Marcel Six 18 month ban

prawny

Did I miss this on here?

Bit of a shame, I like(d) him. Anyone think he was up to anuthing dodgy or are we accepting his excuse?

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/arti ... ban-35638/

giantarmy

i heard 'dodgy' rumours months ago within the UK peleton

Richmond Racer

just what's needed right now - a sanction on the British domestic scene

thegibdog

Richmond Racer wrote:

just what's needed right now - a sanction on the British domestic scene

Yep, good to know rules are being enforced at the domestic level too.

Richmond Racer

thegibdog wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

just what's needed right now - a sanction on the British domestic scene

Yep, good to know rules are being enforced at the domestic level too.

True.

ddraver

Did he get a 6 or an 18 month ban then...?

:P

prawny

ddraver wrote:

Did he get a 6 or an 18 month ban then...?

:P

Badum Tish!

618 month ban, they're getting tough on the cheats!

Richmond Racer

ddraver wrote:

Did he get a 6 or an 18 month ban then...?

:P

Ha! yes, none of this brief winter ban nonsense for Six. Perhaps the team will terminate his contract (?), he'll lose over 18 months salary and perhaps struggle to get back into a conti team, who knows.

Just like the Garmin 3 then.

Pross

The reduction to 18 months seems a bit bizarre 'no significant fault or negligence'? He was required to take a test and refused to do so, I can't see how there is any defence. How long does it take to pee in a bottle?

Richmond Racer

Pross wrote:

The reduction to 18 months seems a bit bizarre 'no significant fault or negligence'? He was required to take a test and refused to do so, I can't see how there is any defence. How long does it take to pee in a bottle?

They took into account the background re his personal situation. This gives more detail than the Bike Rader article
http://road.cc/content/news/69553-18-mo ... due-family

Pross

Richmond Racer wrote:

Pross wrote:

The reduction to 18 months seems a bit bizarre 'no significant fault or negligence'? He was required to take a test and refused to do so, I can't see how there is any defence. How long does it take to pee in a bottle?

They took into account the background re his personal situation

But that doesn't make sense in the context of 'no significant fault or negligence' it was his fault he missed the test as he refused to take it. The excuse, if they had information to support it was true, would surely have come under 'compelling justification' but they ruled it didn't count for that.

amaferanga

Pross wrote:

But that doesn't make sense in the context of 'no significant fault or negligence' it was his fault he missed the test as he refused to take it. The excuse, if they had information to support it was true, would surely have come under 'compelling justification' but they ruled it didn't count for that.

UKAD report should clear up your confusion.

DeadCalm

amaferanga wrote:

Pross wrote:

But that doesn't make sense in the context of 'no significant fault or negligence' it was his fault he missed the test as he refused to take it. The excuse, if they had information to support it was true, would surely have come under 'compelling justification' but they ruled it didn't count for that.

UKAD report should clear up your confusion.

Thanks for posting that. Very interesting.

Pross

amaferanga wrote:

Pross wrote:

But that doesn't make sense in the context of 'no significant fault or negligence' it was his fault he missed the test as he refused to take it. The excuse, if they had information to support it was true, would surely have come under 'compelling justification' but they ruled it didn't count for that.

UKAD report should clear up your confusion.

Thanks for that. So basically accepting an argument under compelling justification would have meant no sanction which they weren't prepared to consider. However, they accepted that he genuinely needed to get away to his wife thanks to supporting evidence and effectively the panel had to make a decision if that was covered by the wording regarding 'no significant fault' which is usually used if an athlete tests positive due to a contaminated product or similar? It sounds a reasonable decision in the circumstances but confirms that the wording is not really ideal for the situation (acknowledged by the panel who are keen to stress the 'significant' part and that it has been decided on the merits of this case). You have to wonder if he'll get back into professional racing though as his family situation doesn't seem well suited to his career.

Also of interest from that link is the list of current suspensions in the UK - it flies in the face of cycling being dirty with Marcel being the only current suspension. Plenty from rugby (mainly Welsh rugby), boxing and athletics though.

prawny

Cor blimey, poor guy. I completely understand his situation, very similar to my own (other than the being good at cycling bit)

Also surprised that he's an Amature, I suppose if he's got another job it would be easier to accept a ban of some sort rather than put cycling before his family.

Tom Butcher

I sympathise with his situation but I don't see that excuse as a reason to reduce the ban - how long would it take for him to give a urine sample compared to the time it took to travel and race ?

Art Vandelay

prawny wrote:

Cor blimey, poor guy. I completely understand his situation

Don't agree. I think it's a dog ate my homework excuse.

prawny

The way I read it is that they wanted him to hang around until they tested him, he couldn't do the test there and then. Although reading the report it shouldn't have been more than a 15-20 minute wait.

@ Art Trust me, if your wife has got anxiety issues and your kid is sick there are much more important things than cycling

edited for spelling :oops:

phil s

There were a lot of rumours - backed up to me by at least one ex-teammate - about his various misdeeds the previous season and how he was swiftly moved on from the team. All whiffs of a "dog ate my homework" excuse, as previously mentioned.

prawny

Interesting, I hadn't heard any of that. I will reserve judgement then.

SBezza

Tom Butcher wrote:

I sympathise with his situation but I don't see that excuse as a reason to reduce the ban - how long would it take for him to give a urine sample compared to the time it took to travel and race ?

Does depend on how long it actually takes him to produce a sample, I was sat drinking for over an hour and drinking in the region of 3 litres of water before I could produce a sample when I was tested at a race. It was a hot day and a 100 mile TT, so very dehydrated, but still if the rider is dehydrated it might not be a quick 5 minute affair, the bloody paperwork takes longer than that.

Still no defense in my eyes though, if family issues were as bad as they were and he didn't really want to race, why not start then pull out with a fake injury or something. Surely your family know what sort of life you have as a pro/semi pro cyclist and should be able to manage on their own for a few hours.

Anonymous

I think I would allow my wife to suffer some anxiety for the sake of 20 minutes if it meant losing my job for 2 years.

I would ask a team mate to drop the housekeys off.

(I think). Interesting point by phil s though.

aspender

prawny wrote:

Also surprised that he's an Amature, I suppose if he's got another job it would be easier to accept a ban of some sort rather than put cycling before his family.

Well he certainly sometimes works in one of the LBS near here. Sold me a Fizik saddle a while back.

The UKDA report seems to infer that the wife was the main earner in the family (possibly before kids were involved?)

Pross

coriordan wrote:

I think I would allow my wife to suffer some anxiety for the sake of 20 minutes if it meant losing my job for 2 years.

I would ask a team mate to drop the housekeys off.

(I think). Interesting point by phil s though.

I take it you've never lived with someone with serious anxiety issues then?

Pross

Art Vandelay wrote:

prawny wrote:

Cor blimey, poor guy. I completely understand his situation

Don't agree. I think it's a dog ate my homework excuse.

Did you read the full report? There seemed to be plenty of independent evidence to back up his story - I was dismissive of the reason before reading all the information. Having said that, as above it seems strange that he would even race in those circumstances.

Rodrego Hernandez

Pross wrote:

Art Vandelay wrote:

prawny wrote:

Cor blimey, poor guy. I completely understand his situation

Don't agree. I think it's a dog ate my homework excuse.

Did you read the full report? There seemed to be plenty of independent evidence to back up his story - I was dismissive of the reason before reading all the information. Having said that, as above it seems strange that he would even race in those circumstances.

Not sure that there's plenty of independent evidence.

You're dead right though, strange that he did race. It does seem that he was a target of the testers though given how many tims he was tested this year when other riders were even questioning the existence of them (see cycling weekly website).

As a 'pro' rider he should know the importance of dope controls, missing one is a potential career ender. He may not be a full-on proper professional but his team is a semi-pro setup and being professional is more than having a matching set of kit and a clean bike, it's knowing the rules of the sport you agree to abide by. There aren't any caveats around rules that excuse you from them if you have a sick wife. There are loads of cheats around and the sport is better off without them, he should see a control as a way of proving he is clean and acknowledging that they are a necessity of his chosen sport.

Pross

Rodrego Hernandez wrote:

There aren't any caveats around rules that excuse you from them if you have a sick wife.

True which is why he ended up with the 18 month ban. My interpretation of the panel's decision is that he is guilty of missing the test but that they don't think he was trying to hide anything and accepted his circumstances on the basis of evidence presented.

prawny

Pross wrote:

Having said that, as above it seems strange that he would even race in those circumstances.

Dunno, my mrs is fine with me going out on my bike and to work obviously but if there's any mad stress at home or if I'm suddenly expected to work late it really upsets her. I can see how Marcels wife would have accepted he was going to race but then was tipped over the edge with what was going on there and him unexpectedly having to stay later. There have been times recently when I've been tempted to walk out of work to help out at home and I would be f*cked without my job.

Although, he could also be dodgy. I guess we'll never know for sure.

jibberjim

Pross wrote:

Did you read the full report? There seemed to be plenty of independent evidence to back up his story - I was dismissive of the reason before reading all the information. Having said that, as above it seems strange that he would even race in those circumstances.

Seemed to be some evidence which UKAD decided to just accept rather than spend money challenging on an amateur rider - a view I certainly support, 6 months extra will make little difference. And even the evidence relies on everyone accepting that the times were wrong, as the submitted text saying they were locked out was timed 6 minutes after being told of the test - so plenty of time to start faking the story from there.

I don't see any independant evidence of any sort.

Pross

jibberjim wrote:

Pross wrote:

Did you read the full report? There seemed to be plenty of independent evidence to back up his story - I was dismissive of the reason before reading all the information. Having said that, as above it seems strange that he would even race in those circumstances.

Seemed to be some evidence which UKAD decided to just accept rather than spend money challenging on an amateur rider - a view I certainly support, 6 months extra will make little difference. And even the evidence relies on everyone accepting that the times were wrong, as the submitted text saying they were locked out was timed 6 minutes after being told of the test - so plenty of time to start faking the story from there.

I don't see any independant evidence of any sort.

I thought I saw something about there being many missed calls while he was racing and also evidence from a nurse about his wife's anxiety condition?

ozzzyosborn206

giantarmy wrote:

i heard 'dodgy' rumours months ago within the UK peloton

ditto, not surprised at all