Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

Vania Rossi case

moray_gubmoray_gub Posts: 3,328
edited July 2010 in Pro race
Seems she has been cleared by Coni and to think she was subjected to disgraceful accusations of child abuse over this. A sad case that brought out the worst in certain pro race posters.
Gasping - but somehow still alive !
«1

Posts

  • shakey88shakey88 Posts: 289
    She tested positive but got off cos the b sample showed negative.
    Drat that micro dosing :wink:
  • moray_gubmoray_gub Posts: 3,328
    shakey88 wrote:
    She tested positive but got off cos the b sample showed negative.
    Drat that micro dosing :wink:


    She was cleared of any wrong doing which ever way you wanna dress it up.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • PokerfacePokerface Posts: 8,640
    EPO was found in her system - but below the levels necessary to convict her. So, any way you dress it up, she still doped. :roll:
  • andypandyp Posts: 8,128
    Oh FFS. By the rules she agreed to she's innocent and CONI have, rightly, recognised this.

    MG is right, she was subjected to some terrible comments on here.
  • moray_gubmoray_gub Posts: 3,328
    Pokerface wrote:
    EPO was found in her system - but below the levels necessary to convict her. So, any way you dress it up, she still doped. :roll:


    EPO was found in her 1st sample but not in her 2nd so basically that means she didnt dope..............dress it up any way you want but thats the facts.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • moray_gubmoray_gub Posts: 3,328
    andyp wrote:
    Oh FFS. By the rules she agreed to she's innocent and CONI have, rightly, recognised this.

    MG is right, she was subjected to some terrible comments on here.

    +1

    Those posters should hang there heads in shame over the comments.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • afx237viafx237vi Posts: 12,630
    andyp wrote:
    MG is right, she was subjected to some terrible comments on here.

    Maybe so, although it's fairly obvious that MG started this thread in order to lord his moral superiority over other forum users instead of it actually being about the Vania Rossi case.
  • moray_gubmoray_gub Posts: 3,328
    afx237vi wrote:
    andyp wrote:
    MG is right, she was subjected to some terrible comments on here.

    Maybe so, although it's fairly obvious that MG started this thread in order to lord his moral superiority over other forum users instead of it actually being about the Vania Rossi case.

    Not so if you will recall i had issues with those comments months ago ,its just not on to come onto a forum and accuse someone of child abuse in fact the mods should have acted upon it.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • afx237viafx237vi Posts: 12,630
    Moray Gub wrote:
    afx237vi wrote:
    andyp wrote:
    MG is right, she was subjected to some terrible comments on here.

    Maybe so, although it's fairly obvious that MG started this thread in order to lord his moral superiority over other forum users instead of it actually being about the Vania Rossi case.

    Not so if you will recall i had issues with those comments months ago ,its just not on to come onto a forum and accuse someone of child abuse in fact the mods should have acted upon it.

    "Months ago" being the key words. If you had that much of an issue with it, you should have reported it to the mods back then. Dragging it up now seems rather pointless.
  • rockmountrockmount Posts: 761
    afx237vi wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    afx237vi wrote:
    andyp wrote:
    MG is right, she was subjected to some terrible comments on here.

    Maybe so, although it's fairly obvious that MG started this thread in order to lord his moral superiority over other forum users instead of it actually being about the Vania Rossi case.

    Not so if you will recall i had issues with those comments months ago ,its just not on to come onto a forum and accuse someone of child abuse in fact the mods should have acted upon it.

    "Months ago" being the key words. If you had that much of an issue with it, you should have reported it to the mods back then. Dragging it up now seems rather pointless.
    Yeah .... 'cos like, nobody ever drags stuff up around here !
    .. who said that, internet forum people ?
  • PokerfacePokerface Posts: 8,640
    Moray Gub wrote:
    Pokerface wrote:
    EPO was found in her system - but below the levels necessary to convict her. So, any way you dress it up, she still doped. :roll:


    EPO was found in her 1st sample but not in her 2nd so basically that means she didnt dope..............dress it up any way you want but thats the facts.



    Erm - no. The facts are that there was EPO in both samples. But below the threshold to BUST her for it.


    Innocent by the laws of cycling. But everyone still knows she was guilty and lucky to get off.

    I'm not interested in the whole 'child abuse' side of it.


    Besides - this isn't news. This was reported several months ago?
  • dulldavedulldave Posts: 949
    Perhaps you're right MG but I'll take their accusations over your sanctimony any day of the week thanks.
    Scottish and British...and a bit French
  • donrhummydonrhummy Posts: 2,329
    Pokerface wrote:
    EPO was found in her system - but below the levels necessary to convict her. So, any way you dress it up, she still doped. :roll:

    Are you sure? I thought they couldn't actually test for EPO. Rather, they look for specific levels and markers of cells in the body that are in specific states/levels that would not occur naturally, but those cells are in fact all present in natural athletes as well (just not in those states or at those levels)? Isn't that correct?
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,774
    Pokerface wrote:

    Besides - this isn't news. This was reported several months ago?

    It was officially shelved today so I think MG is right mentioning it.

    Kind of like how we all made hay with MG when Di Luca was bust :wink:
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • PokerfacePokerface Posts: 8,640
    The test was actually for CERA.

    "But the second test did not show up "the minimum levels of Cera required to satisfy the criteria of the World Anti-Doping Agency," CONI said."


    They didn't say there was NONE - just 'not enough'. There's a big difference. That was back in April.
  • afx237viafx237vi Posts: 12,630
    iainf72 wrote:
    Kind of like how we all made hay with MG when Di Luca was bust :wink:

    OK, fair point. It's 1-1.
  • lyn1lyn1 Posts: 261
    Pokerface wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    Pokerface wrote:
    EPO was found in her system - but below the levels necessary to convict her. So, any way you dress it up, she still doped. :roll:


    EPO was found in her 1st sample but not in her 2nd so basically that means she didnt dope..............dress it up any way you want but thats the facts.



    Erm - no. The facts are that there was EPO in both samples. But below the threshold to BUST her for it.


    Innocent by the laws of cycling. But everyone still knows she was guilty and lucky to get off.

    I'm not interested in the whole 'child abuse' side of it.


    Besides - this isn't news. This was reported several months ago?


    on that basis we should prosecute anyone with alcohol in their system because they attempted to get drunk, even if they are below the legal limit...... because they were lucky to get away with it. :lol:
  • PokerfacePokerface Posts: 8,640
    It's not illegal to get drunk
  • dougzzdougzz Posts: 1,833
    Pokerface wrote:
    It's not illegal to get drunk

    I believe it's illegal to be drunk in public, but seldom enforced, a bit like cars in the ASL :)
  • cougiecougie Posts: 22,512
    What is the limit of epo I can give my child then ? Just curious. And I thought ricco believed it too ?
  • moray_gubmoray_gub Posts: 3,328
    dulldave wrote:
    Perhaps you're right MG but I'll take their accusations over your sanctimony any day of the week thanks.

    There is nothing sanctimonious about questioning false accusations of child abuse again.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • moray_gubmoray_gub Posts: 3,328
    cougie wrote:
    What is the limit of epo I can give my child then ? Just curious. And I thought ricco believed it too ?

    When did she give her child EPO ?
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • moray_gubmoray_gub Posts: 3,328
    afx237vi wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    afx237vi wrote:
    andyp wrote:
    MG is right, she was subjected to some terrible comments on here.

    Maybe so, although it's fairly obvious that MG started this thread in order to lord his moral superiority over other forum users instead of it actually being about the Vania Rossi case.

    Not so if you will recall i had issues with those comments months ago ,its just not on to come onto a forum and accuse someone of child abuse in fact the mods should have acted upon it.

    "Months ago" being the key words. If you had that much of an issue with it, you should have reported it to the mods back then. Dragging it up now seems rather pointless.

    So what you are saying is things over a few months old should not be be discussed ?
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • moray_gubmoray_gub Posts: 3,328
    Pokerface wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    Pokerface wrote:
    EPO was found in her system - but below the levels necessary to convict her. So, any way you dress it up, she still doped. :roll:


    EPO was found in her 1st sample but not in her 2nd so basically that means she didnt dope..............dress it up any way you want but thats the facts.



    Erm - no. The facts are that there was EPO in both samples. But below the threshold to BUST her for it.


    Innocent by the laws of cycling. But everyone still knows she was guilty and lucky to get off.

    I'm not interested in the whole 'child abuse' side of it.


    Besides - this isn't news. This was reported several months ago?

    She was innocent of taking EPO end of story i know its hard for you to accept that but thats the way it is. As for it not being news :roll: get up to date .
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • PokerfacePokerface Posts: 8,640
    Moray Gub wrote:
    Pokerface wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    Pokerface wrote:
    EPO was found in her system - but below the levels necessary to convict her. So, any way you dress it up, she still doped. :roll:


    EPO was found in her 1st sample but not in her 2nd so basically that means she didnt dope..............dress it up any way you want but thats the facts.



    Erm - no. The facts are that there was EPO in both samples. But below the threshold to BUST her for it.


    Innocent by the laws of cycling. But everyone still knows she was guilty and lucky to get off.

    I'm not interested in the whole 'child abuse' side of it.


    Besides - this isn't news. This was reported several months ago?

    She was innocent of taking EPO end of story i know its hard for you to accept that but thats the way it is. As for it not being news :roll: get up to date .


    But she DID take EPO (Cera). You are wrong. End of story. No matter how many times you say it isn't so, it won't change THE FACTS.
  • moray_gubmoray_gub Posts: 3,328
    Pokerface wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    Pokerface wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    Pokerface wrote:
    EPO was found in her system - but below the levels necessary to convict her. So, any way you dress it up, she still doped. :roll:


    EPO was found in her 1st sample but not in her 2nd so basically that means she didnt dope..............dress it up any way you want but thats the facts.



    Erm - no. The facts are that there was EPO in both samples. But below the threshold to BUST her for it.


    Innocent by the laws of cycling. But everyone still knows she was guilty and lucky to get off.

    I'm not interested in the whole 'child abuse' side of it.


    Besides - this isn't news. This was reported several months ago?

    She was innocent of taking EPO end of story i know its hard for you to accept that but thats the way it is. As for it not being news :roll: get up to date .


    But she DID take EPO (Cera). You are wrong. End of story. No matter how many times you say it isn't so, it won't change THE FACTS.

    The facts are she had one positive and one negative that doesnt prove she had taken EPO , if you are prepared to discount the negative then you have to be prepared to discount the positive. But you wont do that because it doesnt fit in with your viewpoint.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • PokerfacePokerface Posts: 8,640
    Have you even read the facts of the case?

    I'll say it again, and slowly so you can understand all the big words:

    She had Cera in BOTH samples. Just because it wasn't enough under WADA and UCI rules in the second sample, doesn't mean it wasn't there.

    If the second sample had come back 100% clean then I would 'change my viewpoint'. But it didn't.


    My 'viewpoint' is based on the FACTS. Which you are clearly ignoring.


    "CONI released the news on its website on Friday with the statement, "In the B sample analysis for Vania Rossi, conducted in the period from March 29 to April 2, 2010, the minimum levels of CERA required to meet the World Anti-doping Agency's (WADA) criteria have not been found."


    So - that's one positive (A sample) and one 'not enough to meet minimum WADA requirements' (B sample). That's not 2 clean samples is it?
  • takethehighroadtakethehighroad Posts: 5,426
    Pokerface wrote:
    So - that's one positive (A sample) and one 'not enough to meet minimum WADA requirements' (B sample). That's not 2 clean samples is it?

    I believe it's known as a non-negative
    My Men 2020 - Mark Cavendish, Ben Swift, Fernando Gaviria, Alejandro Valverde, Edvald Boassen Hagen, Zdenek Stybar, Vincenzo Nibali, Geraint Thomas.
  • moray_gubmoray_gub Posts: 3,328
    edited July 2010
    Pokerface wrote:
    Have you even read the facts of the case?

    I'll say it again, and slowly so you can understand all the big words:

    She had Cera in BOTH samples. Just because it wasn't enough under WADA and UCI rules in the second sample, doesn't mean it wasn't there.

    If the second sample had come back 100% clean then I would 'change my viewpoint'. But it didn't.


    My 'viewpoint' is based on the FACTS. Which you are clearly ignoring.


    "CONI released the news on its website on Friday with the statement, "In the B sample analysis for Vania Rossi, conducted in the period from March 29 to April 2, 2010, the minimum levels of CERA required to meet the World Anti-doping Agency's (WADA) criteria have not been found."


    So - that's one positive (A sample) and one 'not enough to meet minimum WADA requirements' (B sample). That's not 2 clean samples is it?

    Are you always this intransigent ?

    Ok lets take this slowly its one positive and one negative end of story, you can dance around the houses all you want but her 2nd sample did not contain the required amount in fact for all we know it could have contained nothing they would have still issued the same words if that had been the case.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • KléberKléber Posts: 6,842
    Moray Gub wrote:
    Are you always this intransigent ?
    :lol:
Sign In or Register to comment.