Heras positive overturned - Page 12 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old 12-21-12, 23:44
DirtyWorks's Avatar
DirtyWorks DirtyWorks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by icefire View Post
UCI, WADA and all the sport governing bodies need to think seriously about this and make sure that their procedures and their actions can't be questioned by civilian courts.
They do already.

It works like every other supra-national/multinational corporation. Each country does their level best to apply the multinational's practices inside the country. For example, the UCI has no authority inside the U.S. USA Cycling is the UCI's in-country proxy for the UCI.

He got off on a technicality. Not great, but not bad as long as Spanish anti-doping tightens up their processes as a result.
__________________
Tammy Thomas is writing a book about her athletic career and is asking for funding.

http://www.gofundme.com/a4mlho

https://twitter.com/FitnessLawyer

This is a good time for her to tell her story.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 12-21-12, 23:50
ElChingon's Avatar
ElChingon ElChingon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: En el Internet, and Hiding from the UCI
Posts: 5,833
Default

Does seem a bit pointless at this point in time, almost 8 years later and they finally re-decide who the winner was... was anyone really shouting out that Menchov was the rightful winner? Its another classic failure altogether on doping and its lack of enforcement.
__________________
CyclingNews Forum Member Number 1. (verified)
All my posts are of my own opinion.
October 10, 2012 The Reasoned Decision
Points: 10 CN Infraction Points
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 12-22-12, 00:41
Velodude Velodude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyWorks View Post
They do already.

It works like every other supra-national/multinational corporation. Each country does their level best to apply the multinational's practices inside the country. For example, the UCI has no authority inside the U.S. USA Cycling is the UCI's in-country proxy for the UCI.

He got off on a technicality. Not great, but not bad as long as Spanish anti-doping tightens up their processes as a result.
Like saying OJ Simpson's not guilty verdict proved he was innocent.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 12-22-12, 08:22
Le breton Le breton is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: switzerland
Posts: 1,259
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L'arriviste View Post
..............
Heras' guilt has nothing to do with this decision, nor do human rights. At this point, the field of argument is very narrow indeed. This is the thing that many people find strange about civil appeals - whilst these judgements do have an eventual effect on the original case, the original facts and questions of guilt are no longer the point.
Hello L'arriviste,
could you point to a paper or something else detailing the facts?

Was sample A correctly analyzed, which lab?

Is the dispute only about sample B?

Was the identity of the owner of the sample already known by the lab technicians when processing sample A or only for sample B?

And so on.

I am asking you as you are so dedicated in your pursuit of facts in those doping affairs.

And thanks for that.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 12-22-12, 13:17
Viskovitz Viskovitz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Spain
Posts: 61
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le breton View Post
Hello L'arriviste,
could you point to a paper or something else detailing the facts?

Was sample A correctly analyzed, which lab?

Is the dispute only about sample B?

Was the identity of the owner of the sample already known by the lab technicians when processing sample A or only for sample B?

And so on.

I am asking you as you are so dedicated in your pursuit of facts in those doping affairs.

And thanks for that.
Here's an article that summarize the original sentence - http://www.elmundo.es/elmundodeporte...ml#comentarios

This is what happened:

1.- The samples should have been delivered in 24h to the lab, and refrigerated. They were delivered in 40 h without refrigeration.

2.- The samples were delivered to the lab by an unknown person or company.

3.- The samples came with some unnecessary medical information that easily allowed them to be identified as belonging to Heras, so no sample was anonymous.

4.- Both samples, A and B, where analyzed by the same technicians, against the rules.

5.- The B sample was analyzed 2 times because the first result wasn't valid. That was against the rules too.

6.- The Federation didn't provide the qualifications or experience of the technicians that made the analysis

7.- At the time the lab didn't have the ISO certification needed to do what they did.

Edit: also, the Federation had to give Heras detailed information of the analysis of the B sample so Heras could defend himself, but they didn't, even when Heras asked about it.

Last edited by Viskovitz; 12-22-12 at 13:39.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 12-22-12, 13:32
zigmeister zigmeister is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 704
Default

Wow, if that is accurate information, that is pathetic. The dude probably was a big doper, but this is where the process has serious flaws.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Viskovitz View Post
Here's an article that summarize the original sentence - http://www.elmundo.es/elmundodeporte...ml#comentarios

This is what happened:

1.- The samples should have been delivered in 24h to the lab, and refrigerated. They were delivered in 40 h without refrigeration.

2.- The samples were delivered to the lab by and unknown person or company.

3.- The samples came them some unnecessary medical information that easily allowed them to be identified as belonging to Heras, so no sample was anonymous.

4.- Both samples, A and B, where analyzed by the same technicians, against the rules.

5.- The B sample was analyzed 2 times because the first result wasn't valid. That was against the norm.

6.- The Federation didn't provide the qualifications or experience of the technicians that made the analysis

7.- At the time the lab didn't have the ISO certification needed to do what they did.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 12-22-12, 13:45
Carols's Avatar
Carols Carols is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: PA, USA
Posts: 2,948
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zigmeister View Post
Wow, if that is accurate information, that is pathetic. The dude probably was a big doper, but this is where the process has serious flaws.
Have to agree. Yes he most likely doped, but the process has to be handled correctly!! The doping authorities have to follow their own processes to the letter for due process.
__________________
Carol S.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Travis you're my Hero!

Alberto Contador of Pinto: "And yes, it is true that for me it's the same to finish second or 10th."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 12-22-12, 19:13
Cookster15 Cookster15 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 390
Default

Unbelievable, what a farce our sport has become. Races are decided then over turned 7 years later based upon legal technicalities and incompetent procedures. A (bad) joke.

As far as Heras is concerned, agree with what Berzin said.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 12-22-12, 21:09
Le breton Le breton is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: switzerland
Posts: 1,259
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viskovitz View Post
Here's an article that summarize the original sentence - http://www.elmundo.es/elmundodeporte...ml#comentarios

This is what happened:

1.- The samples should have been delivered in 24h to the lab, and refrigerated. They were delivered in 40 h without refrigeration.

2.- The samples were delivered to the lab by an unknown person or company.

3.- The samples came with some unnecessary medical information that easily allowed them to be identified as belonging to Heras, so no sample was anonymous.

4.- Both samples, A and B, where analyzed by the same technicians, against the rules.

5.- The B sample was analyzed 2 times because the first result wasn't valid. That was against the rules too.

6.- The Federation didn't provide the qualifications or experience of the technicians that made the analysis

7.- At the time the lab didn't have the ISO certification needed to do what they did.

Edit: also, the Federation had to give Heras detailed information of the analysis of the B sample so Heras could defend himself, but they didn't, even when Heras asked about it.
Thanks a lot Viskovitz for taking the time to detail all this.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 12-23-12, 02:02
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 4,969
Default

Madrid have now lost their accreditation for 3 months.
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 19:25.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.