, they're in time-out because they had more than half of the positives..."


----------



## AJL

spade2you said:


> Vino suspends the continental team. See? Problem solved. Nothing to see here.


Wow, and puts a nail in their own development system. Hope there are a lot of trackies looking to make the move to road when the time comes.


----------



## LostViking

Action taken?

UCI to refuse Astana WorldTour licence for 2015, according to reports - Cycling Weekly


----------



## love4himies

LostViking said:


> Action taken?
> 
> UCI to refuse Astana WorldTour licence for 2015, according to reports - Cycling Weekly


Although I feel for the clean riders on the team, I do hope it happens. There needs to be very clear message that doping won't be accepted in cycling anymore.


----------



## DasBoost

LostViking said:


> Action taken?
> 
> UCI to refuse Astana WorldTour licence for 2015, according to reports - Cycling Weekly





love4himies said:


> Although I feel for the clean riders on the team, I do hope it happens. There needs to be very clear message that doping won't be accepted in cycling anymore.


Saw an article on VN about Nibali being 'hung out to dry' and possibly unable to jump ship this late in the year as most budgets and rosters are finalized already. It will be interesting to see how this plays out if Astana doesn't get their license for 2015; is it possible that ASO and RCS could pressure the UCI into granting them their license so that Nibali could ride and defend his title or will they not make a lot of noise since there will be other big names at the races?


----------



## Local Hero

DasBoost said:


> Saw an article on VN about Nibali being 'hung out to dry' and possibly unable to jump ship this late in the year as most budgets and rosters are finalized already. It will be interesting to see how this plays out if Astana doesn't get their license for 2015; is it possible that ASO and RCS could pressure the UCI into granting them their license so that Nibali could ride and defend his title or will they not make a lot of noise since there will be other big names at the races?


What about team Airgas-Safeway?


----------



## DasBoost

Local Hero said:


> What about team Airgas-Safeway?


I was going to make a remark along the lines of Nibali jumping ship this late would be Horner-esque. :lol:


----------



## BikeLayne

Now there are more allegations that Ferrari was seen at the Astana training camp in Nov 2013. My source is Cyclingnews.com.


----------



## Local Hero

BikeLayne said:


> Now there are more allegations that Ferrari was seen at the Astana training camp in Nov 2013. My source is Cyclingnews.com.


It must have just been a coincidence. Ferrari was banned from cycling!


----------



## love4himies

Wonder what Astana's spin will be about this?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Gazzetta dello Sport says investigators have photos of Dr Ferrari's visit to Astana's Montecatini pre-season camp last year, h/t <a href="https://twitter.com/cyclingpro">@cyclingpro</a></p>— the Inner Ring (@inrng) <a href="https://twitter.com/inrng/status/541869612124889088">December 8, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


----------



## DrSmile

Local Hero said:


> It must have just been a coincidence. Ferrari was banned from cycling!


Lifetime bans are so 2 years ago.


----------



## mpre53

Local Hero said:


> It must have just been a coincidence. Ferrari was banned from cycling!


And all doping stopped in 2006. Nothing to see here, move along.


----------



## spade2you

Stupid/typical Nibali fanbois will say anything.....

You heard it HERE first. :thumbsup:


----------



## AJL

spade2you said:


> Stupid/typical Nibali fanbois will say anything.....
> 
> You heard it HERE first. :thumbsup:


I'm not a fan of Nibbles, but I think he deserves to defend his title - sadly, keeping Astana going just so he can is a non-starter.
On the other hand - it's not like Astana is the only team with cheats on it, but it does look like there was a somewhat systematic programme going on with the team.


----------



## spade2you

AJL said:


> I'm not a fan of Nibbles, but I think he deserves to defend his title - sadly, keeping Astana going just so he can is a non-starter.
> On the other hand - it's not like Astana is the only team with cheats on it, but it does look like there was a somewhat systematic programme going on with the team.


Contador had a similar problem with the Tour exclusion in '08. 

I'm neutral on most of the current era riders. This doesn't look good. We also gotta keep in mind that he used to ride with Basso and Pellizotti. He beat a Mosquera, who eventually came back positive. One of the guys on the podium of the Italian road championship came back positive. Starting to sound like the same poop on a different day.


----------



## r1lee

love4himies said:


> Although I feel for the *clean riders on the team*, I do hope it happens. There needs to be very clear message that doping won't be accepted in cycling anymore.


tell me you actually don't believe that.


----------



## deviousalex

mpre53 said:


> And all doping stopped in 2006. Nothing to see here, move along.


Is this going to be brought up in every single thread on this forum now? It's getting old.


----------



## spade2you

r1lee said:


> tell me you actually don't believe that.


There were clean riders on Festina....and don't you forget it!


----------



## love4himies

r1lee said:


> tell me you actually don't believe that.


Yes I do. I don't believe in a blanket "everybody is doping" just because a few dopers were caught on a team. 

Anywho, Ferrari has denied being at the camp.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Ferrari lashes out against reports of Astana meeting. <a href="http://t.co/qcATNhjMuh">http://t.co/qcATNhjMuh</a> <a href="http://t.co/kwVpZ6nFxU">pic.twitter.com/kwVpZ6nFxU</a></p>— VeloNews (@velonews) <a href="https://twitter.com/velonews/status/542033306649231361">December 8, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> Yes I do. I don't believe in a blanket "everybody is doping" just because a few dopers were caught on a team.
> 
> Anywho, Ferrari has denied being at the camp.
> 
> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Ferrari lashes out against reports of Astana meeting. <a href="http://t.co/qcATNhjMuh">http://t.co/qcATNhjMuh</a> <a href="http://t.co/kwVpZ6nFxU">pic.twitter.com/kwVpZ6nFxU</a></p>— VeloNews (@velonews) <a href="https://twitter.com/velonews/status/542033306649231361">December 8, 2014</a></blockquote>
> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


a few..... 
5 this year. 
contador
vinokourov
most likely Kreuziger. 

"No I'm not intoxicated officer, I only had a few beers".


----------



## AJL

spade2you said:


> Contador had a similar problem with the Tour exclusion in '08.
> 
> I'm neutral on most of the current era riders. This doesn't look good. We also gotta keep in mind that he used to ride with Basso and Pellizotti. He beat a Mosquera, who eventually came back positive. One of the guys on the podium of the Italian road championship came back positive. Starting to sound like the same poop on a different day.


Yeah, I don't think any of the current top riders are clean - actually, probably no where near clean, but, the show needs to go on. I want to watch bike racing so I have to put up with that fact, it's just like I do with american football.



r1lee said:


> tell me you actually don't believe that.


I believe there are clean riders today, and, even, that exceptional riders who are clean can win the smaller stage races since the top guys aren't going to risk doping to win those. I can't name names for for you - in the current climate it's hard to be 100% sure. The main advantage of the anti-doping programmes is that the risk and cost of doping has likely gone up - which places a limit on those who can afford any real 'game changing' level of doping.


----------



## spade2you

N


AJL said:


> Yeah, I don't think any of the current top riders are clean - actually, probably no where near clean, but, the show needs to go on. I want to watch bike racing so I have to put up with that fact, it's just like I do with american football.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe there are clean riders today, and, even, that exceptional riders who are clean can win the smaller stage races since the top guys aren't going to risk doping to win those. I can't name names for for you - in the current climate it's hard to be 100% sure. The main advantage of the anti-doping programmes is that the risk and cost of doping has likely gone up - which places a limit on those who can afford any real 'game changing' level of doping.


I'll still continue to watch for my own entertainment. It's generally nothing more than base miles scenery any more. I should feel guilty that I'm in the middle of the Big Mig years, but not even remotely my fault. 

As for today's allegations, how many GTs has Astana won? We're not talking Banesto or Postal/Discovery dominance, but pretty dang dominant compared to other teams.


----------



## r1lee

spade2you said:


> N
> 
> I'll still continue to watch for my own entertainment. It's generally nothing more than base miles scenery any more. I should feel guilty that I'm in the middle of the Big Mig years, but not even remotely my fault.
> 
> As for today's allegations, how many GTs has Astana won? We're not talking Banesto or Postal/Discovery dominance, but pretty dang dominant compared to other teams.


Also the fact that Nibali dropped many of them on a lot of stages at the tour. Also winning the cobble stage. Seems unbelievable, most of the time of it's unbelievable it usually is.


----------



## BacDoc

Unbelievable performances if you think any of the top riders are "Full Natty".

But the riders are clean now, why would they lie?


----------



## Coolhand

"famous waffles"?


----------



## den bakker

Coolhand said:


> "famous waffles"?


yes the city is known for almond waffles.


----------



## BikeLayne

Check out cyclingnews.com for todays report on doping. If they kick out all the teams/riders that are allegedly involved I cannot imagine what would happen next. Maybe bring up Continental teams so that they can have a bike race.


----------



## DrSmile

Time to move the end to doping year up to 2010...


----------



## DrSmile

AJL said:


> I believe there are clean riders today, and, even, that exceptional riders who are clean can win the smaller stage races since the top guys aren't going to risk doping to win those. I can't name names for for you - in the current climate it's hard to be 100% sure. The main advantage of the anti-doping programmes is that the risk and cost of doping has likely gone up - which places a limit on those who can afford any real 'game changing' level of doping.


I haven't believed this in at least 10 years. A recent German TV report by ARD showed that in order to become an Olympic athlete in Russia, you MUST consent to doping. The head athletic trainer for Russia was caught on video instructing an athlete on doping. The doping expert advising the same athlete in this case was a world-renowned "anti-doping" expert, and the Russian anti-doping agency was told what to report as a "positive" and what to report as an "error"... Vehement deniers in doping are generally exposed to be total liars years later (Lance) and "I tried it once and regret it" confessors are equally exposed to be complete liars (Zabel). It is very clear to me that every professional athlete dopes. The ones that scream exception are likely just as guilty and have just rationalized in their head that their "less" doping is equivalent to "no doping." Lies everywhere, and money runs the show. This hasn't changed in a long time.


----------



## deviousalex

r1lee said:


> Also the fact that Nibali dropped many of them on a lot of stages at the tour. Also winning the cobble stage. Seems unbelievable, most of the time of it's unbelievable it usually is.


Nibali didn't win the cobble stage, Lars Boom did. That stage win wasn't pure power, it was skill. He was the only GC contender that took that stage very seriously and got an ex-Paris Roubaix winner to teach him how to really ride cobbles. All the other teams just putzed around on the cobbles for a day and said "yeah, I think i can handle this."

If you want to look at amazing performances how come no one mentions Contador & Froome at the Vuelta?

These performances were amazing because both had been injured (Contador's even more so since he had a leg injury).

The physiology at the front of the Tour | The Science of Sport
The 2014 Tour: Performance implications & a reflection on the origins | The Science of Sport



> If anything, it is cause for even more optimism, because 2014 has been slower – the power outputs produced by Vincenzo Nibali are consistent with those produced by Froome and Quintana in 2013, and possibly even lower (but again, direct comparisons invite all kinds of rebuttal, so why make them other than to inform a common sense discussion?”)


Vuelta a España climbing speeds: how should we interpret the data? | CyclingTips



> The other thing is that both Froome and Contador came off enforced layoffs. Did that help them? That’s a very optimistic way of arguing it. Going into the race, based on everything known about preparation and training, you’d have to think both would have been below their very best levels.
> 
> Maybe by week three they were performing at a better level than they might have had they come in with solid training, but still, you wouldn’t choose to prepare for a race with a broken wrist or tibia. So to be at the level they were is surprising.


Nibali's performance is just as believable as Froome/Contador in years prior.


----------



## spade2you

Saxo, Sky, and Astana. Might as well be Telekom, Postal, and Festina (the clean one) again.


----------



## Hiro11

License approved for Astana! Ludicrous. Cookson should be immediately fired.


----------



## spade2you

Hiro11 said:


> License approved for Astana! Ludicrous. Cookson should be immediately fired.


Meh. Cookson was supposed to clean up cycling. It appears that any replacements will be just as corrupt.


----------



## BikeLayne

Hiro11 said:


> License approved for Astana! Ludicrous. Cookson should be immediately fired.


 Cycling is a bizarre world.


----------



## dnice

glad to see that good sense prevails. there is no connection to the continental team save a shared jersey sponsor, and the activities of two brothers (who have been fired) constitute exactly one incident more than has transpired on many other teams (tinkoff saxo, et al).


----------



## deviousalex

dnice said:


> glad to see that good sense prevails. there is no connection to the continental team save a shared jersey sponsor, and the activities of two brothers (who have been fired) constitute exactly one incident more than has transpired on many other teams (tinkoff saxo, et al).


That's not *completely* true. Some of the sports directors and the team doctor were shared. I agree that you can't say they are the same team, but they aren't completely separate either.

It's pretty clear that Astana needs some management change, but then again so does Tinkoff and I don't see anyone apart from the Danish ADA saying that.


----------



## DrSmile

I don't know how anyone can't see that the anti-doping element and the doping element in cycling are really one and the same based on this decision. It's all a twisted puppet show to give the illusion of legitimacy while collecting sponsorship and TV contract cash. If a Russian marathon runner is personally paying $550,000 to the athletics federation to hide her results, you have to imagine a Pro cycling team is paying ten times that much.


----------



## AJL

spade2you said:


> Contador had a similar problem with the Tour exclusion in '08.
> 
> I'm neutral on most of the current era riders. This doesn't look good. We also gotta keep in mind that he used to ride with Basso and Pellizotti. He beat a Mosquera, who eventually came back positive. One of the guys on the podium of the Italian road championship came back positive. Starting to sound like the same poop on a different day.





DrSmile said:


> I don't know how anyone can't see that the anti-doping element and the doping element in cycling are really one and the same based on this decision. It's all a twisted puppet show to give the illusion of legitimacy while collecting sponsorship and TV contract cash. If a Russian marathon runner is personally paying $550,000 to the athletics federation to hide her results, you have to imagine a Pro cycling team is paying ten times that much.


Astana does have some serious backing $$. Color me disillusioned again. I mean, can we even trust Jonathan Vaughters? Has all of this been a marketing smoke screen or has some progress been made? Or was cleaning up the sport a just another flash in the pan; Don Quixote tilting at windmills moment?


----------



## love4himies

Hiro11 said:


> License approved for Astana! Ludicrous. Cookson should be immediately fired.


It's not up to Cookson, but a panel of 3 or 4 people.


----------



## love4himies

AJL said:


> Astana does have some serious backing $$. Color me disillusioned again. I mean, can we even trust Jonathan Vaughters? Has all of this been a marketing smoke screen or has some progress been made? Or was cleaning up the sport a just another flash in the pan; Don Quixote tilting at windmills moment?


The only reason I believe some teams are somewhat clean is that their performances are what you would expect from non-doping-up and down and not one rider consistently at the top.


----------



## Hiro11

dnice said:


> glad to see that good sense prevails. there is no connection to the continental team save a shared jersey sponsor, and the activities of two brothers (who have been fired) constitute exactly one incident more than has transpired on many other teams (tinkoff saxo, et al).


Except:
1. The recent Ferrari allegations, which are fairly convincing and damaging.
2. The recent published Padua results which are clearly damning for Astana.
3. Iglinskiy was popped this year and is a Monument winner, this alone is easily as big a deal as Kreuzinger.

Also, pretending that there was a "Chinese wall" between the teams is silly:
If We Want to End Doping in Cycling, Astana Must Go | The Cycle Life | OutsideOnline.com

1. 29 current WT riders on Astana are grads of the continental team.
2. The best prospect (Davidenok) was training with the WT team and tested positive this year.
3. The teams shared doctors and DSs.
4. Vino had ultimate managerial control over both teams, judging by the fact that he shut down the conti squad himself.


----------



## Hiro11

love4himies said:


> It's not up to Cookson, but a panel of 3 or 4 people.


Perhaps, but the buck stops with Cookson. Also, he was hired to start getting rid of this bullshit. Again, money talks:
- Squeaky clean, popular Europcar kicked out for financial reasons
- Astana streak of WT certification, currently the longest in the peloton, is extended.


----------



## 9W9W

C.R.E.A.M. - Ca$h Rule$ Everything Around Me

it's really a shame about Europcar, particularly in light of the Astana hijinks.


----------



## love4himies

9W9W said:


> it's really a shame about Europcar, particularly in light of the Astana hijinks.


I agree, but I think they knew it was a long shot.


----------



## love4himies

Here's a great write up on why UCI granted them a license:

inrng : astana, licensed to race



> Under the rules the Continental team is separate so all their troubles aren’t taken into account, those positive tests of riders you’ve never heard of aren’t taken into account.





> But what of all the stories from Italy and in La Gazzetta about Michele? Earlier today L’Equipe reported that the UCI wrote to its licence commission to say that it has yet to get a copy of the file from Italy and so the Licence Commission must award Astana’s licence regardless of the current headlines.





> Some might prefer the precautionary principle to apply here and for Astana not to have a licence pending the resolution of any ongoing investigations… but that’s not in the rules. So if you don’t want Astana you really want the rules to be rewritten first. Similarly you might be disappointed in Brian Cookson but he’s following the rules,


----------



## QuattroCreep

Hiro11 said:


> License approved for Astana! Ludicrous. Cookson should be immediately fired.


Not his call. Crookson has nothing to do with approving WT licenses. There is a separate 4 member panel that reviews and grants licenses.

If anything it is good he is keeping out of the decision. There is a rule book and he is following it. That has been a big problem in Cycling in the past. Selective rule enforcement, non enforcement, and rule bending.

We may not like the choice but it is to the letter of the rule book laid out by the UCI. There will be follow ups once the UCI gets the information about Dr.F visiting the team training camp. According to the rule book at that point the UCI can review and revoke Astana's license.


----------



## DrSmile

DrSmile said:


> Let's play Nostradamus... The UCI, when announcing the WorldTour teams in early December, will place Astana on a "provisionally approved" license that is contingent on there being no further cases. Their rationale will be that Astana has presented a strong case that these incidents were solitary and individual in nature and that Astana immediately fired these individuals upon discovering they had doped. They will somehow fabricate and cite legal guidelines that prohibits them from suspending a team without clear evidence of systematic doping and that the UCI could have been sued had they not issued the license to the team. Team Astana's bankroll will be slightly smaller and Brian Cookson will be seen driving around town in a spanky new Ferrari 458 with Kazakh plates.


Not only did I bat 1000, I also correctly predicted the Ferrari angle in true Nostradamus fashion!


----------



## pianopiano

Let's wait and see if we see Cookson in that Ferrari first.


----------



## QuattroCreep

I think he is referring to the Dr.Ferrari angle that has popped up in the last few days. They're both Italian and love to race so I would say DrSmile was close enough, in true Nostradamus fashion. Didn't even have to change the letters in the name around.


----------



## zosocane

Hiro11 said:


> Perhaps, but the buck stops with Cookson. Also, he was hired to start getting rid of this bullshit. Again, money talks:
> - Squeaky clean, popular Europcar kicked out for financial reasons
> - Astana streak of WT certification, currently the longest in the peloton, is extended.


+1. Cookson might not be on the License Commission, but he is still the president of the UCI and he MUST use his position of leadership to get the Commission to do the right thing, and if they didn't do the right thing (here, they didn't), he needs to be very vocal about the bad decision and publicly call them out on it. Even if Cookson needs to resign to make the point. THAT is true leadership. But read the CN interview, Cookson just distances himself from the License Commission and says that Astana is "in effect" on probation. Just a bunch of rubbish.


----------



## zosocane

Crookson, lol. True it's not his decision, but he is the face of the UCI, and he needs to be a LOT MORE noise than all the excuses he's providing (see the CN interview). I think he should resign to make the point and wipe his hands clean of this mess.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

fornaca68 said:


> +1. Cookson might not be on the License Commission, but he is still the president of the UCI and he MUST use his position of leadership to get the Commission to do the right thing, and if they didn't do the right thing (here, they didn't), he needs to be very vocal about the bad decision and publicly call them out on it. Even if Cookson needs to resign to make the point. THAT is true leadership. But read the CN interview, Cookson just distances himself from the License Commission and says that Astana is "in effect" on probation. Just a bunch of rubbish.


The right thing? You are really saying he should have not given Astana a license? 

If the UCI did not give them a license Astana would appeal to CAS, like Katusah did, and they would win.....like Katusha did. The UCI would have to pay the legal and court fees for both the UCI and Astana and Astana would still have a license. UCI would be out $500,000-$1,000,000 and Astana would still have a license. 

Now Astana is forced to cooperate with the independent audit or they will lose the license. Smart move by Cookson. He is also being very vocal that Astana is forked


----------



## DrSmile

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Now Astana is forced to cooperate with the independent audit or they will lose the license. Smart move by Cookson. He is also being very vocal that Astana is forked


I think this is wildly optimistic. More likely is that the UCI will wait for another positive, and then say that they did the right thing and followed a legitimate process at that point. Or... no more positives and the UCI will claim that Astana has cleaned up its act. Which I would translate as payments having been made to assure no more positives show up. The payoff angle seemed farfetched when it was discovered for Lance, but now with the Russians doing the exact same thing I think it's reasonable to assume that this occurs rather frequently. The inferences are somewhat frightening... Did Astana piss off the UCI, so the UCI decided to pop some of their riders on purpose? I seem to remember Astana opening their mouth an awful lot this year... And to become a World Tour/Pro team, since you apparently need to dope, do you need to pay a UCI doping "entry fee" to not get popped?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

DrSmile said:


> I think this is wildly optimistic. More likely is that the UCI will wait for another positive, and then say that they did the right thing and followed a legitimate process at that point. Or... no more positives and the UCI will claim that Astana has cleaned up its act. Which I would translate as payments having been made to assure no more positives show up. The payoff angle seemed farfetched when it was discovered for Lance, but now with the Russians doing the exact same thing I think it's reasonable to assume that this occurs rather frequently. The inferences are somewhat frightening... Did Astana piss off the UCI, so the UCI decided to pop some of their riders on purpose? I seem to remember Astana opening their mouth an awful lot this year... And to become a World Tour/Pro team, since you apparently need to dope, do you need to pay a UCI doping "entry fee" to not get popped?


Wow Holy Conspiracies Batman, all you are only missing are space aliens and bigfoot and you can write a book.

The idea that Cookson, The 4 member license committee, CONI, and Institute of Sport Sciences of the University of Lausanne are conspiring to toss out one the largest teams in the sport is absurd. 

Just so you are aware of who you are accusing

Pierre Zappelli, former Swiss Supreme Federal Court judge
Hans Höhener, former president of the Swiss Athletics Federation and a senior corporate executive 
PhD André Hürter, president of the board of directors for Schnyder SA Biel
Paolo Franz, who is a senior manager at IBM.

Any evidence to support this nonsense or did it just come to you in a dream?


----------



## DrSmile

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Wow Holy Conspiracies Batman, all you are only missing are space aliens and bigfoot and you can write a book.
> 
> The idea that Cookson, The 4 member license committee, CONI, and Institute of Sport Sciences of the University of Lausanne are conspiring to toss out one the largest teams in the sport is absurd.
> 
> Just so you are aware of who you are accusing
> 
> Pierre Zappelli, former Swiss Supreme Federal Court judge
> Hans Höhener, former president of the Swiss Athletics Federation and a senior corporate executive
> PhD André Hürter, president of the board of directors for Schnyder SA Biel
> Paolo Franz, who is a senior manager at IBM.
> 
> Any evidence to support this nonsense or did it just come to you in a dream?


Oh....so you're saying that this is the NEW UCI, not the old UCI that took payoffs from Lance... right, totally new entity, no reason to be suspicious. Did you look into the Russian payoff scandal? What happened there is an EXACT duplicate of what Lance did. That's the International Association of Athletics Federations we're talking about. The idea that this can't happen at the UCI when it clearly already DID happen before is absurd to me. Your logic is the same logic that declares Lance clean because he never flunked a test. In light of these recent findings, the reasons for Lance never "failing" a test are so much more obvious and explainable. If you can't connect the dots... eventually others will connect them for you.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

DrSmile said:


> Oh....so you're saying that this is the NEW UCI, not the old UCI that took payoffs from Lance... right, totally new entity, no reason to be suspicious. Did you look into the Russian payoff scandal? What happened there is an EXACT duplicate of what Lance did. That's the International Association of Athletics Federations we're talking about. The idea that this can't happen at the UCI when it clearly already DID happen before is absurd to me. Your logic is the same logic that declares Lance clean because he never flunked a test. In light of these recent findings, the reasons for Lance never "failing" a test are so much more obvious and explainable. If you can't connect the dots... eventually others will connect them for you.


You have no idea what you are talking about. 

Yes, this is a new UCI. McQuaid, and his buddy Verbruggen, are out. Cookson tossed out their co-conspirators Cho, Di Rocco,Lopes, Zevenbergen, Verbiest, all gone. 

My logic is based on logic, not nonsense. You have zero evidence to support your conspiracy theories but there is plenty of evidence, and prior cases, that support the reasons the license committee gave Astana the license and the conditions they put on it


----------



## DrSmile

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> Yes, this is a new UCI. McQuaid, and his buddy Verbruggen, are out. Cookson tossed out their co-conspirators Cho, Di Rocco,Lopes, Zevenbergen, Verbiest, all gone.
> 
> My logic is based on logic, not nonsense. You have zero evidence to support your conspiracy theories but there is plenty of evidence, and prior cases, that support the reasons the license committee gave Astana the license and the conditions they put on it


We've had this discussion before... All the things I mentioned happened. They aren't figments of anyone's imagination. This isn't a 9/11 conspiracy theory. It makes logical sense that if the UCI is complicit, the doping athletes still test clean, even though they're not. Which for Lance clearly and undeniably happened. The Russian scandal showed that the individuals in charge of anti-doping testing and analysis are the exact people advising athletes on how to dope to beat the tests they themselves administer. The fact that Hans Höhener is part of the IAAF organization which was involved in the scandal should at the very least make people question the legitimacy of the UCI. One day someone won't take the payoff money and rat these guys out.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

DrSmile said:


> We've had this discussion before... All the things I mentioned happened. They aren't figments of anyone's imagination. This isn't a 9/11 conspiracy theory. It makes logical sense that if the UCI is complicit, the doping athletes still test clean, even though they're not. Which for Lance clearly and undeniably happened. The Russian scandal showed that the individuals in charge of anti-doping testing and analysis are the exact people advising athletes on how to dope to beat the tests they themselves administer. The fact that Hans Höhener is part of the IAAF organization which was involved in the scandal should at the very least make people question the legitimacy of the UCI. One day someone won't take the payoff money and rat these guys out.


Yes, you are presenting a 9/11 style conspiracy theory.....and it is not even a good one. It is hard to even understand your point beyond random vague innuendo. You give zero evidence, motive, just babble about various conspiracies that you do not even know the facts of. 

The facts are easy to find. There is ample legal precedence (Katusha) to support the license committee's decision. You clearly have not read the CAS award or the World Tour license rules. if you had read either of them you would see that the license committee decision, and the conditions placed on Astana, were the best possible outcome of this mess. Every other path would have resulted in huge legal fees, another loss at CAS, and Astana still getting their license.


----------



## zosocane

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The right thing? You are really saying he should have not given Astana a license?
> 
> If the UCI did not give them a license Astana would appeal to CAS, like Katusah did, and they would win.....like Katusha did. The UCI would have to pay the legal and court fees for both the UCI and Astana and Astana would still have a license. UCI would be out $500,000-$1,000,000 and Astana would still have a license.
> 
> Now Astana is forced to cooperate with the independent audit or they will lose the license. Smart move by Cookson. He is also being very vocal that Astana is forked


You read correctly, I'm really saying that the UCI License Commission should not have given Astana a license. If it means a redux of Katusha, so be it -- in the Katusha case, Cookson's predecessor was trying to send a message. Spend the monstrous legal fees and lose to CAS. Send the message to other licensees that the UCI will litigate. In the meantime -- as in, now -- the UCI should amend their governance documents to scrap the licensing commission (seriously? they need a committee where the UCI president has no say to decide who gets licenses?), and give the plenary authority to the UCI president. Why is Cookson even there? He's basically a COO -- not a CEO.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

fornaca68 said:


> You read correctly, I'm really saying that the UCI License Commission should not have given Astana a license. If it means a redux of Katusha, so be it -- in the Katusha case, Cookson's predecessor was trying to send a message. Spend the monstrous legal fees and lose to CAS. Send the message to other licensees that the UCI will litigate. In the meantime -- as in, now -- the UCI should amend their governance documents to scrap the licensing commission (seriously? they need a committee where the UCI president has no say to decide who gets licenses?), and give the plenary authority to the UCI president. Why is Cookson even there? He's basically a COO -- not a CEO.


The message that would be sent is that you can beat the UCI if you take them to CAS. You might be ok with losing but I am not 

The better tactic is exactly the one taken. Astana is backed into a corner. They have to participate in an audit or they lose their license. If the CONI Ferrari report shows they worked with Ferrari they lose their license. A positive and they lose their license. Plenty of opportunity to kick them out without wasting $500,000 in legal fees.

You might want a UCI president that is a dictator but I don't. We already have seen how that works with Verbruggen/McQuaid. An independent license committee is critical. We don't need need another dictator who makes arbitrary decisions


----------



## spade2you

Hey. Vino says Astana has nothing to hide. Would Vino lie to you?


----------



## zosocane

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The better tactic is exactly the one taken. Astana is backed into a corner. They have to participate in an audit or they lose their license. If the CONI Ferrari report shows they worked with Ferrari they lose their license. A positive and they lose their license. Plenty of opportunity to kick them out without wasting $500,000 in legal fees.
> 
> You might want a UCI president that is a dictator but I don't. We already have seen how that works with Verbruggen/McQuaid. An independent license committee is critical. We don't need need another dictator who makes arbitrary decisions


Any audit that is effected will be a white-wash fraught with the usual delays and inability to access testimony and documents from key people (read: Vino).

Yes, a CEO running the UCI. The Verbruggen/McQuaid/Cookson UCI is the same "Old Europe" beauracracy: 15-individual "Management Committee" plus an Executive Board. By the way, as of 12/31/2013, the UCI had about CHF$12 million in equity. They can swallow the defense costs of another license denial appeal to CAS.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

fornaca68 said:


> Any audit that is effected will be a white-wash fraught with the usual delays and inability to access testimony and documents from key people (read: Vino).
> 
> Yes, a CEO running the UCI. The Verbruggen/McQuaid/Cookson UCI is the same "Old Europe" beauracracy: 15-individual "Management Committee" plus an Executive Board. By the way, as of 12/31/2013, the UCI had about CHF$12 million in equity. They can swallow the defense costs of another license denial appeal to CAS.


If Astana does not give documents and access they lose their license. 

It does not matter if they have the cash for a case, they would lose the case. They would spend $500,000 and Astana would have a license anyways. 

Now they can audit Vino and Astana and if the team does not cooperate the UCI can easily toss them out.......and Astana pays for the audit


----------



## Alaska Mike

I'm with Falsetti on this one. It's a smart move from many angles.
Astana would win their appeal to CAS, just like Katusha did. Waste of money for the UCI. Better idea to give Astana enough rope to hang themselves, and then see what happens. I'm not sure if an external audit will uncover anything, but I expect some low-key results from Astana this season.

Reading Janez Brajkovic's account of the Astana team, it sounds like there are multiple teams based on nationality/language within Astana that don't communicate all that well. I think a team-wide doping program is unlikely, but one among countrymen is very possible. I don't think any external observer is going to pick up on that without considerable intelligence resources- something the UCI has never been that good at.

At this point, there's no need to put a lot of top-tier riders on the market, when all of the budgets are closed. Better to let Astana pay those riders until the team slips up, so they can at least have some value to another team for next season (points).

I don't think Cookson sees a place for Astana in the future ProTour. He's just being pragmatic about the best way for the UCI to show them the door. Notice how he didn't say how long the window for "no positives" was open? He's waiting for a valid excuse that will be impossible to successfully argue. He's a bureaucrat, for sure, but he's an effective one. I prefer that to McQuaid.

For those that want Cookson to make a bold, unilateral decision- isn't that what he was hired to put a stop to? Everyone was wanting clear standards and procedures, and they're following them. They are not perfect and should be constantly reviewed, but they should be followed to avoid lengthy and costly court cases. It's not fair to anyone (UCI, riders, teams, fans...) to do it any other way. Cookson has made it as clear as he could (given his position) that he's not happy about the Astana situation, and will look for his chance to correct it- as long as it falls within established guidelines. To do any different would just be backing the Titanic up so you could ram the iceberg again.


----------



## Coolhand

UCI taking cautious approach with Astana?s license - VeloNews.com


> Vinokourov said before Wednesday’s decision that if the UCI refused Astana a license, he would follow in Katusha’s footsteps and appeal to the CAS. Keeping the Katusha case in mind and Vinokourov’s promise to challenge, the UCI wanted to make sure it had a legally tight case if it were to take such a step.
> 
> “To be honest, taking the fight to the CAS is not really the issue,” Cookson said.
> 
> “I’m not prepared to put our organization and sport at risk by taking a decision that would be challenged legally.
> 
> “We have to make sure that when we take decisions that they are ones that can stand up to those challenges.”


----------



## zosocane

Alaska Mike said:


> For those that want Cookson to make a bold, unilateral decision- isn't that what he was hired to put a stop to? Everyone was wanting clear standards and procedures, and they're following them. They are not perfect and should be constantly reviewed, but they should be followed to avoid lengthy and costly court cases. It's not fair to anyone (UCI, riders, teams, fans...) to do it any other way.


UCI following clear standards and procedures? Let's see ... Team Katusha (Dec. 2012), license denied. Astana (Dec. 2014), license approved. Got it. 10-4. Roger that. Mick Rogers anyone? :idea:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

fornaca68 said:


> UCI following clear standards and procedures? Let's see ... Team Katusha (Dec. 2012), license denied. Astana (Dec. 2014), license approved. Got it. 10-4. Roger that. Mick Rogers anyone? :idea:


You do realize that Pat McQuaid was the fool that did the Katusha mess? He is gone. Cookson has learned from his mistakes. 

As for Rogers, you do realize he was in China just prior to being tested? 



> further illustrated the problem of illegal use of clenbuterol in animal feed: based on current anti-doping regulations, no fewer than 22 of the 28 volunteers tested would have returned ”positive“ test *results.


Clenbuterol testing in doping control samples: drug abuse or food contamination? -


----------



## Alaska Mike

Using clenbuterol at that time of the season for performance enhancement (weight loss/lean muscle) doesn't make much sense. You usually see it abused in the spring and during the lead-ups to Grand Tours when riders are trying to lean out. Given Mick Rogers whereabouts before the positive and the known problems in that country, I'd buy his excuse for the positive far quicker than I would buy Contador's. I'm not saying he's clean, but I buy his excuse this time.


----------



## BacDoc

Doctor Falsetti said:


> If Astana does not *pay off* and grant access they lose their license.
> 
> Now they can audit Vino and Astana and if the team does not *Pay off.*the UCI can easily toss them out


Fixed it for ya!


----------

