Contador tests positive for Clenbuterol

1…3031333536…107

Comments

  • psittacosis
    psittacosis Posts: 97
    Let's at least see what happens with tough punishments first, the druggies are getting one over on the poor sods trying to do it clean.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    psittacosis wrote:
    Let's at least see what happens with tough punishments first, the druggies are getting one over on the poor sods trying to do it clean.

    You've got to catch them first. If I've been doping for 5 years, never been caught, someone else gets caught and get a life time ban, why would this bother me in the slightest?

    Especially if I can't compete effectively without that doping.

    The severity of the penalty will make very little difference.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • psittacosis
    psittacosis Posts: 97
    You've got to catch them first. If I've been doping for 5 years, never been caught, someone else gets caught and get a life time ban, why would this bother me in the slightest?

    Especially if I can't compete effectively without that doping.

    The severity of the penalty will make very little difference.

    Hang on lets look at this theoretical situation, you have been doping for 5 years and never been caught? It's only a matter of time before you are busted. Why *wouldn't* a potential life ban deter you?
  • shinyhelmut
    shinyhelmut Posts: 1,364
    Hang on lets look at this theoretical situation, you have been doping for 5 years and never been caught? It's only a matter of time before you are busted.

    But it's not "only a matter of time before you are busted" though. If you've got away with it for 5 years then it stands to reason that you are unlikely to be caught in the next 5 years either. Just stick to a reputable butcher.
  • Bronzie
    Bronzie Posts: 4,927
    psittacosis wrote:
    It's only a matter of time before you are busted.
    Not necessarily - Kohl said he was tested 200 times in his career and on 100 of those occasions he had been doping but did not get caught. So a 1 in 100 chance for him.
    It's a Lifestyle! -+-+- Coggan Training Levels
  • psittacosis
    psittacosis Posts: 97
    I think we have reason to be optimistic. The tests that detected berts clenbuterol were 400 times more sensitive than the ones used before. He also looked less like superman this year and almost mortal. I reckon the testers are winning the war, no need to go wobbly now.
    Kohl is a retired doper.
    Lets hope they get more current cheats.
  • Pokerface
    Pokerface Posts: 7,960
    edited October 2010
    psittacosis wrote:
    You've got to catch them first. If I've been doping for 5 years, never been caught, someone else gets caught and get a life time ban, why would this bother me in the slightest?

    Especially if I can't compete effectively without that doping.

    The severity of the penalty will make very little difference.

    Hang on lets look at this theoretical situation, you have been doping for 5 years and never been caught? It's only a matter of time before you are busted. Why *wouldn't* a potential life ban deter you?

    Because if you can get away with doping for 5 years, or 10 years before you get caught doping, you can still make a lot of money as a Pro bike rider - even if you're busted out of the profession afterwards. The reward will always outweigh the risk for a lot of riders.

    As Iian says below - the only real way to fix the sport is to consistently catch dopers and lower the odds they can get away with it.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    So you're agreeing better testing is more of a deterant than any kind of punishment?

    If there is a poor chance of getting away with doping, they won't do it. It's quite simple really.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • psittacosis
    psittacosis Posts: 97
    Why are fellow amateurs and weekend warriors condoning doping? I find it strange.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    psittacosis wrote:
    Why are fellow amateurs and weekend warriors condoning doping? I find it strange.

    Who is condoning it?

    People are merely talking about risk vs reward. The risk of doing it is low, the reward is high = people dope.

    If the risk is high, the equation changes.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • Pokerface
    Pokerface Posts: 7,960
    edited October 2010
    psittacosis wrote:
    Why are fellow amateurs and weekend warriors condoning doping? I find it strange.


    Not sure where you get that from - but their opinion doesn't matter (weekend warriors) but I can see why an amateur would be sucked into the culture as a way to fast-track into the Pro ranks.

    They also don't have much to lose if they get caught (most of them) so the risk is low for them.
  • Bronzie
    Bronzie Posts: 4,927
    Who is condoning it?
    It's a Lifestyle! -+-+- Coggan Training Levels
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,463
    psittacosis wrote:
    IThe tests that detected berts clenbuterol were 400 times more sensitive than the ones used before.

    40 times not 400 and 40 times more sensitive than required not necessarily 40 times more sensitive than the previous tests.
  • psittacosis
    psittacosis Posts: 97
    Ok just either agree or disagree with the following question.

    Do you think if Bert is proved to have had Clenbuterol in his system (no taken accidentally by food contamination) he should be banned for life?

    Yes/No
  • Pokerface
    Pokerface Posts: 7,960
    psittacosis wrote:
    Ok just either agree or disagree with the following question.

    Do you think if Bert is proved to have had Clenbuterol in his system (no taken accidentally by food contamination) he should be banned for life?

    Yes/No


    Why just Bert? Why not any rider?

    But for me, NO.
  • stfc1
    stfc1 Posts: 505
    psittacosis wrote:
    Ok just either agree or disagree with the following question.

    Do you think if Bert is proved to have had Clenbuterol in his system (no taken accidentally by food contamination) he should be banned for life?

    Yes/No

    No
  • Mccaria
    Mccaria Posts: 869
    edited October 2010
    Isn't the whole discussion of banning for life (especially for a first offence) a bit of a red herring ?

    Under national and European employment law a ban has to be proportional and a long ban can be/would be regarded as restraint of trade.

    Not sure where the 2 years for doping in cycling came from but maybe linked to the case indicated below.

    In 1997 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) was forced to cut its four-year doping ban for first offenders in half after a series of costly legal battles in European courts which took the view that the longer ban constituted restraint of trade. Two German track and field athletes successfully applied for reinstatement halfway through four-year bans.

    Realistically doping offences have to be dealt with within the terms of employment laws and offenders dealt with accordingly.
  • timoid.
    timoid. Posts: 3,133
    psittacosis wrote:
    Ok just either agree or disagree with the following question.

    Do you think if Bert is proved to have had Clenbuterol in his system (no taken accidentally by food contamination) he should be banned for life?

    Yes/No

    No. The rules say a two year ban and as he's being done for breaking those rules, then it would be odd to ignore them when handing out punishment.
    It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.
  • psittacosis
    psittacosis Posts: 97
    It's not about the the current rules for pro's it's about baselining where you stand on doping as contributor to this board.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    No. 2 year ban is sufficient for first offence.

    Wanting sensible length of bans doesn't mean you don't want doping addressed. But when you look at the macro issues it's only a tiny piece of the puzzle.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • psittacosis
    psittacosis Posts: 97
    bullsh*t
  • disquieting_museeuws
    disquieting_museeuws Posts: 601
    Clenbuterol seems to have been legal in food producing animals for vet purposes, certainly until 2002 at a level of 0.5mg/kg - can it still be used, out of interest? I don't pretend to understand the science but I'm often poking around DEFRA, EU etc websites due to animal interests.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    psittacosis wrote:
    bullsh*t

    Prove it :wink:
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • mroli
    mroli Posts: 3,622
    disquieting_museeuws wrote:
    I'm often poking around DEFRA, EU etc websites due to animal interests.

    As long as its just the websites you are poking around..

    *badoom tsh!*
    http://www.georgesfoundation.org
    http://100hillsforgeorge.blogspot.com/
    http://www.12on12in12.blogspot.co.uk/
  • psittacosis
    psittacosis Posts: 97
    I would be unhappy if someone beat me in a race by cheating.
    I take it you wouldn't care if someone beat you in a race by cheating.
  • disquieting_museeuws
    disquieting_museeuws Posts: 601
    mroli wrote:
    disquieting_museeuws wrote:
    I'm often poking around DEFRA, EU etc websites due to animal interests.

    As long as its just the websites you are poking around..

    *badoom tsh!*

    I nearly said 'zoo' interests, that would have been worse on reflection.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    psittacosis wrote:
    I would be unhappy if someone beat me in a race by cheating.
    I take it you wouldn't care if someone beat you in a race by cheating.

    You're all over the place here.

    Of course I care, but I don't believe changing the punishment will make a blind bit of difference. If you could nab people, that makes a big difference, but tough penalties where only count if you catch them.

    1 positive in the Tour. If you think 1 guy was cheating, I've got a series of bridges on the Thames you may be interested in....
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • meggiedude
    meggiedude Posts: 257
    psittacosis wrote:
    I would be unhappy if someone beat me in a race by cheating.
    I take it you wouldn't care if someone beat you in a race by cheating.
    Chill dude.
    I don't think he is saying that - you're completely misinterpreting his words.

    Peace - and all that....
    Can I upgrade???
  • psittacosis
    psittacosis Posts: 97
    I am not all over the place where doping cheating druggies are concerned I see things in black and white, you are the one "all over the place"
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,463
    Others have already pointed out that employment law prevents a life ban for a first offence plus it doesn't help deter when the cheats really don't think they'll get caught. Maybe if they had a 10% chance of getting caught and there was a life ban it would make them think again but as it would appear (assuming the majority of the peloton are doping which seems to be the accepted wisdom) the chances are much lower and they have their programmes well managed most of the time then it is unlikely it will help.

Categories