JTL
Comments
-
Ed-tron wrote:
Disappointing to note that Endura asked both UCI & UKAD to do additional testing but both refused.0 -
OCDuPalais wrote:
No. Why would that be the case?
If his values at Sky were suspicious we'd be reading stories about how his values at Sky were suspicious... its the change in blood values from the late 2012 tests to the 2013 tests that are suspicious, and we can almost certainly say that his values were significantly stronger in 2012 than in 2013 due to where the suspicion lies.0 -
Endura say that the tests that SKY carried out after the Worlds in 2012 weren't flagged as suspicious, but surely thye were only later thought suspicous because of the change during 2013 (to lower levels apparently). It's change they are looking for not 'levels' as such. I said this earlier and I don't think it's been disputed?0
-
inseine wrote:Endura say that the tests that SKY carried out after the Worlds in 2012 weren't flagged as suspicious, but surely thye were only later thought suspicous because of the change during 2013 (to lower levels apparently). It's change they are looking for not 'levels' as such. I said this earlier and I don't think it's been disputed?
^This. Also Endura's statement refers to 'physiological tests for Team Sky directly after the World Championships in 2012'. Physiological tests are different from dope tests.0 -
Tom Southam's view:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/opi ... e-is-clean0 -
His current team have nothing to hide, why would they? Saying its an easy way to "bin him" because his form has been poor is pure nasty speculation.
This is what Sky, rightly in my opinion, had to say:
"Team Sky has tried to respect what should be a confidential process, allowing the rider to explain in private, without prejudice, and the anti-doping authorities to do their valuable job."
This whole process should have been sorted in private.0 -
iainf72 wrote:mike6 wrote:
This whole process should have been sorted in private.
Of course it should have. But this makes people wonder why this case, of all of them, makes it's way to David Walsh?
I think JTL in this instance is the victim of a knee jerk reaction to what has come out in the last 12 months or so. there has been so much cover up in the past that complete transparency is now the default. Then again I have just done 7 Deadly Sins and The Secret Race back to back. I should have broken them up with a Jane Austen in between.0 -
Yellow Peril wrote:I think JTL in this instance is the victim of a knee jerk reaction to what has come out in the last 12 months or so. there has been so much cover up in the past that complete transparency is now the default. Then again I have just done 7 Deadly Sins and The Secret Race back to back. I should have broken them up with a Jane Austen in between.
A former forumer emailed me to tell me I'd missed an option 4 off my list, where it was leaked by BC.
Which was interesting. And it ties into the "last 12 months" with an LA link. But you can all figure that one out for yourselves if you're into tinfoil hatsFckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:mike6 wrote:
This whole process should have been sorted in private.
Of course it should have. But this makes people wonder why this case, of all of them, makes it's way to David Walsh?
Do you always believe things should be done in private? Whistleblowers are very a important part of society, they have legal protection because of how important they are, we are in a situation where anti-doping organisations and sports governing bodies have been shown to be complicit in covering up doping. With that background, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that keeping it private is not currently in the public interest at all. Without that background, then yes, but the Contador case almost certainly only resulted in a ban because of the leak.Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/0 -
iainf72 wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:I think JTL in this instance is the victim of a knee jerk reaction to what has come out in the last 12 months or so. there has been so much cover up in the past that complete transparency is now the default. Then again I have just done 7 Deadly Sins and The Secret Race back to back. I should have broken them up with a Jane Austen in between.
A former forumer emailed me to tell me I'd missed an option 4 off my list, where it was leaked by BC.
Which was interesting. And it ties into the "last 12 months" with an LA link. But you can all figure that one out for yourselves if you're into tinfoil hats
Now this is worthy of a thread of its own. Are we talking Kleber or Aurelio/Biking Bernie?0 -
jibberjim wrote:iainf72 wrote:mike6 wrote:
This whole process should have been sorted in private.
Of course it should have. But this makes people wonder why this case, of all of them, makes it's way to David Walsh?
Do you always believe things should be done in private? Whistleblowers are very a important part of society, they have legal protection because of how important they are, we are in a situation where anti-doping organisations and sports governing bodies have been shown to be complicit in covering up doping. With that background, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that keeping it private is not currently in the public interest at all. Without that background, then yes, but the Contador case almost certainly only resulted in a ban because of the leak.
Surely the point here is the stage in the process this has been made public. Nobody is suggesting a fully concluded investigation process that demonstrates doping should not be made public.0 -
jibberjim wrote:
Do you always believe things should be done in private? Whistleblowers are very a important part of society, they have legal protection because of how important they are, we are in a situation where anti-doping organisations and sports governing bodies have been shown to be complicit in covering up doping. With that background, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that keeping it private is not currently in the public interest at all. Without that background, then yes, but the Contador case almost certainly only resulted in a ban because of the leak.
No, but in this case it should be. JTL isn't the only athlete who will be asked to explain abnormalities. If something crops up, they ask you if you can explain it, and you can, why should that be of any concern to the public?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Yellow Peril wrote:
Now this is worthy of a thread of its own. Are we talking Kleber or Aurelio/Biking Bernie?
I shan't say but rest assured it wasn't Howard.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
You are assuming that it was leaked deliberately. It might just be that Walsh has a friend with in the right place. That's how these things often work.iainf72 wrote:
A former forumer emailed me to tell me I'd missed an option 4 off my list, where it was leaked by BC.
Which was interesting. And it ties into the "last 12 months" with an LA link. But you can all figure that one out for yourselves if you're into tinfoil hatsTwitter: @RichN950 -
iainf72 wrote:No, but in this case it should be. JTL isn't the only athlete who will be asked to explain abnormalities. If something crops up, they ask you if you can explain it, and you can, why should that be of any concern to the public?
Because the process of "explanations" is suspect, and a whistleblower may not have the chance once the process has proceeded further along.Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/0 -
But the process being further along is either he's charged (and we'll hear about it) or the case is dropped (and we don't). There is no 'whistleblower' here.jibberjim wrote:iainf72 wrote:No, but in this case it should be. JTL isn't the only athlete who will be asked to explain abnormalities. If something crops up, they ask you if you can explain it, and you can, why should that be of any concern to the public?
Because the process of "explanations" is suspect, and a whistleblower may not have the chance once the process has proceeded further along.Twitter: @RichN950 -
This is the usual 'tabloid falsification'
to substitute "The public are interested in"
for "In the public interest"0 -
EPO Delivery Man wrote:Maybe JTL thought 'this is my chance to join Sky...i'll take some drugs so i can win the tour of Britain..that will cement it..and then i'll go legit and come off the sauce once im in'
No doubt he will say it was drugs for an injury or some such b*llocks.
You only have to look at his performances for Sky since he won the TOB. Utter sh*te.
Coming off EPO does that.
Don't worry your delivery business is safe. Micro dosing of EPO is undetectable
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/213369510 -
adamfo wrote:EPO Delivery Man wrote:Maybe JTL thought 'this is my chance to join Sky...i'll take some drugs so i can win the tour of Britain..that will cement it..and then i'll go legit and come off the sauce once im in'
No doubt he will say it was drugs for an injury or some such b*llocks.
You only have to look at his performances for Sky since he won the TOB. Utter sh*te.
Coming off EPO does that.
Don't worry your delivery business is safe. Micro dosing of EPO is undetectable
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21336951
Exactly why the initial process should be done in private. Then, If he has a doping case to answer, it can then be made public. Otherwise we end up with shoyte like the above being spouted before we even know there is a case to answer. The poor guy is being condemned by some here without knowing any of the facts. :roll:0 -
Totally agree, Mike. And fact is that even if the UCI accept his explanation and take it no further, some will choose to ignore that and he'll be stigmatised as 'that guy with dodgy blood values, nudge nudge' for the rest of his career. And god help him if he wins a race again.0
-
0
-
r0bh wrote:
Yeah...begs the question why no one is asking Walsh directly where he got the info from and why he released it.
I hope Walsh has had a call from JTL.Contador is the Greatest0 -
r0bh wrote:
Very well put. This quote sums it up perfectly for me.
"In some ways, it's irrelevant how the news leaked. No matter what the outcome of the case following Tiernan-Locke's explanation, he will be forever tainted in the eyes of some fans and media. Let's assume he's innocent, let's imagine that his explanation for his passport anomalies satisfies the three APMU experts who then report back to the UCI and say that there's 'No case to answer.'"
Oh no, it's alright the BR guilty verdict is already in.0 -
Cycling Weekly were all too happy to publish the biological passport anomalies hearings of Pelizzotti & co in 2010 (http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... alies.html). No Sunday Times rumours needed, it was simply announced by the UCI. Did they call for anonymity back then? Did any of people calling for that here do the same back then? Or is it only British riders who are innocent until proven guilty?r0bh wrote:0 -
FJS wrote:
Cycling Weekly were all too happy to publish the biological passport anomalies hearings of Pelizzotti & co in 2010 (http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... alies.html). No Sunday Times rumours needed, it was simply announced by the UCI. Did they call for anonymity back then? Did any of people calling for that here do the same back then? Or is it only British riders who are innocent until proven guilty?r0bh wrote:
tbf that was once the process had gone through the first two steps. Step 1) explanation by rider to UCI 3 person panel, then if they're not satisfied, Step 2) review by 11 person panel. When CW published that article , it had been decided by the UCI via step 2) that those riders had a case to answer i.e. they were then in the disciplinary process. And critically those riders cases were then officially placed in the public domain by the UCI.
Where JTL's at right now, isnt anywhere in the discliplinary process. At this stage, its meant to be private and confidential because its recognised that the rider may be able to make a valid case for the anomalies.0 -
Cycling Weekly reported an official announcement from the UCI that a prosectution has been started - not an investigation. By the time that happened Pelizzotti et al had already passed through the stage where Tiernan-Locke currently finds himself - the stage at which the rider is given an anonymous chance to explain themeselves. Have the UCI said anything about Tiernan-Locke? No they haven't.FJS wrote:Cycling Weekly were all too happy to publish the biological passport anomalies hearings of Pelizzotti & co in 2010 (http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... alies.html). No Sunday Times rumours needed, it was simply announced by the UCI. Did they call for anonymity back then? Did any of people calling for that here do the same back then? Or is it only British riders who are innocent until proven guilty?Twitter: @RichN950
This discussion has been closed.
