Ricco's Missus positive for CERA

135

Comments

  • VinceEager
    VinceEager Posts: 247
    edited January 2010
    the only person i can see who was accused (by me :wink: ) of being an enraged daily mail subsciber was sylvanus for the hilarious suggestion that the thread had been hijacked by hordes of swivel-eyed pc loons.....(this still makes me laugh), of which, apart from LittleB0b (sort of), there appear to be none. For the avoidance of doubt and so that we might all return to some sort of sanity, here is what I think has happened:

    Everyone is generally agreeing that both Ricco and Rossi are hilariously amoral and that they deserve criticism.

    LittleB0b objected to Rossi being referred to as Ricco's missus and insists that she should be laughed at in her own right (although now admits this was only a semi-serious comment)

    Tusher pleaded consideration for the unborn / suckling child - thereby raising the possibility of unfit parenting / child abuse.

    Moray Gub reminded Tusher that child abuse is no small matter and alegations should not be bandied about casually.

    Moray Gub misread my mocking of LittleB0b and quite reasonably put the case against me (but really against LittleB0b) for some rational perspective in gender equality terms.

    Sylvanus convinced himself / herself that the thread was under attack by hordes of swivel-eyed pc loons (i love this) and declared outrage.

    Flanners1 was inspired by Sylvanus' tirade.

    Sylvanus then, expressed approval for the term 'missus', refelcted on the undesirability of 'pc americanese' and called for an abandonment of the term 'partner'.

    many amusing stand alone comments were also made.

    i hope you all think that watching this unfold has been very funny.
    ...the bicycle is the most efficient machine ever created: Converting calories into gas, a bicycle gets the equivalent of three thousand miles per gallon...
  • Tusher
    Tusher Posts: 2,762
    Just another episode in the everyday life of internet folk, Vince.

    Go and pass me that bottle of gin, would you? It's thirsty work doing all this typing.
  • LittleB0b
    LittleB0b Posts: 416
    VinceEager wrote:
    t apart from LittleB0b, there appear to be none..

    Oi - my quip was only semi serious.

    Although I am liking the swivel eyed potential (like a chameleon I imagine).
  • LittleB0b wrote:
    VinceEager wrote:
    t apart from LittleB0b, there appear to be none..

    Oi - my quip was only semi serious.

    Although I am liking the swivel eyed potential (like a chameleon I imagine).

    you cant say that now, after all we've been through in this thread.
    ...the bicycle is the most efficient machine ever created: Converting calories into gas, a bicycle gets the equivalent of three thousand miles per gallon...
  • Pokerface
    Pokerface Posts: 7,960
    edited January 2010
    Tusher wrote:
    Sorry folks, but I'm sticking by my anger at Vania Rossi....

    I'm disgusted not by the fact that Vania Rossi is a woman who has been found guilty, but because she is the mother of a baby- and according to the link above, she was still breastfeeding, and that raises her alleged doping to a new level.

    IF- and I did say IF in my original post- she is found guilty, then I trust the Italian courts will take into account the fact that she could have harmed the health of her baby son.



    In reply to your comments about her being a mother, breast feeding and possibly hurting the baby, Vania has this to say:


    "That Sunday, while I was waiting for the control, I breast fed my son. If I’d taken CERA or anything else, I’d deserve to be put in jail."
  • LittleB0b
    LittleB0b Posts: 416
    VinceEager wrote:

    you cant say that now, after all we've been through in this thread.

    I thought it was obvious, and when the 1st reply was a suitably witty response (well done pokerface), i assumed that's how it came across.

    Turns out i'm in fact a swivel eyed pc loon. (oh no! with such a handicap how will i ever find some maleness to complete my femaleness)
  • LittleB0b wrote:
    VinceEager wrote:

    you cant say that now, after all we've been through in this thread.

    I thought it was obvious, and when the 1st reply was a suitably witty response (well done pokerface), i assumed that's how it came across.

    but if you were only joking then that would mean that i made the same mistake as sylvanus...
    ...the bicycle is the most efficient machine ever created: Converting calories into gas, a bicycle gets the equivalent of three thousand miles per gallon...
  • Pokerface wrote:
    Tusher wrote:
    Sorry folks, but I'm sticking by my anger at Vania Rossi....

    I'm disgusted not by the fact that Vania Rossi is a woman who has been found guilty, but because she is the mother of a baby- and according to the link above, she was still breastfeeding, and that raises her alleged doping to a new level.

    IF- and I did say IF in my original post- she is found guilty, then I trust the Italian courts will take into account the fact that she could have harmed the health of her baby son.



    In reply to your comments about her being a mother, breast feeding and possibly hurting the baby, Vania has this to say:


    "That Sunday, while I was waiting for the control, I breast fed my son. If I’d taken CERA or anything else, I’d deserve to be put in jail."

    She playing on the image of the mother as the virtuous centre of an Italian family; people are expected to swallow this and therefore doubt the science behind the tests.
  • iainf72 wrote:
    Isn't a more likely defence that she lost a lot of blood volume during child birth and the doctors gave her something to perk her up. She didn't know what it was etc etc.

    It's not a good defence. New mothers are generally young & fit and can cope with a degree of anaemia; if bleeding is that severe, then transfusion is indicated (which probably would be a defence for failing a test for transfusion). Furthermore, young, fit people can generally regenerate blood lost fairly quickly without the use of erythropoetics, which are used in those with bone marrow suppression due to chronic disease.

    Additionally, a MEDLINE search shows no results for CERA and Post-Partum Haemorrhage, suggesting this would be in no way a recognised treatment for post-partum anaemia; the results for EPO & PPH give three papers, one of which is about the risk of maternal death in Jehovah's Witnesses (who have religious reasons for declining transfusion) & the abstract for which suggests EPO was ineffective in this patient group..

    Andy
  • cougie
    cougie Posts: 22,512
    No, no one would believe that. Better to say that her pet dog's invisible twin needed to get some drugs for its poorly mother, or something.

    LOL at this - a lot !

    CBA with all the bickering that came later - whats up people - too icy to ride or something ?
  • Bakunin
    Bakunin Posts: 868
    Yes, that is all well and good -- but Lance is behind this.

    He is behind everything.
  • Heh, heh. This thread has it all doesn't it? Someone should make this a sticky right now so we all know what we are dealing with in cycling and on the forums.

    Tusher, mine is a virtual Old Leg Knackerer while you are at the bar. Ta. Oh and some pork scratchings, they are good for the morale.
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    Contador is the Greatest
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    You mean not positive.

    Which would mean she didn't test positive for anything if the B doesn't confirm the A.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    iainf72 wrote:
    You mean not positive.

    Which would mean she didn't test positive for anything if the B doesn't confirm the A.

    I hope she is cleared as some of the accusations in this thread towards her have been absolutely ridiculous .
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    iainf72 wrote:
    You mean not positive.

    Which would mean she didn't test positive for anything if the B doesn't confirm the A.

    Yep. Thanks.
    Contador is the Greatest
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Moray Gub wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    You mean not positive.

    Which would mean she didn't test positive for anything if the B doesn't confirm the A.

    I hope she is cleared as some of the accusations in this thread towards her have been absolutely ridiculous .

    I find myself in agreement with you.

    I might go lie down.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    iainf72 wrote:
    You mean not positive.

    Which would mean she didn't test positive for anything if the B doesn't confirm the A.

    According to that article the B sample doesnt have enough to satisfy the WADA minimum limits, Coni may still proceed though i would be surpised if they did.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • Pokerface
    Pokerface Posts: 7,960
    SO, it sounds like what they are saying is that there IS some CERA in there, but not enough to meet the minimum standard.

    Not that there is no sign of any CERA whatsoever.

    Looks like a bullet dodged.
  • dave_1
    dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    so we need a second sample to counter anaylse before we convict safely...fact
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    Pokerface wrote:
    SO, it sounds like what they are saying is that there IS some CERA in there, but not enough to meet the minimum standard.

    Not that there is no sign of any CERA whatsoever.

    Looks like a bullet dodged.


    Which if it goes no further means to all intents and purposes she not guilty of taking PEDs.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • Pokerface
    Pokerface Posts: 7,960
    Moray Gub wrote:
    Pokerface wrote:
    SO, it sounds like what they are saying is that there IS some CERA in there, but not enough to meet the minimum standard.

    Not that there is no sign of any CERA whatsoever.

    Looks like a bullet dodged.


    Which if it goes no further means to all intents and purposes she not guilty of taking PEDs.


    Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I was saying.
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 21,741
    ......and there was everyone blaming poor old Ricco.....
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • DaveyL
    DaveyL Posts: 5,167
    Hang on a minute. As far as I'm concerned, it's currently a score draw. Unless I have missed the press release explaining why the A sample incorrectly showed up a positive.
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    DaveyL wrote:
    Hang on a minute. As far as I'm concerned, it's currently a score draw. Unless I have missed the press release explaining why the A sample incorrectly showed up a positive.

    But as far as the anti-doping rules go, 2 different results = not positive. If I may sound like the doddery old judge I had on jury duty last year, it's up to to prosecution to prove guilt, she doesn't need to prove anything.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • DaveyL
    DaveyL Posts: 5,167
    Yes, of course that is correct from a legal perspective. She's off the hook.

    But the scientist in me says that the two results should agree, (I'm not saying the A sample is correct, the B analysis might be the "truth" of the matter) one way or the other. What has caused the discrepancy? Sample storage/handling? A flaw in one of the procedures? Looking into this might save them from a guilty athlete getting off the hook in future. Or an innocent one being convicted.

    Reproducibility is pretty much the cornerstone of science - so it always strikes me as odd when things aren't.

    Would be interesting to know if they ever test the B sample of negative As... Probably not as that would appear at first glance to be rather a waste of money.
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • dave_1
    dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    ......and there was everyone blaming poor old Ricco.....

    do you think the A and B sample process is needed or should she have been confirmed + on the first sample? This question is to everyone on here. Cause Dick Pound argued the two sample process was not needed.
  • DaveyL
    DaveyL Posts: 5,167
    Two months between the A sample positive and the B sample retest.

    http://road.cc/content/news/16209-vania ... esult-cera

    According to this article there is some CERA drug present in the B sample but not enough to satisfy WADA regulations. Though if they are analysing by gel electrophoresis I am not sure how they are quantifying it. Reason given, degradation of the drug in the urine is very rapid, compared to blood samples.

    Someone ought to tell these antidoping labs you can run mass spec on proteins nowadays. The PEG chain of Mircera ought to light it up like a Christmas tree.
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 21,741
    Dave_1 wrote:
    ......and there was everyone blaming poor old Ricco.....

    do you think the A and B sample process is needed or should she have been confirmed + on the first sample? This question is to everyone on here. Cause Dick Pound argued the two sample process was not needed.

    Just sayin'.
    If she's technically "innocent", then there's no need for the usual anti-Ricco tirades suggesting he'd led her down the CERA path.....
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • DaveyL
    DaveyL Posts: 5,167
    They still found CERA in the B sample. Call it innocent if you want, she had CERA in her system and her partner is a convicted user. Not the wildest bit of speculation ever.

    I wonder if you'd stick up for Anna Hansen's partner if she were to test positive...
    Le Blaireau (1)