And now Max Iglinskiy done for EPO
Comments
-
The thing is.... I've trained at altitude and had my blood values track carefully to see the changes. So I know exactly what to expect.
And there's a question on the anti-doping forms - asking if you've trained or raced at altitude in the past 2 weeks. So yes, the anti-doping authorities take this into account. They also ask what medications you are taking. SO yes, they ALSO take this into account.
It takes time for altitude to affect blood values. Hematocrit doesn't just spike simply because you spent a day or two at altitude. It can take weeks for the changes to occur. The amount of time spent at altitude during a 3-week GT isn't enough to affect values. Certainly not to the extent that is being claimed.
FF - it's great you support and believe in Roman. But the fact is you're being brainwashed by information that is put out there by 'experts' hired to support the case of the rider. the experts from he UCI are just as knowledgable but free from bias. This is the key difference.
We have seen this in every single case of doping. The defendant hires experts to support their case, the UCI/WADA have their unbiased experts. And usually UCI/WADA win out.
So - if and when CAS uphold the ban, will you still continue to think Roman is being railroaded? Or will you believe that the evidence from both sides has been independently analyzed and agree with the verdict?0 -
And no, I have not read all the documents in the case. Why? Because it's obviously going to be biased in favour of Roman as he PAID for it. No one, ever, pays for an expert opinion that doesn't side with them.
Did you also believe in the experts who backed up JTL's assertions that he went binge drinking and this affected his values?0 -
Everything in this case points to blood values being manipulated scientifically to keep them within the markers and looking like it is his normal readings. It really wouldn't surprise me if a load more riders come up once this case is won. If it was me doing the analysis I would start at the top and move down. Well, not quite at the top, Valverde would be first...
I look forward to the next batch of excuses. Sore tail, 3 legs, ingrowing wisdom teeth etc0 -
Pokerface wrote:The thing is.... I've trained at altitude and had my blood values track carefully to see the changes. So I know exactly what to expect.
And there's a question on the anti-doping forms - asking if you've trained or raced at altitude in the past 2 weeks. So yes, the anti-doping authorities take this into account. They also ask what medications you are taking. SO yes, they ALSO take this into account.
It takes time for altitude to affect blood values. Hematocrit doesn't just spike simply because you spent a day or two at altitude. It can take weeks for the changes to occur. The amount of time spent at altitude during a 3-week GT isn't enough to affect values. Certainly not to the extent that is being claimed.
FF - it's great you support and believe in Roman. But the fact is you're being brainwashed by information that is put out there by 'experts' hired to support the case of the rider. the experts from he UCI are just as knowledgable but free from bias. This is the key difference.
We have seen this in every single case of doping. The defendant hires experts to support their case, the UCI/WADA have their unbiased experts. And usually UCI/WADA win out.
So - if and when CAS uphold the ban, will you still continue to think Roman is being railroaded? Or will you believe that the evidence from both sides has been independently analyzed and agree with the verdict?
Yes they are aware of him training at altitude and him taking medication but my point is whether they are aware of the effects of both (mainly the latter) on an individual's blood values. This does not appear to be the case.
With regard the documentation, I refer also to the doping authority and Czech committee. Of course the info from Roman is to support him but it is not fairy tales conjured from thin air - they are reasoned and supported arguments trying to show why they believe his values to be normal and highlighting aspects the doping authorities may have missed. The doping authorities have a limited budget and limited time.
I am not being brainwashed - you can cut that loopy line of logic straight away.
You should read all pro and against documents before you give an opinion on the case or just admit that your default stance is simply, you don't have an opinion other than that of the doping authorities and blindly believe them to be correct in all instances.
Yes I would think an injustice has been done and there is sufficient grounds not to convict him. It was a similar issue with Contador. A ton more info though. They strung him up because their model said so.
Having watched his performances over the years does he look like a doper to you? Was he doping when he was champion of the World at 19?Contador is the Greatest0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
One man takes on the world in this epic new blockbuster. Fighting for justice when no-one had any hope. At a cinema near you soon0
-
frenchfighter wrote:Yes I would think an injustice has been done and there is sufficient grounds not to convict him. It was a similar issue with Contador. A ton more info though. They strung him up because their model said so.
So basically your stance is you will continue to believe in the innocence of riders you like, despite all evidence to the contrary? No matter how many accredited experts, with nothing to gain from giving their opinion, that back the UCI, you will continue to believe that these riders are being hung out to dry? Isn't that just sticking your head in the sand?
I've read over the documents - in particular the UCI's last response. It seems they simply discredit all of Roman K's claims.
So do I blindly believe in them? Or should I blindly believe in Roman K? The thing is, I'm not an expert so I can't say who is right. And you certainly can't either. I'll put my faith in the system, because it was designed to catch these things. It's really that simple. And if CAS come back and support Roman K - then so be it.0 -
Do you not find it odd that he has one expert saying his values are from dehydration, another expert saying his values are normal because he wasn't fully exerting himself (thus going against the dehydration theory), then claims the values are because the samples weren't stored correctly and finally claiming the values are because of his thyroid medication?
As one theory is knocked back, he just comes up with a new excuse. This does not inspire confidence that ANY of what he is saying is the truth.
(I'm reading over the documents now and I'm not exactly being overwhelmed by his 'innocence' despite his experts raising some good loopholes)0 -
Of course not. He's a doper through and through. There isn't one thing I have read that has made me even begin the question that. Excuses, lies, bullsh*t.0
-
None of you called him out as a doper before now.
None of you highlighted his performances as ET.
He has been near the top of his game since he was a teenager.
Has he been on the dope for a decade? Is he a master man at evading capture all these years?
If they were serious about capturing him how do you explain the fact he has had a massive two tests for the passport program this year?Contador is the Greatest0 -
Pokerface wrote:(I'm reading over the documents now and I'm not exactly being overwhelmed by his 'innocence' despite his experts raising some good loopholes)
The onus is on the doping authorities to prove he is guilty as far as they are able without a positive test for a banned substance, or am I wrong?Contador is the Greatest0 -
frenchfighter wrote:Pokerface wrote:(I'm reading over the documents now and I'm not exactly being overwhelmed by his 'innocence' despite his experts raising some good loopholes)
The onus is on the doping authorities to prove he is guilty as far as they are able without a positive test for a banned substance, or am I wrong?
And they will. And yes it is pretty apparent that he has been on it for a long long time. Who's next? No, you probably won't like to hear it.0 -
Pokerface wrote:frenchfighter wrote:Yes I would think an injustice has been done and there is sufficient grounds not to convict him. It was a similar issue with Contador. A ton more info though. They strung him up because their model said so.
So basically your stance is you will continue to believe in the innocence of riders you like, despite all evidence to the contrary? No matter how many accredited experts, with nothing to gain from giving their opinion, that back the UCI, you will continue to believe that these riders are being hung out to dry? Isn't that just sticking your head in the sand?
I've read over the documents - in particular the UCI's last response. It seems they simply discredit all of Roman K's claims.
So do I blindly believe in them? Or should I blindly believe in Roman K? The thing is, I'm not an expert so I can't say who is right. And you certainly can't either. I'll put my faith in the system, because it was designed to catch these things. It's really that simple. And if CAS come back and support Roman K - then so be it.
No. Let me repeat myself again. I read the pro arguments, then I read the counter arguments, then I read around the subject, then I form an opinion and that opinion becomes stronger or weaker as and when new information is digested. Which is obviously very different to what you suggest above (but then you have an agenda).
Please give me a list of the accredited experts you are referring to? Twitter and social media personalities are not experts.
Because an 'expert' is providing evidence supporting Roman does that make everything he says is to be taken with a pinch of salt in your eyes? That is not how the World works. In a court of law you prosecute and defend and the judge and jury come to a conclusion based on the various arguments.
As you see it, what is the doping authorities presumption of guilt based on in the main?Contador is the Greatest0 -
Joelsim wrote:And yes it is pretty apparent that he has been on it for a long long time.
Based on what? Your gut feeling about his performances that you have never voiced? Or your odd, sad and untenable position that the vast majority of riders are doped?Contador is the Greatest0 -
Double post - delete.Contador is the Greatest0
-
Look at his values over several years. They are all manipulated. And yes I think plenty of others are too (contenders that is).0
-
Joelsim wrote:Look at his values over several years. They are all manipulated. And yes I think plenty of others are too (contenders that is).
You are going to make a better effort if you want me to take your assertion with more than a puff of smoke.Contador is the Greatest0 -
frenchfighter wrote:Joelsim wrote:Look at his values over several years. They are all manipulated. And yes I think plenty of others are too (contenders that is).
You are going to make a better effort if you want me to take your assertion with more than a puff of smoke.
It doesn't really matter what you or I think. It will all come out in due course. Or not.0 -
You know in your heart of hearts that he is guilty. The same goes for Valverde, Contador, Nibali, Aru et al.0
-
Joelsim wrote:You know in your heart of hearts that he is guilty. The same goes for Valverde, Contador, Nibali, Aru et al.
No, I work on innocent until proven guilty and none of those you have mentioned have been proven guilty although Valverde on the balance on probability likely did some dope earlier in his career many years ago. Why watch the sport if you think they are all doping. Odd perspective for a real fan.Contador is the Greatest0 -
frenchfighter wrote:Joelsim wrote:You know in your heart of hearts that he is guilty. The same goes for Valverde, Contador, Nibali, Aru et al.
No, I work on innocent until proven guilty and none of those you have mentioned have been proven guilty although Valverde on the balance on probability likely did some dope earlier in his career many years ago. Why watch the sport if you think they are all doping. Odd perspective for a real fan.
On the balance? Ha ha ha. Of course Bertie never has despite being implicated and an unassociated ban.
I watch the sport as I find it fascinating, and because the guys really put in a shift. Cracking sport. But that doesn't mean I don't think there are still huge issues with doping, and many who are unrepentant, which of course I understand when it has been part of the culture for decades and to do well you have to (because someone else always will be).0 -
frenchfighter wrote:
No, I work on innocent until proven guilty
God you are a hypocrite - you've called Sky a team of dopers based on the fact that they were riding more strongly in the TDF than you deigned appropriate. "Deux vitesses" and all that guff. It's no wonder you like the proven dirty/dodgy riders so much.0 -
Look, we can all read all the evidence from all the experts we like, but none of us really understand it. We may know a soundbite or two about rectics or whatever, but we don't know if they're accurate.
But we do know this. Biological passport cases that have gone to a full hearing have, ultimately, a 100% conviction rate. No-one has managed to discredit the passport at the level of evidence that is required to press these cases. It has been peer reviewed by many many people over the years.
Maybe Kreuziger will be the first to discover a failing. But I know where my money is.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Ask yourself a question ff. If you had to put your house on whether Bertie had doped or not, what would you put it on?0
-
RichN95 wrote:Look, we can all read all the evidence from all the experts we like, but none of us really understand it. We may know a soundbite or two about rectics or whatever, but we don't know if they're true.
But we do know this. Biological passport cases that have gone to a full hearing have, ultimately, a 100% conviction rate. No-one has managed to discredit the passport at the level of evidence that is required to press these cases. It has been peer reviewed by many many people over the years.
Maybe Kreuziger will be the first to discover a failing. But I know where my money is.
You're right. The risks are too great to take a case to court if they are not 100% positive they will get a result.0 -
Joelsim wrote:Ask yourself a question ff. If you had to put your house on whether Bertie had doped or not, what would you put it on?
Contador arguments have been done 100x over. Go and read the thread on it if you are interested. It was very long. I didn't think he doped then and still don't.Contador is the Greatest0 -
frenchfighter wrote:Joelsim wrote:Ask yourself a question ff. If you had to put your house on whether Bertie had doped or not, what would you put it on?
Contador arguments have been done 100x over. Go and read the thread on it if you are interested. It was very long. I didn't think he doped then and still don't.
Which way then?0 -
RichN95 wrote:Look, we can all read all the evidence from all the experts we like, but none of us really understand it. We may know a soundbite or two about rectics or whatever, but we don't know if they're accurate.
But we do know this. Biological passport cases that have gone to a full hearing have, ultimately, a 100% conviction rate. No-one has managed to discredit the passport at the level of evidence that is required to press these cases. It has been peer reviewed by many many people over the years.
Maybe Kreuziger will be the first to discover a failing. But I know where my money is.
Well the 100% success rate is not surprising is it? I mean it is their test and their expert's opinions, however impartial you think they are. Software flags the tests then three people look at the test results and if all agree the model says doping then it goes further. The rider says he is guilty or he spends a lot of time and money on appealing. The appeal has to essentially disprove the model's results and if no doping is concluded they are effective saying the three experts were wrong and the model is flawed. As you can imagine this is almost never going to happen is it? Think about it for a little while. I just cannot see that scenario happening which is why stating that 100% of bio passport cases have resulted in convictions, so for any further cases raised I am going to say the rider is categorically a doper, is simply not a reliable way of thinking in my view.Contador is the Greatest0 -
frenchfighter wrote:RichN95 wrote:Look, we can all read all the evidence from all the experts we like, but none of us really understand it. We may know a soundbite or two about rectics or whatever, but we don't know if they're accurate.
But we do know this. Biological passport cases that have gone to a full hearing have, ultimately, a 100% conviction rate. No-one has managed to discredit the passport at the level of evidence that is required to press these cases. It has been peer reviewed by many many people over the years.
Maybe Kreuziger will be the first to discover a failing. But I know where my money is.
Well the 100% success rate is not surprising is it? I mean it is their test and their expert's opinions, however impartial you think they are. Software flags the tests then three people look at the test results and if all agree the model says doping then it goes further. The rider says he is guilty or he spends a lot of time and money on appealing. The appeal has to essentially disprove the model's results and if no doping is concluded they are effective saying the three experts were wrong and the model is flawed. As you can imagine this is almost never going to happen is it? Think about it for a little while. I just cannot see that scenario happening which is why stating that 100% of bio passport cases have resulted in convictions, so for any further cases raised I am going to say the rider is categorically a doper, is simply not a reliable way of thinking in my view.
I'm unsure whether you and I are from the same species.0 -
Well honestly I find that reassuring.Contador is the Greatest0
