Log in:  

Register

Andre Cardoso positive for EPO

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

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen, Valv.Piti

Re: Re:

28 Aug 2017 14:15

thehog wrote:
LaFlorecita wrote:If it's true, it makes you wonder. Was his sample tampered with? Did the UCI mean to send a message to Contador to "back off, we're watching"?
The difference between Contador's Tour shape and Vuelta shape is immense.



I said the same here at the time of the positive A test. The UCI does work in strange ways and it looks Froome will get his 5 Tour wins and we can’t have Contador spoiling that.


I mean you can't rule out anything considering how corrupt UCI is (remember Mayo getting the call?), but until proven i still consider it as unlikely.
ppanther92
Member
 
Posts: 399
Joined: 03 May 2015 10:27

Re: Andre Cardoso positive for EPO

28 Aug 2017 14:27

Echoes wrote:I'm pretty sure that De Kort still means what he said now while Moscon apologised (by himself) right after the incident. Regretting is a sign of intelligence not of a$$holism...

It's a sign of capacity for learning from your mistakes, not necessarily of intelligence, because avoiding such a reprehensible faux-pas is something most people would take for granted. Clearly Moscon had more to learn than most about what is and isn't acceptable.

Your point about regret vs. standing by your words/actions does raise an interesting point. If one considers an offence to be lesser, is it then worse to stand by a lesser offence, or to commit a greater offence and be repentant? It's an interesting judgement call. Personally, I consider Moscon's offence much greater than de Kort's, and therefore regretting his actions should be the very least we require from him, and does not therefore raise him above de Kort's level for picking and choosing who he is offended by and leaving Cardoso out to dry. But that's my personal opinion on the matter, and your mileage may vary.
User avatar Libertine Seguros
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,370
Joined: 20 Feb 2010 11:54
Location: Land of Saíz

28 Aug 2017 14:53

Moscon pretty much undid his own apology. You don't repent by saying you didn't do anything worth punishing. **** him.
User avatar hrotha
Veteran
 
Posts: 15,605
Joined: 10 Jun 2010 20:45

Re:

28 Aug 2017 15:17

hrotha wrote:Moscon pretty much undid his own apology. You don't repent by saying you didn't do anything worth punishing. **** him.


This, essentially. He apologized and then said to any journalist who would listen that there was no reason to apologize because he didn't do anything wrong.
User avatar GuyIncognito
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,799
Joined: 27 Jun 2013 21:19

Re:

28 Aug 2017 15:27

hrotha wrote:Moscon pretty much undid his own apology. You don't repent by saying you didn't do anything worth punishing. **** him.


He didn't even apologise of his own volition, Portal had to walk him to the FDJ bus to apologise.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,086
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

28 Aug 2017 15:39

thehog wrote:
hrotha wrote:Moscon pretty much undid his own apology. You don't repent by saying you didn't do anything worth punishing. **** him.


He didn't even apologise of his own volition, Portal had to walk him to the FDJ bus to apologise.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR7i8PfWK68
Echoes
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,996
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:57

Re: Re:

28 Aug 2017 15:43

GuyIncognito wrote:
This, essentially. He apologized and then said to any journalist who would listen that there was no reason to apologize because he didn't do anything wrong.


Same as above. WRONG!
Echoes
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,996
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:57

Re: Re:

28 Aug 2017 16:20

Echoes wrote:
GuyIncognito wrote:
This, essentially. He apologized and then said to any journalist who would listen that there was no reason to apologize because he didn't do anything wrong.


Same as above. WRONG!


Thanks Donald but I think you might be pushing fake news :cool:

Asked if he had any regrets about what happened, Moscon said: "I didn't kill anyone and the accusations are not completely founded. But I'd prefer to not talk about it anymore."

"I've always had a lot of support from my colleagues; they knew it was something ridiculous. A lot of people cheered for me during the race," he explained.
Last edited by thehog on 28 Aug 2017 17:01, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,086
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

28 Aug 2017 16:44

You should totally bold the "they knew it was something ridiculous" bit, hog. I think it's even more damning than the rest.
User avatar hrotha
Veteran
 
Posts: 15,605
Joined: 10 Jun 2010 20:45

Re:

28 Aug 2017 17:01

hrotha wrote:You should totally bold the "they knew it was something ridiculous" bit, hog. I think it's even more damning than the rest.



Done :)
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,086
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Andre Cardoso positive for EPO

28 Aug 2017 17:27

No contradiction to my point over there and you carefully snipped the line when he said he accepted the sanction which contradicts the previous statement. Besides, I take note of the fact that you lied about Portal asking him to apologise while he had already done it before, spontaneously.
Echoes
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,996
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:57

Re:

28 Aug 2017 19:07

LaFlorecita wrote:If it's true, it makes you wonder. Was his sample tampered with? Did the UCI mean to send a message to Contador to "back off, we're watching"?
The difference between Contador's Tour shape and Vuelta shape is immense.


There have been cases in which the scientists from the testing labaratories, have mis-analysed the test results - This is a possible scenario.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,000
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

Re:

26 Sep 2017 15:02

GuyIncognito wrote:Plot twist

B sample might be negative. They cite "Swiss sources" but god knows if those actually exist

http://www.tuttobiciweb.it/2017/08/27/104337/cardoso-un-caso-spinoso-per-l-uci-tuttobicieb


how much longer do the UCI need ?
90 days and the B-sample results are still not published ??
UCI statement on Nicola Ruffoni and Stefano Pirazzi positives issued 04 May 2017. B-sample results came back and riders were fired by Bardiani just two weeks later.
Tim Booth
Junior Member
 
Posts: 90
Joined: 18 Aug 2017 08:13

26 Sep 2017 16:42

I'm guessing the B sample really did come back negative and the UCI are panicking, not knowing what to do.

I don't see another explanation for the delay
User avatar GuyIncognito
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,799
Joined: 27 Jun 2013 21:19

Re:

27 Sep 2017 14:30

GuyIncognito wrote:I'm guessing the B sample really did come back negative and the UCI are panicking, not knowing what to do.

I don't see another explanation for the delay


linked ?
WADA provisionally suspends Chatenay-Malabry laboratory
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-provisionally-suspends-chatenay-malabry-laboratory/
Tim Booth
Junior Member
 
Posts: 90
Joined: 18 Aug 2017 08:13

27 Sep 2017 19:04

If the B sample comes back negative, the athlete is cleared, so nothing UCI can gain by waiting really. He's free, even if it goes to CAS him and his Federation would already know anyway.

The A sample is 60ml and the sample rigorously tested for all banned substances. The lab doesn't know what they are looking for, so this sample is twice that of the B sample so there's enough urine to work with.

The B sample is 30ml and only tested for what was found positive in the A sample. i.e. it can only be used to confirm the doping violation found in the A sample, nothing more.

Therefore in Cardoso's EPO found in the A sample, no lab would be then looking for steroids in the B sample, so even if B sample was tested by Châtenay-Malabry lab, they would only be testing for EPO anyway even if contaminated with steroids by them.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,355
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re:

27 Sep 2017 19:20

GuyIncognito wrote:I'm guessing the B sample really did come back negative and the UCI are panicking, not knowing what to do.

I don't see another explanation for the delay
Didn't we got through this on another B sample recently? Danielson, was it? And the rules were explained then. Per UCI and WADA, nobody has to say nothing between the provisional suspension and the final verdict. They're allowed to keep quiet. The B sample result could be back already and everything proceeding the way it proceeds in all other cases. Silence does not mean a problem.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,570
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

27 Sep 2017 20:21

This is very true. We got so used to a running commentary being given to the press, many think UCI & WADA silence is a suspicious thing today, when in fact, there should be nothing said to the press whatsoever between suspension and final verdict as far as i'm aware if the rules are followed by all stakeholders in the case. There is no maximum timescale between them either as far as i'm aware. It might take 3 weeks or 3 years to reach verdict.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,355
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re: Re:

27 Sep 2017 20:54

Tim Booth wrote:
GuyIncognito wrote:I'm guessing the B sample really did come back negative and the UCI are panicking, not knowing what to do.

I don't see another explanation for the delay


linked ?
WADA provisionally suspends Chatenay-Malabry laboratory
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-provisionally-suspends-chatenay-malabry-laboratory/


Who knows? I'm curious about the sample that contained so much steroids that it contaminated all the equipment....
The poster formerly known as yespatterns.
User avatar GraftPunk
Member
 
Posts: 675
Joined: 21 Feb 2017 21:15
Location: High Desert Steppe

Re: Re:

28 Sep 2017 12:42

GraftPunk wrote:
Tim Booth wrote:
GuyIncognito wrote:I'm guessing the B sample really did come back negative and the UCI are panicking, not knowing what to do.

I don't see another explanation for the delay


linked ?
WADA provisionally suspends Chatenay-Malabry laboratory
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-provisionally-suspends-chatenay-malabry-laboratory/


Who knows? I'm curious about the sample that contained so much steroids that it contaminated all the equipment....


Its entirely possible that someone messed up their dilutions of a lab reference material.

Maybe instead of being diluted 1000 fold it was only diluted 100 fold or something.


That is the most plausible explanation for a super spike of material, rather than an athlete's urine.
User avatar Catwhoorg
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,989
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 11:00
Location: Atlanta, GA

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], wirral and 17 guests

Back to top