Surely Predictor-Lotto should be banned for providing doping
nathanbloke
Posts: 28
From CyclingNews.com:
"Leukemans eligible to ride again
Björn Leukemans is eligible to ride again
Björn Leukemans was given a six-month ban for testing positive for testosterone. The ban runs from November 21, 2007 until May 21, 2008, so effectively ended three months before it was handed down. The judicial decision Monday in the case was just another strange step in a strange case.
Leukemans tested positive for synthetic testosterone in an out-of-competition test in September 2007. The test results were shown to come from a product prescribed to him by a team doctor. Both Leukemans and the doctor were released by Team Predictor-Lotto.
The 31 year-old was originally suspended for two years, until February 2010, a decision which he appealed. After many hearings in many different venues, the disciplinary committee of the Vlaamse Gemeenschap (Flemish Community) announced the six-month ban on Monday.
In its 32-page decision, the Council said that although the medication came from a team source, Leukemans "had been negligent. The athlete himself must check whether a product prescribed by a team doctor is allowed or not."
Leukemans' attorney, Johnny Maeschalk, was only partially satisfied with the decision, telling Sporza.be, "It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But the important thing is that he can ride again."
His client was of similar opinion, Maeschalk noted. "Björn also has mixed feelings. Of course he is glad that he can ride again, but only the acquittal counted for him." Looking to the future, Maeschalk added, "Now there are no more obstacles for teams interested in Leukemans."(SW)"
So Predictor-Lotto provide Leukemans with a banned substance, advise him to take it, and get let off scott-free? Where's the sanctions against the team? They should have a sterner punishment than the rider, they are the ones in the position of power.
"Leukemans eligible to ride again
Björn Leukemans is eligible to ride again
Björn Leukemans was given a six-month ban for testing positive for testosterone. The ban runs from November 21, 2007 until May 21, 2008, so effectively ended three months before it was handed down. The judicial decision Monday in the case was just another strange step in a strange case.
Leukemans tested positive for synthetic testosterone in an out-of-competition test in September 2007. The test results were shown to come from a product prescribed to him by a team doctor. Both Leukemans and the doctor were released by Team Predictor-Lotto.
The 31 year-old was originally suspended for two years, until February 2010, a decision which he appealed. After many hearings in many different venues, the disciplinary committee of the Vlaamse Gemeenschap (Flemish Community) announced the six-month ban on Monday.
In its 32-page decision, the Council said that although the medication came from a team source, Leukemans "had been negligent. The athlete himself must check whether a product prescribed by a team doctor is allowed or not."
Leukemans' attorney, Johnny Maeschalk, was only partially satisfied with the decision, telling Sporza.be, "It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But the important thing is that he can ride again."
His client was of similar opinion, Maeschalk noted. "Björn also has mixed feelings. Of course he is glad that he can ride again, but only the acquittal counted for him." Looking to the future, Maeschalk added, "Now there are no more obstacles for teams interested in Leukemans."(SW)"
So Predictor-Lotto provide Leukemans with a banned substance, advise him to take it, and get let off scott-free? Where's the sanctions against the team? They should have a sterner punishment than the rider, they are the ones in the position of power.
0
Comments
-
Welcome to pro cycling: when caught red handed, blame someone and paint them as the lone wolf, operating without any knowledge of the directeur sportif and others. The old "isolate and extract" tactic is used countless times per year.0
-
Ok, so it is the athlete's responsibilty to ensure anything they take is not banned. But how far does this responsibility extend? Given that we don't expects pro cyclists to run any medicines/pills under a microsope to test they are what they are, the system must surely allow them to trust either (i) 'what is says on the tin', or (ii) 'what the doc says'....In its 32-page decision, the Council said that although the medication came from a team source, Leukemans "had been negligent. The athlete himself must check whether a product prescribed by a team doctor is allowed or not.Rich0 -
RichA wrote:Ok, so it is the athlete's responsibilty to ensure anything they take is not banned. But how far does this responsibility extend? Given that we don't expects pro cyclists to run any medicines/pills under a microsope to test they are what they are, the system must surely allow them to trust either (i) 'what is says on the tin', or (ii) 'what the doc says'....
The athlete is completely responsible for whatever they take.
I know UK Sport has a webpage you can go to, put in what sport you do and then a brand name of a drug and it'll tell you whether it's okay to take.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Yes, the old "my doctor said it was vitamins" is no legitimate defence. That might be unfair at times but all athletes are aware of this rule.
At the same time, you don't get synthetic testosterone from a pill. Riders should not be taking injections at all and when a doctor suggests rubbing a cream or sticking a patch onto the rider, alarm bells should ring. The fact that Leukemans didn't act makes him look stupid at best.0 -
So how do you know that the nurofen you request from the team doc for your headache isn't actually an Andriol?
Are there many dopers using the 'doc said it was legal' defence? In other words, did the 'systematic team doping' that we hear about always involve the riders knowing that they were doing wrong?Rich0 -
I have to admit that I have never seen a pro rider doping so all the information I have is 2nd hand - either heard or read. I don't know it is true. Or false.
But if we excluded on this forum all discussions that each poster didn't have 1st hand knowledge of then this would be a very quiet place.
I am assuming that in the history of cycling someone has doped. I was wondering if this has ever been unbeknowned to them.Rich0 -
RichA wrote:I have to admit that I have never seen a pro rider doping so all the information I have is 2nd hand - either heard or read. I don't know it is true. Or false.
But if we excluded on this forum all discussions that each poster didn't have 1st hand knowledge of then this would be a very quiet place.
I am assuming that in the history of cycling someone has doped. I was wondering if this has ever been unbeknowned to them.
Read about the US junior team. All of em were doped in the early 90s (by Carmichael I think). One subsequently became a doctor, realised what sh1t they were sticking into him and sued.
Someone on this board will know more.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
I'd imagine it'd go something like:
Oh hey doc, what's that?
Oh vitamins, cool...
*few days pass*
wow, I'm a hell of a lot quicker, wonder how that happened!0 -
[quote="Timoid."[Read about the US junior team. All of em were doped in the early 90s (by Carmichael I think). One subsequently became a doctor, realised what sh1t they were sticking into him and sued.
Someone on this board will know more.[/quote]
Extract of cortisone.
http://velonews.com/article/9763Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
I agree. The cyclists are taking on too much of the blame here. The team's are definitely complicit and in this case they are MORE to blame than the rider. Without a rider union, however, the cyclists are going to have to continue being blamed and having zero power.0
-
donrhummy wrote:I agree. The cyclists are taking on too much of the blame here. The team's are definitely complicit and in this case they are MORE to blame than the rider. Without a rider union, however, the cyclists are going to have to continue being blamed and having zero power.
Would you allow someone to inject you with a substance if you weren't sure what it was? Everyone needs to take some responsibility - If you're uncertain you could say to the team doctor you'd like to clear it with the UCI or whatever. If they persist with injecting you that's assault.
If you just let them get on with it then ultimately you don't have a problem with it.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Not all team doctors are permanent and pensionable full-time employees of their cycling squads. Several, I believe, are contracted in for set periods or events which is why you see the personnel lists of small squads can have 3 or 4 doctors listed. We may be looking at systematic doping here, sanctioned from the top.Or we could be looking at some Dr. Ferrari wannabe looking to provide some extra-curricular services to compliant riders.
If the team has organised doping, I doubt that they'd be so sloppy to allow a rider get caught.'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
how would a tram start organised doping? I mean how would they broach it?
I can't exactly see anyone at a meeting saying, yeah well we're a bit rubbish, so lets get organised and dope ourselves up to the nines...
Any light from the great interweb oracle?0 -
Err, that's exactly what some teams have done. The team manager says "look guys, we're not competitive and I don't want you going off to some charlatan, so we're going to run a slick operation in this team. You'll kickback a share of your wages and we'll provide the juice. You will be monitored closely and because we'll do it thoroughly, you won't ever get caught.0
-
ah, well that's nice.
i'd love to be a one of those meeting as a fly on the wall...0
