Sutton heaps on the pressure

Jez mon

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

I really need to get over what? im not obsessed by wiggins.

No of course you're not. How many threads have you started about him?

you seem to be paying a lot of attention in me over the last few days, are you obsessed with me? and i note you partial quote, youre not his friend on the internet are you? Ive also seen your posts to other people in other parts of the forum suggesting similar things, are you hiding something?

Not at all, as with most people when I start to notice a pattern it starts to stand out more I suppose. I'm certainly not the only one that's commented on the tedious number of threads on the same subject. If you're feeling lonely you can pretend I'm your stalker. I'm not his friend, I just find the whole thing is getting a bit bizarre. They pushed the rules to the very limit, this is not unusual at top levels of any sport. Look at Formula 1, they get the rules for the year and then look for loopholes and try to get the maximum possible out of the rules, often bending the rules to extremes.
Partial quotes because great long re-quotes of everything look messy.

Well stalk away. Im very well aware that people bend rules to extremes and i dont have an issue with that. Then again very few of them set themselves apart as doing it cleaner than clean with marginal gains, special mattresses and mood lighting. Oh and the odd grey area use of TUE and tramadol.

That Wiggins is held up as a beacon of virtue by many on here is odd given the bile sent in the direction of Contador or Valverde. Cycling is dirty, it always has been and it probably always will be but it would be nice if they didnt treat everyone as idiots in the process.

Hmm, think Contador/Valvs excuses when they have been tied to stuff that is, well, actual doping is treating people as bigger idiots than Sky's approach.

DeVlaeminck

Dolan Driver wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

That Wiggins is held up as a beacon of virtue by many on here is odd given the bile sent in the direction of Contador or Valverde.

There is one small distinction between Wiggins and Contador & Valverde. C & V are proven dopers who have served bans, Wiggins, as yet, is not a proven doper.

DD.

Contador was proven to have accidentally ingested a tiny amount of a banned substance, hardly makes him a proven doper.

shortfall

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Dolan Driver wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

That Wiggins is held up as a beacon of virtue by many on here is odd given the bile sent in the direction of Contador or Valverde.

There is one small distinction between Wiggins and Contador & Valverde. C & V are proven dopers who have served bans, Wiggins, as yet, is not a proven doper.

DD.

Contador was proven to have accidentally ingested a tiny amount of a banned substance, hardly makes him a proven doper.

Correct me if I'm wrong but a tiny amount of a banned substance appeared in his sample. We don't know how it got there or how much of it he actually took/ingested . This is an important distinction.

RichN95.

Most of the antipathy towards Contador is due to his now departed superfan on these pages rather than Contador himself.

kingstongraham

In 2012, Valverde said "I haven’t done anything wrong. I’ve always respected the law, my conscience is clean".

yorkshireraw

KingstonGraham wrote:

In 2012, Valverde said "I haven’t done anything wrong. I’ve always respected the law, my conscience is clean".

ha ha - he's such a bandit.

philbar72

YorkshireRaw wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

In 2012, Valverde said "I haven’t done anything wrong. I’ve always respected the law, my conscience is clean".

ha ha - he's such a bandit.

big cojones. also culturally the Spanish are different to us. they don't emphatically embrace doping or whatever but they want their riders/ teams/ sportspeople to do well. with our tabloids etc, we love seeing people win then slowly also love tearing them apart. its all very silly.

Vino'sGhost

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Dolan Driver wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

That Wiggins is held up as a beacon of virtue by many on here is odd given the bile sent in the direction of Contador or Valverde.

There is one small distinction between Wiggins and Contador & Valverde. C & V are proven dopers who have served bans, Wiggins, as yet, is not a proven doper.

DD.

Contador was proven to have accidentally ingested a tiny amount of a banned substance, hardly makes him a proven doper.

both Contador and Valverde were the targets of enormous amounts of abuse bordering on hate prior to being banned. I guess some people find it more acceptable if its their hero.

bompington

Vino'sGhost wrote:

both Contador and Valverde were the targets of enormous amounts of abuse bordering on hate prior to being banned. I guess some people find it more acceptable if its their hero.

Well yes, you've made it clear that C & V are your heroes and that you find their evident use of PEDs less reprehensible than Wiggins non-use of PEDs, but I don't recall a lot of "abuse" and "hate" on this forum or anywhere else.

Pross

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Dolan Driver wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

That Wiggins is held up as a beacon of virtue by many on here is odd given the bile sent in the direction of Contador or Valverde.

There is one small distinction between Wiggins and Contador & Valverde. C & V are proven dopers who have served bans, Wiggins, as yet, is not a proven doper.

DD.

Contador was proven to have accidentally ingested a tiny amount of a banned substance, hardly makes him a proven doper.

Are you sure? I can't recall the accidentally bit. Even if that is the case he was still convicted by the relevant authorities for breaking the rules - something even the MPs have said Wiggins didn't do.

blazing_saddles

bompington wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

both Contador and Valverde were the targets of enormous amounts of abuse bordering on hate prior to being banned. I guess some people find it more acceptable if its their hero.

Well yes, you've made it clear that C & V are your heroes and that you find their evident use of PEDs less reprehensible than Wiggins non-use of PEDs, but I don't recall a lot of "abuse" and "hate" on this forum or anywhere else.

There was that bloke on the Zoncolan who waved a piece of steak on a fishing rod under Bertie's nose.
That was pretty humorous, unlike having wee wee chucked over you, just because you are not French.
There was a perception among his fans though, that if you didn't idolise his every deed, you were being unfair and derogatory.

As for Valverde: Apart from the obvious jokes about his dog, he has and still does receive very little abuse and quite a lot of praise.

yorkshireraw

Valverde was winning big before his ban and has won big since he came back. We of course have no idea if he's still at it - but you would like to think he's target tested a fair bit (at least outside of Spain).
He's certainly a different level to the CERA types from 08/09 - Kohl, Schumacher et al - who were the proverbial Donkeys into Race Horse riders.

In athletics, given the more objective nature of performance (times over fixed distances) it's a lot more obvious when athletes either make big leaps from a steady base, and / or subsequently drop back to relatively modest performances after coming back from a ban. Mohammed Mourhit is a prime example - Moroccan by the way of Belgium who broke the European 3000, 5000 and 10,000m records. Ran 12:49 for 5000m before his ban, and 13:44 when he came back. Still credited with the European 3000 and 500 records - fortunately Mo Farah beat his 10K time....

DeVlaeminck

Shortfall wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Dolan Driver wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

That Wiggins is held up as a beacon of virtue by many on here is odd given the bile sent in the direction of Contador or Valverde.

There is one small distinction between Wiggins and Contador & Valverde. C & V are proven dopers who have served bans, Wiggins, as yet, is not a proven doper.

DD.

Contador was proven to have accidentally ingested a tiny amount of a banned substance, hardly makes him a proven doper.

Correct me if I'm wrong but a tiny amount of a banned substance appeared in his sample. We don't know how it got there or how much of it he actually took/ingested . This is an important distinction.

I'm not saying he's innocent but I'm. Making the point he was not found to have deliberately doped - of course he probably did but people on here keep on about Wiggins not having been convicted of doping - no but we can still have suspicions based on what we know just as we mostly suspect Contador was actually guilty of more than he was officially sanctioned for.

Pross

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Dolan Driver wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

That Wiggins is held up as a beacon of virtue by many on here is odd given the bile sent in the direction of Contador or Valverde.

There is one small distinction between Wiggins and Contador & Valverde. C & V are proven dopers who have served bans, Wiggins, as yet, is not a proven doper.

DD.

Contador was proven to have accidentally ingested a tiny amount of a banned substance, hardly makes him a proven doper.

Correct me if I'm wrong but a tiny amount of a banned substance appeared in his sample. We don't know how it got there or how much of it he actually took/ingested . This is an important distinction.

I'm not saying he's innocent but I'm. Making the point he was not found to have deliberately doped - of course he probably did but people on here keep on about Wiggins not having been convicted of doping - no but we can still have suspicions based on what we know just as we mostly suspect Contador was actually guilty of more than he was officially sanctioned for.

What do you mean by 'deliberately doped'? The conclusions stated 'no evidence has been adduced proving that the Athlete with no fault or negligence or no significant fault or negligence'. It did say that the result was more likely to be have been caused by the ingestion of contaminated food than by a blood transfusion or contaminated meat but there's nothing actually saying he didn't deliberately dope as far as I can see, certainly not in the conclusions.

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/cas-2011-a-2384-contador.pdf

DeVlaeminck

CAS concluded that Contador’s positive for clenbuterol was more “likely to have been caused by the ingestion of contaminated food supplement than by a blood transfusion or the ingestion of contaminated meat” and that there was no evidence that Contador “acted with no fault or negligence”.
Read more at http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/conta ... 3xGtQ0T.99

The acted with no fault or negligence bit. So officially Contador is not a cheat, he's not even negligent, presumably just unlucky !

larkim

No evidence that he acted with no fault or negligence? Doesn't that mean that there was evidence that he acted with fault or negligence?

kingstongraham

DeVlaeminck wrote:

CAS concluded that Contador’s positive for clenbuterol was more “likely to have been caused by the ingestion of contaminated food supplement than by a blood transfusion or the ingestion of contaminated meat” and that there was no evidence that Contador “acted with no fault or negligence”.
Read more at http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/conta ... 3xGtQ0T.99

The acted with no fault or negligence bit. So officially Contador is not a cheat, he's not even negligent, presumably just unlucky !

It says there is "no evidence that he acted with no fault or negligence". That means he did act with fault or negligence. It coming from a contaminated supplement would not have excused him.

Also, they said "This does not mean that the Panel is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that this scenario of ingestion of a contaminated food supplement actually happened. "

Pross

larkim wrote:

No evidence that he acted with no fault or negligence? Doesn't that mean that there was evidence that he acted with fault or negligence?

Pretty much, it means he was unable to prove it wasn't his fault that the banned substance was in his system which is all that matters in terms of liability. It certainly doesn't mean there was no evidence that he was at fault or negligent which is the complete opposite of what is written.

Pross

DeVlaeminck wrote:

CAS concluded that Contador’s positive for clenbuterol was more “likely to have been caused by the ingestion of contaminated food supplement than by a blood transfusion or the ingestion of contaminated meat” and that there was no evidence that Contador “acted with no fault or negligence”.
Read more at http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/conta ... 3xGtQ0T.99

The acted with no fault or negligence bit. So officially Contador is not a cheat, he's not even negligent, presumably just unlucky !

You realise I'd quoted exactly that bit and linked to the original report in my comment immediately above yours (although to demonstrate that there nothing saying it was accidental!

DeVlaeminck

Ok I missed the double negative!! I still don't think the finding was that he deliberately doped, they say the balance of probabilities was it was a contaminated supplement - so in effect he was negligent but not a deliberate cheat.

DeVlaeminck

CAS concluded that Contador’s positive for clenbuterol was more “likely to have been caused by the ingestion of contaminated food supplement than by a blood transfusion

Proves my point yes?

Pross

I'm not sure they ever say a rider doped deliberately though. Maybe it depends on the substance. The offence is having a banned substance in your system so once it's detected you're guilty unless you can prove it got there for reasons out of your control. They did also say the steak excuse given was equally unlikely.

DeVlaeminck

Pross wrote:

I'm not sure they ever say a rider doped deliberately though. Maybe it depends on the substance. The offence is having a banned substance in your system so once it's detected you're guilty unless you can prove it got there for reasons out of your control. They did also say the steak excuse given was equally unlikely.

None of which is relevant to the point I made. As you yourself quoted - CAS found it was likely he ingested it with a contaminated supplement - it was accidental - that was the only point I was making.

In short if we are just going by what has been proven officially yes Wiggins has not cheated but neither has Contador.

Vino'sGhost

But But But Contador he not british

bobmcstuff

Pross wrote:

I'm not sure they ever say a rider doped deliberately though. Maybe it depends on the substance. The offence is having a banned substance in your system so once it's detected you're guilty unless you can prove it got there for reasons out of your control. They did also say the steak excuse given was equally unlikely.

The bit in bold, isn't it strict liability for banned substances (e.g., clenbuterol...). Therefore having clen in your system = ban regardless how it got there (same as what happened to Yates, different substance obvs).

No_Ta_Doctor

bobmcstuff wrote:

Pross wrote:

I'm not sure they ever say a rider doped deliberately though. Maybe it depends on the substance. The offence is having a banned substance in your system so once it's detected you're guilty unless you can prove it got there for reasons out of your control. They did also say the steak excuse given was equally unlikely.

The bit in bold, isn't it strict liability for banned substances (e.g., clenbuterol...). Therefore having clen in your system = ban regardless how it got there (same as what happened to Yates, different substance obvs).

No, Pross is right. You can escape a ban if you can prove that you took reasonable precautions (weren't negligent) and show where the substance originated.

E.g. a recent case where an athlete confessed to spiking a rival's drink, numerous other cases with clen, loads of cases with supplements.

DeVlaeminck

...

Pross

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Pross wrote:

I'm not sure they ever say a rider doped deliberately though. Maybe it depends on the substance. The offence is having a banned substance in your system so once it's detected you're guilty unless you can prove it got there for reasons out of your control. They did also say the steak excuse given was equally unlikely.

None of which is relevant to the point I made. As you yourself quoted - CAS found it was likely he ingested it with a contaminated supplement - it was accidental - that was the only point I was making.

In short if we are just going by what has been proven officially yes Wiggins has not cheated but neither has Contador.

Come on, that's semantics and really stretching things. I've no problem with Contador, he served his ban and livened up a few GTs when he came back. However, the critical thing is he failed a dope test as he was found with a banned substance in his system whereas Wiggins didn't. He took prescribed medication and followed the rules that were in place at the time and even now no-one has disproved this was taken for legitimate medical reasons. Therefore one has broken the rules and one hasn't.

DeVlaeminck

Pross wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Pross wrote:

I'm not sure they ever say a rider doped deliberately though. Maybe it depends on the substance. The offence is having a banned substance in your system so once it's detected you're guilty unless you can prove it got there for reasons out of your control. They did also say the steak excuse given was equally unlikely.

None of which is relevant to the point I made. As you yourself quoted - CAS found it was likely he ingested it with a contaminated supplement - it was accidental - that was the only point I was making.

In short if we are just going by what has been proven officially yes Wiggins has not cheated but neither has Contador.

Come on, that's semantics and really stretching things. I've no problem with Contador, he served his ban and livened up a few GTs when he came back. However, the critical thing is he failed a dope test as he was found with a banned substance in his system whereas Wiggins didn't. He took prescribed medication and followed the rules that were in place at the time and even now no-one has disproved this was taken for legitimate medical reasons. Therefore one has broken the rules and one hasn't.

It's stretching nothing, Contador was not found to be a cheat, they thought it likely to be accidental ingestion, you quoted the findings yourself on this thread for us!

In reality we all know that Contador may well have been doping deliberately but CAS didn't have the evidence to back that up. Similarly there is evidence (and I don't say it's conclusive but it certainly raises real doubts) that Wiggins and/or Sky staff applied for TUEs for non-medical reasons.

kingstongraham

Can we use the phrase "committed an anti-doping violation" rather than "cheated"?