JTL

whiteboytrash

TailWindHome wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

Sky should comment and provide openness and transparency on the case.

But

whiteboytrash wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

The UCI investigate under their code, which affords the rider privacy at this time, then publicly release their decision.
Sky then "act", if necessary, in response to said UCI findings.
Why is their any confusion over this?
I suspect the answer is that there isn't.

This I agree with, absolutely. 100%.

Is your MO here to try and catch me out or do you wish to discuss the issue at hand?

I most certainly agree that the UCI and the passport committee via its powers to allow due process to play out. Yes 100%. No argument there.

But I also expect in the name of transparency that Sky make comment.

Not difficult to wrap that concept around ones skull, no?

Let's spin this another way TailWindHome. What happens if JTL is cleared? And we never understand why. We're just told he was cleared and nothing more is said on the matter?

You'd be satisfied with that outcome?

mroli

whiteboytrash wrote:

But I also expect in the name of transparency that Sky make comment.

FFS

"We have no doubts over his performance, behaviour or tests at Team Sky and understand any anomaly is in readings taken before he joined the team," Team Sky said in a statement.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/sep/29/team-sky-jonathan-tiernan-locke-cycling

See about 5 pages up before a load of ridiculous chat.

Richmond Racer

mroli wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

But I also expect in the name of transparency that Sky make comment.

FFS

"We have no doubts over his performance, behaviour or tests at Team Sky and understand any anomaly is in readings taken before he joined the team," Team Sky said in a statement.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/sep/29/team-sky-jonathan-tiernan-locke-cycling

See about 5 pages up before a load of ridiculous chat.

Its like Groundhog Day, mroli

ddraver

How long before the modmins realise that all their work is the result of one person and cut out the problem at source...

whiteboytrash

mroli wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

But I also expect in the name of transparency that Sky make comment.

FFS

"We have no doubts over his performance, behaviour or tests at Team Sky and understand any anomaly is in readings taken before he joined the team," Team Sky said in a statement.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/sep/29/team-sky-jonathan-tiernan-locke-cycling

See about 5 pages up before a load of ridiculous chat.

Thanks but this is well established.

What has occurred since:

Tiernan-Locke's former manager at the Endura team, Brian Smith, said: "I can't explain any of the irregularities but I would definitely vouch 100% for Jon."

and now?

What was wrong with JTL? Why the anomaly?

Dave B we are waiting for an update.

ddraver

Can I ask you a question - what part of "becasue the process is supposed to be confidential" is giving you the most trouble? Maybe we can start there and work back so you understand it...

rayjay

The fact could be that Sky no nothing more than the rest of us right now. Nothing to report Sir.

I am more concerned about the fact that there is a abnormality in the bio passport and it has not been resolved.

If JTL is cleared due to a illness etc then I don't see what is stopping another rider saying that he had exactly the same issue if his bio has abnormality's.

It then questions the validity of the Bio Passport.

whiteboytrash

rayjay wrote:

The fact could be that Sky no nothing more than the rest of us right now. Nothing to report Sir.

I am more concerned about the fact that there is a abnormality in the bio passport and it has not been resolved.

If JTL is cleared due to a illness etc then I don't see what is stopping another rider saying that he had exactly the same issue if his bio has abnormality's.

It then questions the validity of the Bio Passport.

This here, yes, you raise a very good point.

The passport in my mind has a serious amount of questions surrounding it.

There is a lot of blind faith in the process on this forum.

salsiccia1

rayjay wrote:

If JTL is cleared due to a illness etc then I don't see what is stopping another rider saying that he had exactly the same issue if his bio has abnormality's.

It then questions the validity of the Bio Passport.

I imagine some sort of proof would be required, not just the rider's say-so.

mroli

Nothing has happened since. JTL has submitted evidence, the UCI are reviewing it, when they come back with a decision, no doubt Sky will make another comment. As Rayjay says (!)

Presumably Rayjay - one of the purposes of keeping the whole process confidential is so that another rider can't check historic cases, see if there a similar anomaly historically and submit a response on exactly the same lines.

mroli

Richmond Racer wrote:

Its like Groundhog Day, mroli

Groundhog Day is funny.... :roll:

tailwindhome

whiteboytrash wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

Sky should comment and provide openness and transparency on the case.

But

whiteboytrash wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

The UCI investigate under their code, which affords the rider privacy at this time, then publicly release their decision.
Sky then "act", if necessary, in response to said UCI findings.
Why is their any confusion over this?
I suspect the answer is that there isn't.

This I agree with, absolutely. 100%.

Is your MO here to try and catch me out or do you wish to discuss the issue at hand?

I most certainly agree that the UCI and the passport committee via its powers to allow due process to play out. Yes 100%. No argument there.

But I also expect in the name of transparency that Sky make comment.

Not difficult to wrap that concept around ones skull, no?

Let's spin this another way TailWindHome. What happens if JTL is cleared? And we never understand why. We're just told he was cleared and nothing more is said on the matter?

You'd be satisfied with that outcome?

Well it is.

It's also the issue in hand for the last 10 pages or so.

On one hand you absolutely agree 100% that the process should be adhered to but on the other hand Sky should ignore both the process and the rider's privacy to publish his 'explanation'.

That makes no sense.

But I think you know that already. Don't you?

Let's spin this another way TailWindHome. What happens if JTL is cleared? And we never understand why. We're just told he was cleared and nothing more is said on the matter?

You'd be satisfied with that outcome?

Yes.

If the 'UCI panel' determine that the explanation offered by JTL is reasonable and therefore decide not to pursue a doping charge seek sanction that will be good enough for me.

Just as if they decide to charge it'll be good enough for me too.

I watch the sport for enjoyment.

Richmond Racer

rayjay wrote:

The fact could be that Sky no nothing more than the rest of us right now. Nothing to report Sir.

I am more concerned about the fact that there is a abnormality in the bio passport and it has not been resolved.

If JTL is cleared due to a illness etc then I don't see what is stopping another rider saying that he had exactly the same issue if his bio has abnormality's.

It then questions the validity of the Bio Passport.

More than one journo has said that they've heard that in 4 out of 5 instances of the UCI contacting a rider over something they're questioning in their bio passport, the UCI is happy with the explanation and it goes no further. As something in the region of 5 cases linked to bio passports have gone through the whole process from this first step, right through to a sanction, this means that there could be around 20 riders who've been sent letters as per JTL and whose explanations have been accepted. We dont know the names of these other riders who've been contacted, but for whom it went no further. Nor do we know what explanations they gave. Because in every other case where its gone no further, its been totally confidential - a matter purely between the athlete and the UCI.

This isnt unique to cycling. Same thing happens in other sports where the bio passport has been adopted, including ahtletics. Its the process, and its bound up in legal terms by WADA.

However there are a heap of things that can affect blood values, not least of which is illness.

It wont be enough for an athlete to say 'i was ill and that's why my values were xx' - they will have had to produce a stack of evidence to back this up to provide a compelling case.

The bio passport as a standalone isnt a detection method that flashes up unequivocally 'DOPER DOPER' on its own. Its a lot more complicated than that

blazing_saddles

rayjay wrote:

The fact could be that Sky no nothing more than the rest of us right now. Nothing to report Sir.

I am more concerned about the fact that there is a abnormality in the bio passport and it has not been resolved.

Of course Sky know more than the average johnny in the street.
It is doubtful that they already know the outcome of the UCI's findings.

The debate (if we charitably call it so) seems to be whether Sky should
break protocol, get into hot water with the UCI, just to give their internet detractors another sound bite to misinterpret.
Err, not too hard to spot why the answer to that is a definitive NO.

rayjay wrote:

If JTL is cleared due to a illness etc then I don't see what is stopping another rider saying that he had exactly the same issue if his bio has abnormality's.

It then questions the validity of the Bio Passport.

This isn't just putting the cart before the horse, this is putting the cart before a theoretical horse.

Velonutter

Right, Sorry lads, but after 50 pages of debating, untold numbers of reports, insults flying backwards and forwards, all speculation and guesswork, I'm closing this thread.

If people can't play nice then take your toys away and play elsewhere :roll:

Why can't people debate without getting nasty :roll: