Sutton heaps on the pressure
Comments
-
KingstonGraham wrote:Can we use the phrase "committed an anti-doping violation" rather than "cheated"?
no. they both mean the same thing so people can say cheated if they want.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
Matthewfalle wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:Can we use the phrase "committed an anti-doping violation" rather than "cheated"?
no. they both mean the same thing so people can say cheated if they want.
You can't inadvertently cheat. I'd struggle to extend cheating to cover Simon Yates' anti-doping rule violation.0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:Can we use the phrase "committed an anti-doping violation" rather than "cheated"?
no. they both mean the same thing so people can say cheated if they want.
You can't inadvertently cheat. I'd struggle to extend cheating to cover Simon Yates' anti-doping rule violation.
Amazing (though not surprising) the media response (or lack thereof) to Orica playing fast and loose with the TUE system cf. Sky. Orica "forgot" to apply for the TUE before allowing Yates to start on the medication, which is slightly problematic to me give that it cannot be assumed that a TUE will be granted.0 -
r0bh wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:Can we use the phrase "committed an anti-doping violation" rather than "cheated"?
no. they both mean the same thing so people can say cheated if they want.
You can't inadvertently cheat. I'd struggle to extend cheating to cover Simon Yates' anti-doping rule violation.
Amazing (though not surprising) the media response (or lack thereof) to Orica playing fast and loose with the TUE system cf. Sky. Orica "forgot" to apply for the TUE before allowing Yates to start on the medication, which is slightly problematic to me give that it cannot be assumed that a TUE will be granted.
Their sporting director would never be involved with anything dodgy.0 -
I can't quite believe I'm reading such balanced commentary on this thread!!DeVlaeminck wrote: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.2015 Canyon Nerve AL 6.0 (son #1's)
2011 Specialized Hardrock Sport Disc (son #4s)
2013 Decathlon Triban 3 (red) (mine)
2019 Hoy Bonaly 26" Disc (son #2s)
2018 Voodoo Bizango (mine)
2018 Voodoo Maji (wife's)0 -
Don't think that the media driving this story care about the integrity of cycling. They don't. They just want a sacking or an icon brought down to make themselves feel important. No-one is going to excited getting Matt White sacked.r0bh wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:Can we use the phrase "committed an anti-doping violation" rather than "cheated"?
no. they both mean the same thing so people can say cheated if they want.
You can't inadvertently cheat. I'd struggle to extend cheating to cover Simon Yates' anti-doping rule violation.
Amazing (though not surprising) the media response (or lack thereof) to Orica playing fast and loose with the TUE system cf. Sky. Orica "forgot" to apply for the TUE before allowing Yates to start on the medication, which is slightly problematic to me give that it cannot be assumed that a TUE will be granted.Twitter: @RichN950 -
DeVlaeminck wrote: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.
There's evidence that Contador broke the rules, there is no evidence that Wiggins or Sky did. People (not necessarily you but many on here and the CMS committee) are applying the level of evidence that CAS rejected in the Contador case to condemn Sky and Wiggins.0 -
larkim wrote:
I can't quite believe I'm reading such balanced commentary on this thread!!DeVlaeminck wrote: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.
pretty much sums it up0 -
Vino'sGhost wrote:larkim wrote:
I can't quite believe I'm reading such balanced commentary on this thread!!DeVlaeminck wrote: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.
pretty much sums it up
Vino's usually suspiciously quiet when it comes to doping allegations from riders from Astana.
I mean, I couldn't give a sh!t on either topic, but you plainly care a lot about Chris, and not much about other riders who are also involved in scandal.
I wonder why that could be.0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:Can we use the phrase "committed an anti-doping violation" rather than "cheated"?
no. they both mean the same thing so people can say cheated if they want.
You can't inadvertently cheat. I'd struggle to extend cheating to cover Simon Yates' anti-doping rule violation.
no one in this thread or the other two did anything inadvertently, so cheat is the correct word to use.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0
