Vino again

124»

Comments

  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 21,857
    edited November 2008
    dennisn wrote:
    I'll say this one last time. I do not care if Lance wins all of it or none of it. I do not care if Pro cycling lives or dies. I do not care if the TDF lives or dies. I do
    not care if all your heroes take drugs(not my problem). Pro cycling has little or no effect on my life other than a bit of entertainment.
    Dennis Noward

    A pity for you, therefore, that the guys running the show around here, are from Procycling.
    :oops: :oops: :oops:
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • colint
    colint Posts: 1,707
    aurelio wrote:
    colint wrote:
    ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wow this forum has become boring
    chimp_fingers_in_ears.jpg
    La, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la....

    Hilarious

    My boredom isn't aimed at the anti lance camp, although clearly you prefer an "us and them" aproach to this forum. My boredom stems from the same absolute cr ap talked by both sides about the same bollox over and over and over again. posting links that nobody will be bothered reading, copying pages of reports from other sites.

    The only only interesting point on this forum now is that a dedicated harcore seem to have so little to say about anything else to do with cycling, or anything else period.
    Planet X N2A
    Trek Cobia 29er
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 21,857
    Colint: It's the same, forums over.
    If the forums aren't talking about "the subject", they aren't talking about pro cycling.
    So little news.
    What news there is, Iain seems to be finding.

    If you have a decent topic of conversation, I'm sure folks will contribute. :wink:
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • colint
    colint Posts: 1,707
    Think I've just got forum fatigue
    Planet X N2A
    Trek Cobia 29er
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 21,857
    colint wrote:
    Think I've just got forum fatigue

    ........if you have, you are not alone........
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    In an interview with De Telegraaf, Vino says the lab made a mistake and he's never used doping products. He'd wants to come back to prove this to everyone.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,128
    iainf72 wrote:
    In an interview with De Telegraaf, Vino says the lab made a mistake and he's never used doping products. He'd wants to come back to prove this to everyone.
    That's some leap of logic there. My comeback proves a lab is making mistakes?

    How does that work then?
  • FJS
    FJS Posts: 4,820
    What he says in that interview is that it's all due to his crashl earlier in that Tour. Infections after the crash and 'temperature changes during the Albi TT' :roll: influenced the test result. The mistake of the lab was, he says, 'to not look at the circumstances'...
    And, he adds, just to be sure, that he has never used doping...
    Clearly someone to welcome into your team...
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,128
    Does he have any sense of self awareness to realise how pathetic these comments sound?

    Here is someone who rode for Casino, T-Mobile, Liberty-Seguros/Astana, all of which are teams who either had a dodgy reputation or have been shown to have run doping programmes, and we're expected to think he was one of the only ones not to have indulged?
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 21,857
    He should have said the team gave him a blood transfusion, after his crash........
    ......... from Kash! :shock:

    Another thing we can thank Landis for. He painted a bull's eye on the testing lab's front door and every doper caught, puts their sights upon it.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • DaveyL
    DaveyL Posts: 5,167
    Erm, Tyler may have put down the first coat of paint on that one...
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 21,857
    DaveyL wrote:
    Erm, Tyler may have put down the first coat of paint on that one...

    Certainly, if it weren't for his twin confusing the issue. :wink:
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • colint
    colint Posts: 1,707
    Give Tyler some credit, at least his defence was hilarious rather than just pathetic
    Planet X N2A
    Trek Cobia 29er
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Blazing Saddles wrote:

    Another thing we can thank Landis for. He painted a bull's eye on the testing lab's front door and every doper caught, puts their sights upon it.

    Landaluze was cleared for a sure fire positive because of lab incompetance.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • leguape
    leguape Posts: 986
    iainf72 wrote:
    Blazing Saddles wrote:

    Another thing we can thank Landis for. He painted a bull's eye on the testing lab's front door and every doper caught, puts their sights upon it.

    Landaluze was cleared for a sure fire positive because of lab incompetance.

    Didn't Tyler Hamilton also duck the positive for the Olympics on a account of shoddy lab work?
    http://www.atomicecho.com/cycling
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    leguape wrote:
    Didn't Tyler Hamilton also duck the positive for the Olympics on a account of shoddy lab work?

    Yes indeed.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    iainf72 wrote:
    leguape wrote:
    Didn't Tyler Hamilton also duck the positive for the Olympics on a account of shoddy lab work?

    Yes indeed.

    Was it standard procedure to freeze the second sample? Or was that the lab error?
    And if freezing ruins a sample, why would they do it? To what end? Or did freezing ruin the sample only for that specific test? I 've always wondered about all that. Lab error or standard procedure gone not quite right?

    Dennis Noward
  • DaveyL
    DaveyL Posts: 5,167
    It's fair enough to take a lab to task on testing or procedural issues. I think Blazing's point was more to do with many riders who are caught now calling the testing into question, whether or not there have been any issues in their particular case. It's all part of the PR war and getting the fans on their side before a hearing.
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 21,857
    Exactly. How many fans would have thought to question the reliability of test procedures, prior to Hamilton and Landis? How many question them now?
    It doesn't mean the labs have become any less compitent. They have been made to look less credible, however.
    Was either rider clean and the lab wrong?

    As perceptions have been forcibly altered, as the media have reported these "facts", riders now recognise the advantages of this gambit.
    1) Calling the lab into question is a great way of dividing opinion. Many being suspect of such places.
    2) It attempts to shift blame and explain the unexplainable, at the same time.
    Both of the above are PR pluses.
    3) It offers the best prospect of a technical loophole. From sample transfer, storage, interference, contamination, technical incompitence etc etc

    As a straw to clutch at, it is the most likely excuse to carry a tarnished rider's weight.

    Witness lucky Landaluze, as Iain pointed out.
    I'm sure some feel a degree of doubt as to whether Iban Mayo should have been suspended or not, given the comedy of errors surrounding his samples.

    Hamilton's case may be slightly different, in that correct storage procedure was, at the time, a bit of a mystery to the IOC.......or so they said.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • leguape
    leguape Posts: 986
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    Exactly. How many fans would have thought to question the reliability of test procedures, prior to Hamilton and Landis? How many question them now?
    It doesn't mean the labs have become any less compitent. They have been made to look less credible, however.
    Was either rider clean and the lab wrong?

    Merckx, Giro 1969 did exactly that didn't he? He even cried a bit didn't he?

    I think it's absolutely right that in defending themselves, regardless of guilt, a rider should be allowed to question whether the labs have stuck to their side of the deal in correct procedure. I find it very disappointing that cycling continues to deem it acceptable to release test information before the B sample analysis has been done and everything nailed down according to the WADA guidance. Leaky results management carries with it the potential suggestion of poor procedure.
    http://www.atomicecho.com/cycling
  • aurelio_-_banned
    aurelio_-_banned Posts: 1,317
    leguape wrote:
    I find it very disappointing that cycling continues to deem it acceptable to release test information before the B sample analysis has been done and everything nailed down according to the WADA guidance.
    But those same WADA guidelines no longer require a positive `A ` sample to be backed up with a positive `B` sample...
  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    We can all evaluate the labs but the people charged with doing this are WADA, who review the testing procedures and protocols, doing this via the pages of cyclingnews.com or Der Spiegel is a media stunt. Riders can scrutinise the labs if they want, they can appeal against their test and even use the Court of Arbitration in Sport. Look how Landis tried all these methods, only to get the same result but with more legal bills to ruin him financially.

    But they can't spread muck and use this tactic to muddy the waters and to duck blame. Take Schumacher and Kohl. Both roommates apparently caught for CERA use, one admits his blame and apologises, the other is now trying to go after the lab and thinks he has every right to race and ride.
  • leguape
    leguape Posts: 986
    aurelio wrote:
    leguape wrote:
    I find it very disappointing that cycling continues to deem it acceptable to release test information before the B sample analysis has been done and everything nailed down according to the WADA guidance.
    But those same WADA guidelines no longer require a positive `A ` sample to be backed up with a positive `B` sample...

    I didn't realise they'd even changed it. When did that happen? So essentially you can convict on a single source?
    http://www.atomicecho.com/cycling
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Seems to me that there is a big time difference between the actual rider test and the
    test results. Maybe it just seems that way to me but I still wonder. Is it the actual lab testing of these samples that takes so long(or seems to)? One would assume that race officials would want results A.S.A.P. as opposed to a month or so after the fact. I guess I'm asking what takes all this time? Is the time simply ate up in transport, paperwork,
    certain tests take a week or so for results to become clear, more paperwork, and so on? And if they do get a positive why don't they immediately try and replicate it instead of seeming to wait for a request from someone?

    Dennis Noward
  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    leguape wrote:
    I didn't realise they'd even changed it. When did that happen? So essentially you can convict on a single source?
    You simply allow the rider to admit guilt on the first test. The B has always been in case of doubt on either side, athlete or tester.
  • leguape
    leguape Posts: 986
    Kléber wrote:
    leguape wrote:
    I didn't realise they'd even changed it. When did that happen? So essentially you can convict on a single source?
    You simply allow the rider to admit guilt on the first test. The B has always been in case of doubt on either side, athlete or tester.

    Ah I see, so it sounds like a cost issue to me: don't waste our time or money when you know you're guilty. Thanks for clarifying.
    http://www.atomicecho.com/cycling
  • DaveyL
    DaveyL Posts: 5,167
    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... nov17news2

    Vinokourov: Don't call me stupid

    Alexander Vinokourov continues to deny blood doping during the 2007 Tour de France. The Kazakh rider, 35, is planning to come back to Team Astana after his one-year suspension, he said in an interview while attending a trade show in the Netherlands last week.

    "Do you really think I was so stupid?" he asked in Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf. "Everyone knows that you can easily be caught for a blood transfusion. What did I have left to win in the Tour to take such a risk? After my crash I had already lost my high GC ranking."

    Vinokourov dropped from 12th to 81st after a crash in the 2007 Tour's fifth stage. He came back to win the stage 13 time trial. He crashed again the next day and lost nearly 29 minutes, but came back on the 15th stage to win the 'Queen Stage' in Le Louron.

    Officials announced the next day that he tested positive for blood doping after the time trial.

    Team Astana suspended Vinokourov and withdrew from the Tour. His national federation later gave him a one-year suspension. He recently announced his intentions to return with Team Astana this spring.

    He has consistently denied doping and said that his early crash in the 2007 Tour, which caused deep cuts in his right knee, may have been responsible for the positive control. "I have no proof, but it is clear that my blood values were not in order after that fall," he said.

    Vinokourov believes that his case was not thoroughly examined. The International Cycling Union (UCI) hardened its positions in light of Operación Puerto, he said, and he had to pay the price. "I was tested positive and I had to hang. ... I continue to say that the laboratory got it wrong."

    "Some will always doubt my honesty. ... If I say that never used doping, some will never believe me. I have never used prohibited substances.

    "I still want to prove myself on the bicycle. I want to show the world that I ride without doping and that I can still win the big races."
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Kléber wrote:

    Take Schumacher and Kohl. Both roommates apparently caught for CERA use, one admits his blame and apologises, the other is now trying to go after the lab and thinks he has every right to race and ride.

    Well, humans being what they are - all different. It doesn't surprise me that one very might
    say "well, they got me", suck it up, and take his medicine, so to speak. While the other
    could very well be innocent or is just trying to postpone the inevitable and hope for some
    miracle with the other sample. I don't see too many of these guys being the "lay down and take it" type. Like most of us they will fight when pushed into a corner, right or wrong.

    Dennis Noward
  • aurelio_-_banned
    aurelio_-_banned Posts: 1,317
    Kléber wrote:
    leguape wrote:
    I didn't realise they'd even changed it. When did that happen? So essentially you can convict on a single source?
    You simply allow the rider to admit guilt on the first test. The B has always been in case of doubt on either side, athlete or tester.
    The new guidelines go much further than that. For example:

    Comment to Article 2.2: It has always been the case that Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method may be established by any reliable means. As noted in the Comment to Article 3.2 (Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions), unlike the proof required to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1, Use or Attempted Use may also be established by other reliable means such as admissions by the Athlete, witness statements, documentary evidence, conclusions drawn from longitudinal profiling, or other analytical information which does not otherwise satisfy all the requirements to establish “Presence” of a Prohibited Substance under Article 2.1. For example, Use may be established based upon reliable analytical data from the analysis of an A Sample (without confirmation from an analysis of a B Sample) or from the analysis of a B Sample alone where the Anti-Doping Organization provides a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in the other Sample.

Categories