Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

Agostini Positive for Clostebol

2»

Posts

  • DeadCalmDeadCalm Posts: 4,023
    Given that he'd declared beforehand that he'd used the cream and that such a microscopic quantity was found, I'm inclined to believe him.

    The whole concept of strict liability troubles me.
    Team My Man 2022:

    Antwan Tolhoek, Sam Oomen, Tom Dumoulin, Thymen Arensman, Remco Evenepoel, Benoît Cosnefroy, Tom Pidcock, Mark Cavendish, Romain Bardet
  • Mad_MalxMad_Malx Posts: 4,709
    DeadCalm wrote:
    Given that he'd declared beforehand that he'd used the cream and that such a microscopic quantity was found, I'm inclined to believe him.

    The whole concept of strict liability troubles me.

    From the CN article cited on page 1:
    “So I applied some Trofodermin, an over-the-counter product and something I never imagined would have contained a banned active ingredient. If it wasn’t a medicinal product available without prescription, my mother would never have given it to me… It was three o’clock in the morning. I didn’t read the ingredients and after spreading the cream, I went back to sleep. It didn’t even heal the rash…”

    Agostini said that he declared his use of Trofodermin when he was subjected to the out-of-competition control some days later.

    The first para (if true) is stupidity, and the second says he only declared it once the testers turned up. He's liable, and his declaration means nothing.
  • DeadCalmDeadCalm Posts: 4,023
    Mad_Malx wrote:
    DeadCalm wrote:
    Given that he'd declared beforehand that he'd used the cream and that such a microscopic quantity was found, I'm inclined to believe him.

    The whole concept of strict liability troubles me.

    From the CN article cited on page 1:
    “So I applied some Trofodermin, an over-the-counter product and something I never imagined would have contained a banned active ingredient. If it wasn’t a medicinal product available without prescription, my mother would never have given it to me… It was three o’clock in the morning. I didn’t read the ingredients and after spreading the cream, I went back to sleep. It didn’t even heal the rash…”

    Agostini said that he declared his use of Trofodermin when he was subjected to the out-of-competition control some days later.

    The first para (if true) is stupidity, and the second says he only declared it once the testers turned up. He's liable, and his declaration means nothing.
    Yeah, maybe. To be fair I don't know enough about this specific incident to make a judgment one way or the other. I'm just uncomfortable that the system is such that someone can have their life ruined, their reputation besmirched and their livelihood taken away with no fault on their part.
    Team My Man 2022:

    Antwan Tolhoek, Sam Oomen, Tom Dumoulin, Thymen Arensman, Remco Evenepoel, Benoît Cosnefroy, Tom Pidcock, Mark Cavendish, Romain Bardet
  • okgookgo Posts: 4,368
    Daz555 wrote:
    I can't believe people are still buying this bull from pro sportspeople about it being a totally innocent use of something they bought from Boots or something their mother gave them.

    Jeez such lies are pathetically transparent.

    +1

    sounds like a crock of censored to me.
    Blog on my first and now second season of proper riding/racing - www.firstseasonracing.com
  • Richmond RacerRichmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    Mad_Malx wrote:
    DeadCalm wrote:
    Given that he'd declared beforehand that he'd used the cream and that such a microscopic quantity was found, I'm inclined to believe him.

    The whole concept of strict liability troubles me.

    From the CN article cited on page 1:
    “So I applied some Trofodermin, an over-the-counter product and something I never imagined would have contained a banned active ingredient. If it wasn’t a medicinal product available without prescription, my mother would never have given it to me… It was three o’clock in the morning. I didn’t read the ingredients and after spreading the cream, I went back to sleep. It didn’t even heal the rash…”

    Agostini said that he declared his use of Trofodermin when he was subjected to the out-of-competition control some days later.

    The first para (if true) is stupidity, and the second says he only declared it once the testers turned up. He's liable, and his declaration means nothing.



    The aggrieved 'it didnt even heal the rash' is a nice touch
  • frenchfighterfrenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    There is no way you take a minuscule of a unlikely performance enhancing product to help you in your career as a cyclist. There is no way he should have had to be put in this position.
    Contador is the Greatest
  • No_Ta_DoctorNo_Ta_Doctor Posts: 11,940
    There is no way you take a minuscule of a unlikely performance enhancing product to help you in your career as a cyclist. There is no way he should have had to be put in this position.

    Sigh. We've been through this before, haven't we? Just because a miniscule trace is found it doesn't mean the original amount was miniscule. It could just have been a longer time ago.

    This might help:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh5kZ4uIUC0
    “Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

    @DrHeadgear

    The Vikings are coming!
  • feltkuotafeltkuota Posts: 333
    There is no way you take a minuscule of a unlikely performance enhancing product to help you in your career as a cyclist. There is no way he should have had to be put in this position.

    So how do the testers determine between:

    A tiny amount of whatever and
    A huge amount of PED, beneficial to career, taken week's previously and now showing up only as "a tiny amount of whatever"

    They can't hence the strict liability..
  • DeVlaeminckDeVlaeminck Posts: 8,305
    Yes he's guilty but they can apply a lighter sanction if his story is reasonable. The truth is we don't know, he may just have been careless or this may be the last traces of something he took to enhance performance, taking away his career on guesswork is wrong imo.

    He should get the B sample tested anyway, you never know they don't always match up with the A what did he have to lose.
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • Daz555Daz555 Posts: 3,976
    taking away his career on guesswork is wrong imo.
    No guess work.

    He failed a drug test.
    You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
    If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
    If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.
  • DeVlaeminckDeVlaeminck Posts: 8,305
    Daz555 wrote:
    taking away his career on guesswork is wrong imo.
    No guess work.

    He failed a drug test.

    Yes I don't think anyone has questioned that.
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • frenchfighterfrenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    feltkuota wrote:
    There is no way you take a minuscule of a unlikely performance enhancing product to help you in your career as a cyclist. There is no way he should have had to be put in this position.

    So how do the testers determine between:

    A tiny amount of whatever and
    A huge amount of PED, beneficial to career, taken week's previously and now showing up only as "a tiny amount of whatever"

    They can't hence the strict liability..

    Those are the rules yes. They don't make sense morally or from a common sense perspective either.
    Contador is the Greatest
  • No_Ta_DoctorNo_Ta_Doctor Posts: 11,940
    feltkuota wrote:
    There is no way you take a minuscule of a unlikely performance enhancing product to help you in your career as a cyclist. There is no way he should have had to be put in this position.

    So how do the testers determine between:

    A tiny amount of whatever and
    A huge amount of PED, beneficial to career, taken week's previously and now showing up only as "a tiny amount of whatever"

    They can't hence the strict liability..

    Those are the rules yes. They don't make sense morally or from a common sense perspective either.

    But are you going to answer the question?
    “Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

    @DrHeadgear

    The Vikings are coming!
  • DeadCalmDeadCalm Posts: 4,023
    feltkuota wrote:
    There is no way you take a minuscule of a unlikely performance enhancing product to help you in your career as a cyclist. There is no way he should have had to be put in this position.

    So how do the testers determine between:

    A tiny amount of whatever and
    A huge amount of PED, beneficial to career, taken week's previously and now showing up only as "a tiny amount of whatever"

    They can't hence the strict liability..

    Those are the rules yes. They don't make sense morally or from a common sense perspective either.

    But are you going to answer the question?
    Ah, ok so it's better that we hang one innocent man than let ten guilty go free?
    Team My Man 2022:

    Antwan Tolhoek, Sam Oomen, Tom Dumoulin, Thymen Arensman, Remco Evenepoel, Benoît Cosnefroy, Tom Pidcock, Mark Cavendish, Romain Bardet
  • Mad_MalxMad_Malx Posts: 4,709
    He's guilty of breaking the laws as the stand.
  • joelsimjoelsim Posts: 7,552
    Rules are rules. Even if it's difficult to believe that any cyclist dopes in this clean new era.
  • mfinmfin Posts: 6,726
    Joelsim wrote:
    Rules are rules. Even if it's difficult to believe that any cyclist dopes in this clean new era.

    :):):)
  • DeadCalmDeadCalm Posts: 4,023
    Mad_Malx wrote:
    He's guilty of breaking the laws as the stand.
    Not disagreeing with that. I just don't think the laws are particularly just.
    Team My Man 2022:

    Antwan Tolhoek, Sam Oomen, Tom Dumoulin, Thymen Arensman, Remco Evenepoel, Benoît Cosnefroy, Tom Pidcock, Mark Cavendish, Romain Bardet
Sign In or Register to comment.