Roche's Defence of Bertie on ES

calvjones
calvjones Posts: 3,850
edited July 2011 in Pro race
Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere, but I watched on catch up...

When interviewed on Eurosport S Roche appeared to be fairly tranquilo about Bertie riding the Tour, based on the facts

1. He can legally ride (OK Steve, with you this far...)

2. Clen is 'not a major substance' (um.. right. hold on a sec...)

3. He's had hundreds of controls he's never had a problem with (er. except this one.)

4. He's really nice (doubtless).

Couple of things struck me.

1) Harmon pretty much rolled over in the face of this, although it's hard to get into a debate on live TV.
2) To my shame, my previously high (tho uninformed) opinion of Nic's cleanliness went down a notch.
3) If Bertie rolls into Paris to take top spot, a podium or KoM ahead of a clean, bio-pasport-level-1 Nic, will Steve still feel the same way?

Sorry [/rant]
___________________

Strava is not Zen.

Comments

  • KillerMetre
    KillerMetre Posts: 199
    'not a major substance' . As a big fan of Roche I would like to think that what he really meant was that there were no larg quantities of substance detected. Apart from that I agree with him and I am quite concerned with how unfamiliar many cycling fans are with the concept of innocent until proven guilty.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    KillerMetre wrote:
    ' I am quite concerned with how unfamiliar many cycling fans are with the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

    I'm concerned with how cycling fans are unfamiliar with the fact he was proven guilty. He did not dispute there was clen in his urine, therefore he was guilty.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • orangepip
    orangepip Posts: 219
    A few people have mentioned the innocent until proven guilty thing...

    He has been proven guilty - Clenbutarol is a controlled substance and it was in his sample.

    He is just trying to argue his way out of a ban by providing doubt about how it got there.
  • calvjones
    calvjones Posts: 3,850
    KillerMetre wrote:
    'not a major substance' . As a big fan of Roche I would like to think that what he really meant was that there were no larg quantities of substance detected. Apart from that I agree with him and I am quite concerned with how unfamiliar many cycling fans are with the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

    Yeah, I am however as a sports fan quite familiar with the concept of strict liability.
    ___________________

    Strava is not Zen.
  • avoidingmyphd
    avoidingmyphd Posts: 1,154
    Not just cycling fans. Both Millar and Wiggins have recently said that they don't think he's guilty. It's odd.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    avoidingmyphd wrote:
    Not just cycling fans. Both Millar and Wiggins have recently said that they don't think he's guilty. It's odd.

    I think that cyclists themselves have a lot more empathy for the Contador's situation than the fans. They don't know how the clen got in his system, and neither do we. They just think "Maybe it was the steak. The same could happen to me", so they treeat him in a way that they would want to be treated.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • dougzz
    dougzz Posts: 1,833
    avoidingmyphd wrote:
    Not just cycling fans. Both Millar and Wiggins have recently said that they don't think he's guilty. It's odd.

    Vested interest, major sponsors hard to find, cycling just doesn't need more of the wrong sort of news. That's my view of how they see it.
  • josame
    josame Posts: 1,162
    one word

    plasticiers

    :roll:
    'Do not compare your bike to others, for always there will be greater and lesser bikes'
  • Doobz
    Doobz Posts: 2,800
    josame wrote:
    one word

    plasticiers

    :roll:

    You know plasticizers can be detected in urine from the use of condoms?
    cartoon.jpg
  • LangerDan
    LangerDan Posts: 6,132
    Doobz wrote:
    josame wrote:
    one word

    plasticiers

    :roll:

    You know plasticizers can be detected in urine from the use of condoms?
    Bertie was sh@gging the cow?
    'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'
  • Doobz
    Doobz Posts: 2,800
    LangerDan wrote:
    Doobz wrote:
    josame wrote:
    one word

    plasticiers

    :roll:

    You know plasticizers can be detected in urine from the use of condoms?
    Bertie was sh@gging the cow?

    That's no way to talk about his missus!
    cartoon.jpg
  • roypsb
    roypsb Posts: 309
    He is guilty of having this drug in his system and is trying to convince people of how it got there - How is this ever going to be resolved 'without a shadow of doubt'? I would say that is impossible.

    What are Pro Cyclists to do now - keep a tagged doggy back of everything they eat in case evidence is required at a later date?
  • Gazzaputt
    Gazzaputt Posts: 3,227
    I love he is getting the bird from the crowds.

    Showing the respect to him what he has shown to the sport of cycling.
  • dougzz
    dougzz Posts: 1,833
    RoyPSB wrote:
    He is guilty of having this drug in his system and is trying to convince people of how it got there - How is this ever going to be resolved 'without a shadow of doubt'? I would say that is impossible.

    What are Pro Cyclists to do now - keep a tagged doggy back of everything they eat in case evidence is required at a later date?

    There's always some doubt, but the normal law thing is reasonable doubt, but in this case the athlete is completely responsible, strict liability.
  • NJK
    NJK Posts: 194
    KillerMetre wrote:
    'not a major substance' . As a big fan of Roche I would like to think that what he really meant was that there were no larg quantities of substance detected. Apart from that I agree with him and I am quite concerned with how unfamiliar many cycling fans are with the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

    Did Floyd Landis get stripped of his jersey pretty quick, yes. One rule for one and one rule for the spanish! He had a two week start to get his meat story rolling, and he failed to convince anyone but his own federation!
  • Steve2020
    Steve2020 Posts: 133
    Roche is fully signed up to the omerta - he was very hostile towards Kimmage when 'Rough Ride' came out.

    In Slaying the Badger, the explanation as to why Paul Kochli didn't want to sign him for La Vie Claire (which Kochli wanted to be clean) is capable of more than one interpretation as well.
  • P_Tucker
    P_Tucker Posts: 1,878
    Not that it will make any difference to you numpties, but from WADA's website:

    As consistently confirmed by CAS, the strict liability rule for the finding of a prohibited substance in an athlete's specimen, with a possibility that sanctions may be modified based on specified criteria, provides a reasonable balance between effective anti-doping enforcement for the benefit of all clean athletes and fairness in the exceptional circumstance where a prohibited substance entered an athlete’s system through no fault or negligence on the athlete’s part.

    http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/docu ... bility.pdf

    So, strict liability doesn't mean if a banned substance is found then that's the end of it; it just means that the burden of proof is with said athlete. Otherwise you could have the ridiculous situation where a mentalist empties a sack of some banned powdered substance over a rider from the side of the road and said rider is subsequently banned when he inadvertantly inhales some.
  • LeicesterLad
    LeicesterLad Posts: 3,908
    I think in all fairness this circus show is mostly down to the UCI et al. Whether Bertie is dirty or not is insignificant if the UCI are not going to shift there arses and make a decision to end the constant speculation and should he, shouldnt he, will he, wont he show.

    Just a point for discussion though, if ever it was proven that the Clenbuterol 100% came from a contaminated steak, and it was 100% proven that Bertie had no idea, should he still be banned?
    http://www.twitter.com/InTheGC http://www.InTheGC.com http://www.facebook.com/intheGC
  • calvjones
    calvjones Posts: 3,850
    LeicesterLad wrote:
    I think in all fairness this circus show is mostly down to the UCI et al. Whether Bertie is dirty or not is insignificant if the UCI are not going to shift there arses and make a decision to end the constant speculation and should he, shouldnt he, will he, wont he show.

    Just a point for discussion though, if ever it was proven that the Clenbuterol 100% came from a contaminated steak, and it was 100% proven that Bertie had no idea, should he still be banned?

    Case has passed from UCI to CAS, and Bertie has asked for an extension (then granted) so he could ride the Tour, sorry 'present new evidence'
    ___________________

    Strava is not Zen.
  • LeicesterLad
    LeicesterLad Posts: 3,908
    calvjones wrote:
    LeicesterLad wrote:
    I think in all fairness this circus show is mostly down to the UCI et al. Whether Bertie is dirty or not is insignificant if the UCI are not going to shift there arses and make a decision to end the constant speculation and should he, shouldnt he, will he, wont he show.

    Just a point for discussion though, if ever it was proven that the Clenbuterol 100% came from a contaminated steak, and it was 100% proven that Bertie had no idea, should he still be banned?

    Case has passed from UCI to CAS, and Bertie has asked for an extension (then granted) so he could ride the Tour, sorry 'present new evidence'

    UCI, CAS whoever is in charge should be dealing with it quicker, of course Bertie is entitled to ask for an extension, but surely CAS are just as entitled to say no, stop him from riding the tour and causing such a scene. It shouldnt take over a year to decide if a man is telling the truth or not. (O J Simpson aside)
    http://www.twitter.com/InTheGC http://www.InTheGC.com http://www.facebook.com/intheGC
  • ms_tree
    ms_tree Posts: 1,405
    avoidingmyphd wrote:
    Not just cycling fans. Both Millar and Wiggins have recently said that they don't think he's guilty. It's odd.

    On Saturday's stage when he rolled over the line, Pineau - vehemently anti-doping and vociferous against Quickstep singing Ricco - patted Bert on the back.
    'Google can bring back a hundred thousand answers. A librarian can bring you back the right one.'
    Neil Gaiman
  • GeorgeShaw
    GeorgeShaw Posts: 764
    P_Tucker wrote:
    So, strict liability doesn't mean if a banned substance is found then that's the end of it; it just means that the burden of proof is with said athlete.

    The interesting part is that Clenbutador hasn't shown any proof publicly. All we have heard are excuses like "it must have been the beef" - which does not constitute proof. So the question is - do he or his lawyers have any real proof that has not been made public yet.

    Personally, I think we all know that the trace is from a blood doping bag. That is what brings the sport into disrepute. The fact that "everybody knows" but he is still racing.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    GeorgeShaw wrote:
    Personally, I think we all know that the trace is from a blood doping bag. That is what brings the sport into disrepute. The fact that "everybody knows" but he is still racing.

    But we don't "all know". I don't have a clue what actually happened. Very few people actually "know" anything. Half a dozen at most.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    LeicesterLad wrote:

    UCI, CAS whoever is in charge should be dealing with it quicker, of course Bertie is entitled to ask for an extension, but surely CAS are just as entitled to say no, stop him from riding the tour and causing such a scene. It shouldnt take over a year to decide if a man is telling the truth or not. (O J Simpson aside)

    CAS would've looked at his request and decided to change the dates on it's merits. They obviously thought the reasons were valid so extended it. They want to be as fair as possible to the athlete, so a couple of months for some legal stuff is fine.

    They can't stop him competing as he has a valid licence. It may be smelly, but it is what it is.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • Wulz
    Wulz Posts: 100
    Cycling is a lot bigger than bertie. I think that even if he is the victim of the steak storey, that his unfair punishment is a small price to pay to put the message out the other pros and the fans watching that drugs will not be tolerated. Sure he will feel hard done by but again in my mind thats a small price to pay relative to the joke this scenario has become.

    Im new to cycling so im still a bit green behind the ears but can anyone say that a catalogue of accidental dope positives have ocurred over the years?

Categories