Vino will fight doping charges
Comments
-
ddraver wrote:sorry...didn't know about the spelling or the doping........
breathing in and out slowly trying to calm down i ll be ggod now i promise - MSc thesis gettin me down
Simoni was the one with a cocaine bust. (and a grand tour winner)
Simeoni was the one who shopped Dr Ferrari. (who wasn't that good)Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:phil s wrote:Get real
It has happened though.
http://www.triathletemag.com/Department ... ry60f0.htm
I believe he's filed a law suit for damages now.
In a way, the best thing that can happen to new tests is they get disputed and it goes to CAS or something.
It's also quite funny how labs are allowed to make mistakes and people will let it slide when you consider the labs are helping enforce rules and should do everything according to the letter.
I think it's safe to say in this case that everyone knows the lab has not screwed up.-- Dirk Hofman Motorhomes --0 -
phil s wrote:iainf72 wrote:phil s wrote:Get real
It has happened though.
http://www.triathletemag.com/Department ... ry60f0.htm
I believe he's filed a law suit for damages now.
In a way, the best thing that can happen to new tests is they get disputed and it goes to CAS or something.
It's also quite funny how labs are allowed to make mistakes and people will let it slide when you consider the labs are helping enforce rules and should do everything according to the letter.
I think it's safe to say in this case that everyone knows the lab has not screwed up.
Why? Its safe to say that I know bugger all about how reliable the lab is. If someone hands me a report I'd be able to make a judgement.
I hope this puppy gets to court, Vino gets slapped down and the validity of the test is proven by law. However if a mistake has been made then let the law rule that way.
My gut tells me he's guilty, but it still needs to be demonstrated.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
You can say what you will on the triathlete's EPO test, but he went through all the legal steps you guys advocate after a positive and he proved that he produces protein in his samples after strenuous effort and the test's developers agreed those proteins would flash up as a positive. How can you doubt it after that? It's not about the lab screwing up at all. it's about the test looking for markers which can be achieved in another way than the doping the test was developed to detect.That defense has not been used successfully by other athletes after that as they couldn't show the protein in their samples.
With the cynicism about doping in cycling, which I share in spades, we should still not rush to think anything coming out of a lab is 100% foolproof. Lab technicians do screw up sometimes, like all of us do at work from time to time. And even if all is done by the norms, sometimes the test relies on markers which can come up false-positive. I'm not suggesting in any way this is what happened to Vino. There is a body of evidence besides the positive test which stacks the odds squarely against him. It's probably going to be funny to hear the explanations Vino's attorneys come up with, but it is his right to contest, as there is a (minute) possibility he could be right.
That thing about too much blood in his thigh will never hold, though!0 -
That's why they have A and B tests. If your A-sample comes back positive, you can be present with an adviser to monitor the B-sample.drenkrom wrote:Lab technicians do screw up sometimes, like all of us do at work from time to time.
As you can see from the Landis case, a positive test does not mean an automatic ban because the test result is only evidence to be considered in a hearing. So if you can provide proof of innocence, there is room for this to be considered.
The process seems fair and thorough.0 -
Titanium wrote:That's why they have A and B tests. If your A-sample comes back positive, you can be present with an adviser to monitor the B-sample.
I maintain performing the tests in 2 different certified labs would be a better situation. The tests should be repeatable and if the process is followed, a postive in lab x will be a positive in lab y.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Titanium wrote:
That's why they have A and B tests. If your A-sample comes back positive, you can be present with an adviser to monitor the B-sample.drenkrom wrote:Lab technicians do screw up sometimes, like all of us do at work from time to time.
As you can see from the Landis case, a positive test does not mean an automatic ban because the test result is only evidence to be considered in a hearing. So if you can provide proof of innocence, there is room for this to be considered.
The process seems fair and thorough.
Good to see you back hoss. I've been missing your rants
Iain has made sure that we don't forget about your cuttingedge forum.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
Rants? Seems like informed comment now as half my post count was warning something's rotten in Denmark and then responding to posts from people who flaming me saying there was no problem, I didn't have evidence and asking me to go away.Timoid. wrote:Good to see you back hoss. I've been missing your rants
Iain has made sure that we don't forget about your cuttingedge forum.
Now I come back here and half of you are on some witchhunt against the dopers.
BTW the cuttingedge link came from the Bicycling.com forum, it's no way "my forum". Guys on cuttingedge are greenfaced punks who think flexing a creditcard and pumping syringes can buy them success. They'll learn the hard way when they visit the oncology clinic one day.0 -
Titanium wrote:
Rants? Seems like informed comment now as half my post count was warning something's rotten in Denmark and then responding to posts from people who flaming me saying there was no problem, I didn't have evidence and asking me to go away.Timoid. wrote:Good to see you back hoss. I've been missing your rants
Iain has made sure that we don't forget about your cuttingedge forum.
Now I come back here and half of you are on some witchhunt against the dopers.
BTW the cuttingedge link came from the Bicycling.com forum, it's no way "my forum". Guys on cuttingedge are greenfaced punks who think flexing a creditcard and pumping syringes can buy them success. They'll learn the hard way when they visit the oncology clinic one day.
Easy tiger. Was supposed to be a genuine welcome back.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
Sure, I was just saying how attitudes have changed, I did not mean any more.
But I'll reserve straight talk for those on the cuttingedge forum and any other dope cheats.0 -
iainf72 wrote:Titanium wrote:That's why they have A and B tests. If your A-sample comes back positive, you can be present with an adviser to monitor the B-sample.
I maintain performing the tests in 2 different certified labs would be a better situation. The tests should be repeatable and if the process is followed, a postive in lab x will be a positive in lab y.
Vino was +ve for blood transfusions. If you've got someone else's blood in you, it's going to be detectable for a couple of months at least.
There was nothing to stop Vino giving a pint or so under legally supervised conditions, and having it tested in as many labs as he wanted. It's not like losing the blood was going to affect his form in any races.
But he didn't. A bit like nobody's seen the Mexican stamps in Rasmussen's passport.0 -
andrew_s wrote:Vino was +ve for blood transfusions. If you've got someone else's blood in you, it's going to be detectable for a couple of months at least.
There was nothing to stop Vino giving a pint or so under legally supervised conditions, and having it tested in as many labs as he wanted. It's not like losing the blood was going to affect his form in any races.
According to the blood doping guru in this months ProCycling, the +ve for blood transfusions are only detectable for a short period, not the 120 days which is widely quoted in the press.
It doesn't matter if he gets another sample checked, so what. If the A and B samples, which are taken at the same time, are checked in different labs and yield the same result it immediately tightens the noose because you can't blame a lab error if 2 different labs called the same result.
It also means things like "the same person working on the A and B sample" won't happen and lets remember, that's exactly how Landaluze got off his testosterone charge. The same thing with Landis - Lots of little mistakes being confined to one lab lts the lawyers (rightly so) have a field day.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
