JTL
Comments
-
frenchfighter wrote: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.
Golden rule of journalism to protect your sources.
There's a good chance money changed hands between the Sunday Times and the person leaking the news. Could be some one from the lab, could be someone from the UCI, could be a contractor with the UCI. Seriously doubt it was Sky - the risk/benefit analysis wouldn't add up.0 -
Abdoujaparov wrote:frenchfighter wrote: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.
Golden rule of journalism to protect your sources.
There's a good chance money changed hands between the Sunday Times and the person leaking the news. Could be some one from the lab, could be someone from the UCI, could be a contractor with the UCI. Seriously doubt it was Sky - the risk/benefit analysis wouldn't add up.
He's been asked. He aint saying. As you say, golden rule of journalism.0 -
I doubt it was Sky too. If they had wanted it leaked they wouldn't have done it at a time when the staff and riders where all easily accessible for comment.Abdoujaparov wrote:Seriously doubt it was Sky - the risk/benefit analysis wouldn't add up.Twitter: @RichN950 -
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:
I understand where you're coming from but for me personally, I defended Chris Horner on here at greater length than I've ever contributed to any thread because the nonsense posted is/was staggering.
My fundamental problem is that imho the sport is cleaner than it ever has been and I believe probably as clean as any sport. Cheating still does and will forever take place but I think we have to start with a presumption of innocence in 2013. I know some disagree and I also know that some (from either side of the debate) are very hypocritical.0 -
Don't know what all the fuss is about, he's British therefor obviously clean.
0 -
Fair enough on the distinction between initial and more advanced stages. I'm not convinced a Spanish, Italian or Turkish rider would have received the same level of defence here though.RichN95 wrote:
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?0 -
Is anyone particularly defending him though? Most people seem to be maintaining a 'let's wait and see' position at the moment.FJS wrote:Fair enough on the distinction between initial and more advanced stages. I'm not convinced a Spanish, Italian or Turkish rider would have received the same level of defence here though.Twitter: @RichN950 -
which is a position Spanish, Italian or Turkish riders would not receive from manyRichN95 wrote:
Is anyone particularly defending him though? Most people seem to be maintaining a 'let's wait and see' position at the moment.FJS wrote:Fair enough on the distinction between initial and more advanced stages. I'm not convinced a Spanish, Italian or Turkish rider would have received the same level of defence here though.0 -
FJS wrote:
which is a position Spanish, Italian or Turkish riders would not receive from manyRichN95 wrote:
Is anyone particularly defending him though? Most people seem to be maintaining a 'let's wait and see' position at the moment.FJS wrote:Fair enough on the distinction between initial and more advanced stages. I'm not convinced a Spanish, Italian or Turkish rider would have received the same level of defence here though.
Fair point FJS. I would be one of the first to dismiss them as out and out dopers but give JTL the benefit of the doubt. Similalry I've never been a fan of Horner and his "performance" in the Vuelta just entrenched that position yet I am willing to give Froome the benefit of the doubt in his turn around in form over the last 3 years or so.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
Is anyone particularly defending him though? Most people seem to be maintaining a 'let's wait and see' position at the moment.FJS wrote:Fair enough on the distinction between initial and more advanced stages. I'm not convinced a Spanish, Italian or Turkish rider would have received the same level of defence here though.
I'll defend him. This is BS.
He has MDCC miles in his legs. PEDS only slow Mid Devon types down.
This is all a big pile of poo.+++++++++++++++++++++
we are the proud, the few, Descendents.
Panama - finally putting a nail in the economic theory of the trickle down effect.0 -
By definition, aren't 90% of turkish and spanish riders (or athletes of any description) dopers though? :?0
-
0
-
From the Inrng piece just posted:This isn’t “one of your numbers looked odd, can you pop in for a chat” but instead three experts have a unanimous conclusion that it is “highly likely that a prohibited substance or prohibited method had been used and unlikely that it is the result of any other cause” and again those are WADA’s words. But I can’t stress enough that there’s a bias because we don’t know how many other cases are opened and shut. Many things can seem highly likely… until they get explained."That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer0
-
In terms of the leak, the most likely explanation to me is that someone has got wind of it on the grapevine and tipped off Walsh. JTL will have told someone the truth beyond Brailsford and DB is bound to have told someone else, in "strictest confidence". People love a gossip, and it just takes the wrong person to pass the gossip on.0
-
-
Thanks Iain good find.+++++++++++++++++++++
we are the proud, the few, Descendents.
Panama - finally putting a nail in the economic theory of the trickle down effect.0 -
Given that the flagging up of possibly dodgy blood values should have not been disclosed in the first place, is there a precedent as to whether a clean bill of health from the UCI, (should that be the case) will be in the public domain?0
-
rich pcp wrote:Given that the flagging up of possibly dodgy blood values should have not been disclosed in the first place, is there a precedent as to whether a clean bill of health from the UCI, (should that be the case) will be in the public domain?
Probably, but I would imagine Mrs Millar would be shouting it from the rooftops...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
ddraver wrote:rich pcp wrote:Given that the flagging up of possibly dodgy blood values should have not been disclosed in the first place, is there a precedent as to whether a clean bill of health from the UCI, (should that be the case) will be in the public domain?
Probably, but I would imagine Mrs Millar would be shouting it from the rooftops...
I think it will be up to JTL to be shouting it. Its been made very clear its between JTL and the UCI. Then Ms Millar will make sure a statement goes out as a 'We're pleased to have it confirmed by Jonathan Tiernan-Locke that...blah blah'0 -
True, but I just wondered if there would be an official announcement from the new, sparkly clean and correctly procedural UCI. As has been said, the process so far would normally have been under wraps. She's hardly likely to say that he's been given the green light to race again but they're not completely convinced s he will be a targeted rider!
I'm not sure what form the official announcement would take if that were to be the case.0 -
OK so perhaps when Kroll took McQuaids laptop and the last email stated : 'Screw a UK rider"+++++++++++++++++++++
we are the proud, the few, Descendents.
Panama - finally putting a nail in the economic theory of the trickle down effect.0 -
Well DB has hired dopers before...and I'm not talking about Leinders either. Michael Rogers for one is a dead cert.0
-
You and many others have your suspicions, but Brailsford can always point to the fact that Rogers has always maintained he was clean:
"Sutton said Rogers, in his interview at Sky, had defended his past involvement with doctor Michele Ferrari, now banned from the sport for life, but who the cyclist described in 2006 as ''the best coach in the world''. Rogers recently admitted to Fairfax Media his reputation might be ''tainted'' because of his links with Ferrari, but maintained he was a clean competitor.
''Mick's always maintained he is innocent,'' Sutton said."
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/sky ... z2ilsDhL00http://www.georgesfoundation.org
http://100hillsforgeorge.blogspot.com/
http://www.12on12in12.blogspot.co.uk/0 -
This thread sums Bikeradar up ...
Looks dodgy to those in charge of such things 'codswallop ... he's an Englander' ...
In an alternate universe ...Wins a GT, passes the testing that goes with it AND posts blood values ... 'Dirty American cheating SOB' ...
None of us actually know who's doing what but in the face of overwhelming conjecture ... 'blame the American' ...0 -
It certainly does. The general tone of the thread has been that we don't really know, it may be something, it may be nothing, let's wait and see what happens. An innocent until proved guilty approach.Crankbrother wrote:This thread sums Bikeradar up ...
If you want a more knee-jerk reactionary forum we all know where you can find that.
As for your comparison with Horner, on that thread you will find many taking the same tone - including me, once again banging my drum of misused statistics. My gut feeling is that Horner is probably on something, but I'm not willing to abuse facts to try to prove it.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Rich, you're ethos may be even handed but the threads bear no comparison ... We've had death threats (albeit by grown men clutching their Dairy Milk wrappers as they make them) in the Horner thread ...
I don't even care what JTL gets up to as he's not affected a proper pro race so far ... but in terms of forum politics it is a very interesting comparison ...0 -
Death threats? Really? Not on this forum. The biggest threat you'll get here is being put on ignore. Or maybe Frenchie will put you on his Worst Dressed in 2013 list.Crankbrother wrote:Rich, you're ethos may be even handed but the threads bear no comparison ... We've had death threats (albeit by grown men clutching their Dairy Milk wrappers as they make them) in the Horner thread ...
.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Twas meaning against Horner ...
The ignoration (sic) is viewed with pride rather than indignation ... better to be ignored by the minority than blend into insignificance with the majority ...0 -
This discussion has been closed.
