Contador tests positive for Clenbuterol
Comments
-
Sorry - you'd better make that two of us then...psittacosis wrote: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"
Totally agree with your sentiments about druggies, if not you're reasoning
2 year is a yes from me.
Has more impact on Contador than anyone else IMHO as the eyes of the world are on him.
If he's caught/sentenced this time - I don't think he'll be back anyway.Can I upgrade???0 -
psittacosis wrote: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"
Absolute nonsense.
Why don't you offer some counter evidence to the point that the death penalty doesn't deter murder. If you can't deter people from something with a punishment that extreme how can argue that severe punishments work?0 -
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
yeah but the rules are 2 year ban
so 2 year ban it is
its a loaded question...the question should be do we go to life bans for first offence
yes/no/depends?
not contador specific"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
Blimey, I think this is the first time I've been called a doping apologist.
How exciting. Perhaps Lance will talk to me now with my new status?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
mididoctors wrote: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
yeah but the rules are 2 year ban
so 2 year ban it is
its a loaded question...the question should be do we go to life bans for first offence
yes/no/depends?
not contador specific
Fire up a poll dude
0 -
Draconian penalties make it less likely that doping will be properly addressed.
You can only destroy someone's career and reputation if you are 110 per cent sure they are guilty. Which means any case with grey areas (like Contador's) will be ignored.0 -
-
Yes it's a loaded question. As I said it's about baselining where you stand on doping.its a loaded question
You are either for it or totally against it, no spinning, no going off on some tangent about the death penalty.
Too many of you seem to be in two minds where doping is concerned.
Either make pro cycling totally clean or ignore it as an irrelevance like pro wrestling and steroid using bodybuilding but lets cut the crap.0 -
@psittacosis - can you detail a time when pro cycling was totally clean please?0
-
Wait wait.
I am against doping. If you I caught, first offence, I think a 2 year ban is a sensible penalty. I don't believe bans serve to deter people from doping. They're a punishment on that individual.
I can understand why people would do it and try to look for what would discourage them.
Life long bans would not make cycling any cleaner.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
exhibit a.0
-
It's like the Daily Mail come to life.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
carry on spinning, I am sure your mate bert will worm his way out0
-
longer bans don't work.
Suppose you are a domestique, you can either take a small dose to survive and get a lifetime ban or you might as well juice to the limit and get the same ban0 -
psittacosis wrote:carry on spinning, I am sure your mate bert will worm his way out
Bert should do a 2 year ban.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
You can't destroy someones career by perminantly banning them for the reasons mentioned above about restriction of trade.slojo wrote:Draconian penalties make it less likely that doping will be properly addressed.
You can only destroy someone's career and reputation if you are 110 per cent sure they are guilty. Which means any case with grey areas (like Contador's) will be ignored.
However people as high up in cycling like Bertie will 'never work in this town again' because no-one will trust then or respect them anymore. Sponsors will not want to be tainted by the bad press.
Thats almost the same effect as a life ban, as the fall from grace is so much higher than for other lower level cyclists who have been caught.
He's doomed whichever way this verdict goes.
If they find him guilty - he's already indicated he won't come back
If the authorities let him off, they will be shot down for being inconsistant and people still won't trust Bertie - ever.
Its a no-win situation for him. But who's to blame for that.Can I upgrade???0 -
Dunno about that Vino, Ricco and Basso seem to be doing okay.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0
-
Personally, on the severity of the punishment issue, Im one of those who doesnt think it acts as a deterant, ie, 2 years (or maybe a couple more) is somewhere near fine, the consideration is when and whether the dopers should get a chance to return to the sport.
I think the problem is all down to the fact its too easy to get away with. There should be more samples, samples should be subject to new tests at any time for years in the future (as many years as the samples can be stored)... and any drug that was banned at the time or derivative of it that's found should result in proceedings. If those people have even since retired, strip them of any titles, and strip them of any winnings on the basis they were fraudulently obtained. Something like that.0 -
For most people ouside of cycling the TDF is probably the ony cycle race they know and cyclist like Contador and Armstrong are probably the only cyclists they know.Timoid. wrote:Dunno about that Vino, Ricco and Basso seem to be doing okay.
The fact this news has been broadcast on all major global TV networks isn't helping any. That didn't happen for the others you mention.
I take your point - but I think the fall from grace and the impact to the individual is bigger in this case.Can I upgrade???0 -
psittacosis wrote:its a loaded question
Either make pro cycling totally clean or ignore it as an irrelevance like pro wrestling and steroid using bodybuilding but lets cut the crap.
"....cycling(or any sport) totally clean...". What fantasy world are you living in? For Gods sake, people will cheat at checkers, given the chance. No one has morals like you seem to demand. We're human, remember. We have faults, weaknesses, things like that.
I guess you're going to be stuck with ignoring pro cycling. Oh well, you do what you must, but the rest of have a choice and I doubt many will follow your lead. The best anyone can hope for is that the appropriate people catch what cheaters they can. Your demand for "totally clean" has never happened and most likely never will. Relax, take a pill, enjoy the races.0 -
psittacosis wrote:carry on spinning, I am sure your mate bert will worm his way out
Which do you think would deter a rider from doping more?
1. A lifetime ban, and a testing regime where you have a 10% chance of getting caught.
2. A two year ban, and a testing regime where you have a 90% chance of getting caught?Le Blaireau (1)0 -
This is a good discussion.
Not sure about improving detection vs. the penalty on which is a more effective deterrent.
Human nature is dependent on consequences, so knowing there is a consequence to your action is likely to affect your action.
Is being detected a consequence? I'm not sure. Partly perhaps, but the main effect of the consequence to the actions of a doping rider should be felt through the penalty.
I think I'm less with David Millar on this now too.Mens agitat molem0 -
meggiedude wrote:
He's doomed whichever way this verdict goes.
If they find him guilty - he's already indicated he won't come back
If the authorities let him off, they will be shot down for being inconsistant and people still won't trust Bertie - ever.
Its a no-win situation for him. But who's to blame for that.
...I think thats just 'waffle' from him, but maybe he'd consider it. He sounds like he's tyring to sound all principled, but his principals on doping didnt seem to be so important when it came to certain blood bags a while back.0 -
We have a new forum loon in the making which is good news as most of the others seem to have disappeared. I predict someone going on to legend status in the next few months
I suspect that before their 28 posts (to date) they haven't read some contributors' posts on doping matters on here? Soon we'll be having allegations made that Biking Bernie is a doping apologist and Lance fanboi
Doping is wrong and has to be punished. 2 years is probably too short for a first offence but as has already been said and completely ignored a life ban is not possible without breeching employment law which has a higher standing than any sport's regulations. It is therefore a completely irrelevant debate.0 -
DaveyL wrote:psittacosis wrote:carry on spinning, I am sure your mate bert will worm his way out
Which do you think would deter a rider from doping more?
1. A lifetime ban, and a testing regime where you have a 10% chance of getting caught.
2. A two year ban, and a testing regime where you have a 90% chance of getting caught?
Probably the first part of 1 and the second part of 2. :shock:Mens agitat molem0 -
bazbadger wrote:DaveyL wrote:psittacosis wrote:carry on spinning, I am sure your mate bert will worm his way out
Which do you think would deter a rider from doping more?
1. A lifetime ban, and a testing regime where you have a 10% chance of getting caught.
2. A two year ban, and a testing regime where you have a 90% chance of getting caught?
Probably the first part of 1 and the second part of 2. :shock:
So... Wait... What you're saying... Is that it's not just the penalty that matters?Le Blaireau (1)0 -
DaveyL wrote:bazbadger wrote:DaveyL wrote:psittacosis wrote:carry on spinning, I am sure your mate bert will worm his way out
Which do you think would deter a rider from doping more?
1. A lifetime ban, and a testing regime where you have a 10% chance of getting caught.
2. A two year ban, and a testing regime where you have a 90% chance of getting caught?
Probably the first part of 1 and the second part of 2. :shock:
So... Wait... What you're saying... Is that it's not just the penalty that matters?
Of course, but I never said otherwise.Mens agitat molem0
