- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Roman Kreuziger.pngUCI provisionally suspends Roman Kreuziger over biological passport issues
World cycling’s governing body, the UCI, says it has provisionally suspended Tinkoff-Saxo rider Roman Kreuziger due to anomalies in his biological passport.
The Czech rider had been due to support Alberto Contador in last month’s Tour de France but was withdrawn from the squad for the race by his team at the end of June after he was first told that his biological passport data was being examined.
Last week, it was widely reported that the 28-year-old planned to return to racing, which appears to have prompted the UCI’s decision to suspend him.
In a statement released yesterday, it said that it had imposed the provisional suspension on Kreuziger “in connection with the recent assertion of an anti-doping rule violation based on his athlete biological passport.
“The decision was taken following confirmation received on August 1st, 2014 that Roman Kreuziger intended to participate in the upcoming Tour of Poland and Vuelta a España.”
Tinkoff-Saxo criticised the timing of the UCI’s announcement, which came the day before today’s start of the Tour of Poland.
It said that it “cannot avoid criticising the timing of this decision – as the rider and team was notified less than 24 hours before the start of WorldTour race Tour de Pologne.
“The team notes that this materially impairs its participation in this important race and that Kreuziger receives his provisional suspension without solid evidence of any wrong doing but only based on the opinion of medical experts of the UCI Anti-doping Commission.”
Kreuziger, winner of last year’s Amstel Gold Race, was replaced in Tinkoff-Saxo’s Tour de France line-up by the Polish rider, Rafal Majka, who went on to win two stages and the mountains classification and has now been rewarded with a new contract with the Danish team.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Pub bike 4 sec ago
The owners of the private car park made reasonable attempts to contact Lime and ask them to remove the bikes that were fly-tipped on their property...
- Pub bike 5 min 21 sec ago
Could be for cyclists with congenitally long arms.
- mark1a 5 hours 47 min ago
I'll put you down as a no then.
- Boopop 7 hours 59 min ago
I find it deeply jarring and disappointing that Sir David agrees with these people not wanting a cycle lane. Whenever I watch one of his excellent...
- chrisonabike 8 hours 8 min ago
May need insurance, tax and a licence. No problem with the lights though.
- Hirsute 10 hours 55 min ago
If you can't see a %^$&ing large tractor what ^%$£"!*ing hope is there that you will see a cyclist ?...
- chrisonabike 11 hours 13 min ago
Well if you *can* interview the original riders at all surely they worked, at least?...
- David9694 11 hours 42 min ago
Live: Car plunges over wall and lands on beach rocks...
- brooksby 16 hours 55 min ago
And finally: I wonder how many of the "more than 3,000" signatures on that petition are actually locals, who live or work there (and are not just...
Add new comment
16 comments
Stefano Feltrin's open letter to Brian Cookson
http://www.tinkoffsaxo.com/news/open-letter-uci-president-mr-brian-cookson/
It doesn't help that it's Bjarne Riis's team, Tinkoff Saxo, involved here. It's unfortunate that doper Riis is still involved in cycling.
I can understand that it's disruptive to their plans for the Tour of Poland, but it's a shame that that's their only comment (at least quoted here).
How about saying something about being committed to making sure all their riders are clean (and meaning it)?
Do you follow the same sentiment with the other ex dopers who rode in the 90s?
Or just single Riis out?
After all there are;
OPQS - Holm and Aldag both admitted EPO use
Garmin - Vaughters
Astana - Vino
And more than likley many more.
Joe: Your info on Diane Mohdahl was interesting. She's innocent so far as the process goes. The B sample definitely was spoiled.
However, it's daft to accept all the theories the defence raises to cast doubt, just because one was valid. Indeed, some of the theories were contradictory (which is fine - the defence may wish to raise every possible doubt, and let the process sort out which are accepted). Those other theories *were not* tested in the appeals process (AFAICT), because she prevailed on the B sample spoilage issues.
I'm allowed to still give some weight to the initial A test which she failed. Which could never have been subject to the spoilage the B-sample was subjected to, given her own defence argument. In my comment to you I think I even also quoted text from her side that cast doubt on the lab's sample handling practices. *That* would explain things.
I personally still wouldn't bet my house on her being clean, if there was some magic way to get at the absolute truth, because if her story about the handling practices is wrong, then that A test likely was correct. However, it seems you *would*.
That's your right. You can't expect me to though. Nor would I bet it on her being a doper either, as the handling story could be true.
In short, we'll never know. In terms of process she's innocent. In terms of evidence, the only certainty is that her B sample wasn't usable.
As for the RK case and the ADR rules there, how about addressing the facts here if you think there's a mistake. Your comment is classic ad hominem.
That Kreuziger has been provisionally suspended indicates the Anti-Doping Organisation managing this (the UCI) has made its decision and is satisfied that Kreuziger "doped". The burden of proof for this is required to be beyond balance of probabilities. It also means that, prior to the suspension, Kreuziger was formally notified and MUST have been given a chance to explain his side and argue against the finding in a provisional hearing. Those are the rules.
Going beyond the rules, my general understanding is that in bio-passport cases, the UCI will have contacted the rider less formally and given them chances to explain before any formal process is started. From talk on Twitter, I gather this was indeed the case with Kreuziger.
To summarise: Kreuziger *has* been found to have doped, to the satisfaction of the ADO and has *already* exhausted one appeal against that finding.
My understanding of the UCI's rules is that at this point the UCI hands the matter to the rider's national federation, for them to follow their disciplinary processes.
According to the WADA Code, which the UCI rules and all affiliated national federations must follow, Kreuziger has a further right of appeal in the disciplinary process. If he fails in that, he has a final right of appeal with CAS.
Again, Kreuziger *HAS* been found to have doped by the UCIs' independent bio-passport unit, and their decision is now final (in that they won't be revising it). Kreuziger only has appeals elsewhere left, is my understanding.
Hmmm. My acceptance of your "understanding" has been severely damaged by our recent discussion concerning the case of Diane Modhal. Despite all the scientific evidence being entirely in her favour and every arbitration panel and court agreeing to her innocence ... you still personally refused to believe any of it and literally would have being willing to 'bet your house on it', to paraphrase your self.
Your reading of the case was wrong, your interpretation of the evidence was wrong and, perhaps unsurprisingly, your conclusion was also entirely wrong.
Your "understanding" of this case is similarly suspect IMHO.
Well said. The biopassport is really a more sophisticated 50% test. People will argue that they have superior genetics which give them amazing blood values, but the passport is a way of ruling that out.
The window for evading detection is getting smaller, but is still very wide.
Although some people find these busts heartening it is still a case that dopers are one step ahead.
We all hate dopers, but I hate the opacity and ambiguity of the UCI approach with the biological passport even more - too many experts seem to be able to interpret the same set of data in different ways.
This in part dates back to Kreuziger's 2011 passport data - and the UCI now finds it's important to avoid having to wipe any potential future wins from his palmares now by suspending him a day before he's due to race. And all this presumably in case they do find a way to unambiguously determine he's been doping in the past? Only in cycling, and only with the UCI. Cookson, sort it please as I'm losing all faith in how cycling is dealing with potential dopers using due process.
Agreed, we need to start seeing some sort of clarity about these cases.
I can understand Tinkoff-Saxo's frustration over this after voluntarily withdrawing him from the TdF, then only having the UCI suspending him when they plan to race him again - from which you can only assume they received no further update from the UCI before making that decision.
If the UCI are going to start suspending people without a positive test, they need to be a lot more transparent, and a lot more hands-on.
I don't !
Is it ok to name & shame athletes before they are confirmed to have doped? This probably wouldn't happen in an individual sport with sponsors invested in the reputation of a single athlete.
I'm looking forward to a team to test a biological passport decision in court to establish solidly whether the bio passport is a legally reliable way to prove whether a rider is clean or not.
I'd like to see this, there's a lot of smoke, claim and counterclaim in these cases, so a bit of clarification and legal scrutiny would go a long way.
Wow, talk about getting your face all over the papers!
roadcc_kreuziger.PNG
I think even lance would envy this much coverage...
ahem. fixed now