Contador tests positive for Clenbuterol
Comments
-
He has a fair point - its true.Gazzaputt wrote:You know Dennis has hit the nail on the head.
.
Although quite an emotive outburst. I bet it took a while to remove the speckles of foamed saliva and ground teeth from his keyboard.Can I upgrade???0 -
Gazzaputt wrote:dennisn wrote:itisaboutthebike wrote:The whole health issue thing was the reason I used to believe LA was clean - something along the lines of "he's lucky to be alive, I can't imagine he would risk his health again just to win a bike race"
Unfortunately thats what most people who don't know jack sh*t about pro bike riding have been suckered into thinking. They don't call him Pharmstrong on the US forums for nowt.............
So you know pro cycling huh? Are any of the pro tour riders friends of yours? Have you ever worked for a pro team? Traveled with one? Ever talked with a member of one(other than to ask for an autograph)? Ever seen a pro cyclist use dope? Ever ridden in a pro race? Do you know anything at all about AC or LA or any others, other than what you have read? Has any pro rider ever confided in you? Over a beer? Have you ever seen, with you own eyes, evidence of doping? I doubt that you've answered yes to any of these questions so can only assume that you don't know "jack sh*t" either.
You know Dennis has hit the nail on the head.
.
Smacked his thumb more like
...well, at least it was a very odd post.
As far as Dennis goes....
Why do you have to know someone personally or walk in those circles to form an educated opinion on their activities when there is so much in depth information you can read?
Yes, its still an opinion, (i'll always admit that Dirty Den). But for people who read and read on a subject to form their opinion, taking in scientific information on doping, the drugs, the methods, the gains, the opinion they have can be well formed you know.
Anyway, each to their own.0 -
So if I did answer "yes" to some of the questions, does that mean I can have an opinion?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
iainf72 wrote:So if I did answer "yes" to some of the questions, does that mean I can have an opinion?
The real question is: If someone answered yes to all those questions, and then gave us a full and frank account of life in the peloton, could we then take it as some form of evidence, one way or another?
According to Dennis, no, not unless he'd told us over a beer or out on a training ride. The mere fact of having such information imparted via the medium of the written word apparently renders it useless. In which case, why on earth ever write anything, and Dennis, why are you here, on a site where information is distributed in such a way that you could never count it as useful?
Unless, of course, one takes written texts, distributed over the internet, as merely one form of human communication amongst many, with its own pros and cons, and like all other forms of communication, requiring interpretation and judgement on the part of the recipient.
Just a thought....Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Pokerface wrote:^--- That's a little harsh Dennis. You don't need to know any of those things to know all about doping in the Pro peloton. Good reading skills is enough. Any news story of another pro cyclist being busted for doping pretty much covers it.
well Thor rides in it and he hasn't seen anything
0 -
well Thor rides in it and he hasn't seen anything
He should be ok when he gets his transitions lenses fitted 0 -
Dennisn, were we married in a previous life?dennisn wrote:I've read a good share of your posts but don't know a damn thing about you, in the sense of knowing you as a person and a friend. No clue.0 -
The original post for these long threads could at least be edited to throw in all of the insightful information. Don't fancy trawling through the internet equivalent of the Jeremy Kyle show to find it.0
-
Luckao wrote:The original post for these long threads could at least be edited to throw in all of the insightful information. Don't fancy trawling through the internet equivalent of the Jeremy Kyle show to find it.
or you could do like everyone else does and just skip right to the end.0 -
Yes, because seeing dennisn and others raising their handbags to each other is exactly what I intended on deriving from this thread.
Sound advice. Thanks.0 -
Pokerface wrote:dennisn wrote:I've read a good share of your posts but don't know a damn thing about you, in the sense of knowing you as a person and a friend. No clue.
Now you sound like my ex-wife.
If I chimed in saying that I thought you were a doper, drug dealer, and generally a foul person because I've read about you on the Internet, wouldn't you be the first one to say something like "you don't know me simply because you've read some internet posts"?
I'm not talking about knowing what LA or AC or whomever did on July 10, 2005. I'm talking about knowing the person who is LA or AC or whomever and how they would relate to us on a personal level. I don't think any of us qualify in that respect.You might get along great with both of them as friends, reguardless of their supposed "crimes",
and I might find that I can't really tolerate one or the other for whatever reasons. You just don't know without that personal contact.0 -
dennisn wrote:
If I chimed in saying that I thought you were a doper, drug dealer, and generally a foul person because I've read about you on the Internet, wouldn't you be the first one to say something like "you don't know me simply because you've read some internet posts"?
I'm not talking about knowing what LA or AC or whomever did on July 10, 2005. I'm talking about knowing the person who is LA or AC or whomever and how they would relate to us on a personal level. I don't think any of us qualify in that respect.You might get along great with both of them as friends, reguardless of their supposed "crimes",
and I might find that I can't really tolerate one or the other for whatever reasons. You just don't know without that personal contact.
So a jury shouldn't make a judgement based on evidence, but should be selected from the friends of the defendant as they're best place to judge them? The Internet is just a form of distributing information, why is it so unfair to judge someone with a public profile based on the information we learn this way?0 -
the striking thing about this contador affair HERE is how quickly fanbois lost control of the agenda
at first it was portrayed as
" i bet they dont hate on contador as much" quite smugly on few occasions. as thou contador testing positive would actually bolster their position
that position failed so hard right across the community and in general across the rest of the cycling media
and oddly fanbois have to actually defend the status quo and that means defend contador.
if you back one doper you have to back them all. They have now become not fanbois anymore but the newer term doping apologist
''''''''''''''''
the problem with doping is not that a great many riders still do it or that they can get away with it...
the problem now is they are UNLIKELY to get away with it especially in a 3 week tour.
thats the new reality. the majority of tour podiums are getting busted!
thats the problem.. retrospective testing means being ahead in the arms race is becoming increasingly irrelevant to avoiding the consequences"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 -
mididoctors wrote:the striking thing about this contador affair HERE is how quickly fanbois lost control of the agenda
at first it was portrayed as
" i bet they dont hate on contador as much" quite smugly on few occasions. as thou contador testing positive would actually bolster their position
that position failed so hard right across the community and in general across the rest of the cycling media
and oddly fanbois have to actually defend the status quo and that means defend contador.
if you back one doper you have to back them all. They have now become not fanbois anymore but the newer term doping apologist
''''''''''''''''
the problem with doping is not that a great many riders still do it or that they can get away with it...
the problem now is they are UNLIKELY to get away with it especially in a 3 week tour.
thats the new reality. the majority of tour podiums are getting busted!
thats the problem.. retrospective testing means being ahead in the arms race is becoming increasingly irrelevant to avoiding the consequences
That's well put.Mens agitat molem0 -
Looks like WADA want Contador's scalp. Says it will push the UCI if they start dragging their feet:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-to ... tador-case0 -
I don't know about this. I wish it were true, but there will always be other doping 'solutions' sold to riders as undetectable. The arms race continuesmididoctors wrote:the problem now is they are UNLIKELY to get away with it especially in a 3 week tour.
thats the new reality. the majority of tour podiums are getting busted!
thats the problem.. retrospective testing means being ahead in the arms race is becoming increasingly irrelevant to avoiding the consequences
The recent tests for plastizisers show that riders could use this method to swap their blood when they need to and gain the advantage.
The fact that plastisizers have been found just means that the dodgy docs have to come up with a better solutions and use containers that don't leave traces.
Its always a risk for the riders involved, but the prices are often seen as worth it.Can I upgrade???0 -
Duuno about that. Yes, it says it wants a speedy conclusion, but it has rightly pointed out that the test for plastizisers is not ratified - and won't be for a while. So Clem is the only route that is likely to be looked into. Where does it intimate that WADA want his scalp?Pokerface wrote:Looks like WADA want Contador's scalp. Says it will push the UCI if they start dragging their feet:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-to ... tador-case
Regarding any ban it states:
Thats more concerning.Howman said that the UCI's investigation is still in its infancy, and that Spain was ultimately responsible for taking disciplinary action if necessary.
Spain previously refused to take action in the case of Alejandro Valverde and other riders named in the Operación Puerto case, allowing the rider to continue to race for years before the UCI successfully pursued his suspension through the Court of Arbitration for SportCan I upgrade???0 -
meggiedude wrote:
Duuno about that. Yes, it says it wants a speedy conclusion, but it has rightly pointed out that the test for plastizisers is not ratified - and won't be for a while. So Clem is the only route that is likely to be looked into. Where does it intimate that WADA want his scalp?Pokerface wrote:Looks like WADA want Contador's scalp. Says it will push the UCI if they start dragging their feet:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-to ... tador-case
Regarding any ban it states:
Thats more concerning.Howman said that the UCI's investigation is still in its infancy, and that Spain was ultimately responsible for taking disciplinary action if necessary.
Spain previously refused to take action in the case of Alejandro Valverde and other riders named in the Operación Puerto case, allowing the rider to continue to race for years before the UCI successfully pursued his suspension through the Court of Arbitration for Sport
Yes, it's already been mentioned that Spain needs to take the whole aspect of doping more seriously, but will they? Can't imagine them handing Contador over to the chopping block without a big, messy, drawn out and painful fight.Mens agitat molem0 -
Indeed. Can't see them killing the goose thats already laid 3 golden eggs.bazbadger wrote:Yes, it's already been mentioned that Spain needs to take the whole aspect of doping more seriously, but will they? Can't imagine them handing Contador over to the chopping block without a big, messy, drawn out and painful fight.Can I upgrade???0 -
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/6009/Contador-to-miss-next-Tuesdays-Tour-de-France-presentation.aspx?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+velonation_pro_cycling+%28Cycling+News+%26+Race+Results+%7C+VeloNation.com%29&utm_content=Twitter
Contador to miss 2011 Tour de France route presentation.
Standard procedure I suppose. If there is such a thing.Mens agitat molem0 -
39teeth just tweeted Spanish media are reporting the UCI and WADA are in dispute about Berts future which is why we've not heard anything.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
I'm not surprised about this. From the start, I've got the feeling that the UCI didn't want to deal with this and just wanted it to go away.
Bang goes another of the anti-Armstrong cultists' myths, that he is the only one the UCI have looked out for.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
As has been said many times before, this is a perfect example of why the testing for PEDs and the resultant action needs to be controlled by a body separate from the UCI. The job of the UCI is to promote cycling, how can it work for them to keep banning the 'supposed' stars of the sport. Yes in a perfect world clean cycling would be promotional, but the reality is more subtle and complex than that, no I'm not an apologist.0
-
Unfortunately, as is clear from many previous posts, that is not anything you can decide. Its decided for you by other better informed individuals.dougzz wrote:....... I'm not an apologist.
Can I upgrade???0 -
If I was in charge of the Amaury Sports Organisation I'd be trying to bypass the UCI, go to the CAS and say that they're failing their testing responsibilites and that they want to 'trial' a new rule book
If I was in charge of WADA I'd ratify the plasticisers test PDQ and then call the UCI bluff and order retrospective tests of everyone from 2004 onwards - can we have Dick Pound back please ?"I get paid to make other people suffer on my wheel, how good is that"
--Jens Voight0 -
DaveyL wrote:I'm not surprised about this. From the start, I've got the feeling that the UCI didn't want to deal with this and just wanted it to go away.
Bang goes another of the anti-Armstrong cultists' myths, that he is the only one the UCI have looked out for.
I thought about this before. We know Landis said the UCI had a blacklist of riders Gusev, Heras and others who just aren'y allowed back into the sport.
I think if there is a blacklist then surely there must be a protected list of riders too.
I also have a feeling that the previous "clean" tour we had may also have had a few cover ups of riders too just to protect the image0
