- Aug 13, 2009
- 12,854
- 2
- 0
Porphyry said:
Did Contador eat "Large quantities of Liver"? That has what WADA UKAD warned about, not beef.
Did Contador eat "Large quantities of Liver"? That has what WADA UKAD warned about, not beef.
- May 15, 2011
- 45,171
- 617
- 24,680
- May 15, 2011
- 45,171
- 617
- 24,680
Race Radio said:
Not so much talking about what Contador ate, but rather what butchers sell (liver then, if you will), and whether or not there have been warnings that might make the butcher in question think twice about suing.
- May 15, 2011
- 45,171
- 617
- 24,680
- Aug 13, 2009
- 12,854
- 2
- 0
LaFlorecita said:
Funny, after years of pretending there was not a problem he now admits a
They sued Pound for saying the same thing
- Jun 7, 2010
- 19,196
- 3,092
- 28,180
What a tool Pat is. If your a big a star we will listen to all your lame excuses and even help you. If not, you'll get the Li treatment.
roundabout said:
What is the Li treatment?
Firstly, bad timing? (compared to a similar case like Ovtcharov and the Mexican soccer players). Secondly, never getting suspended. Thirdly, just quit and get forgotten?
- Jun 7, 2010
- 19,196
- 3,092
- 28,180
Nilsson said:
Getting the positive announced as soon as it got back from the lab instead of sending the Chief Medical Officer himself "to deliver the document package" or start a through review because clenbuterol isn't EPO and UCI cares for a rider's image.
But anyway, your post is the same old pathetic spin on the facts that I've come to expect from the likes of you. Li lost his job a WT team and never got the chance to explain his positive. He didn't "just quit".
Mcquaid is full of **** and so are you.
- May 2, 2010
- 466
- 0
- 0
Patrick McQuaid: "El TAS no dijo que se dopara Contador, pero el clembuterol estaba ahí"
Which in English translates as: "TAS didn't say Contador had doped, but the clembuterol was there".
Right. All I want is the same policy of punishment/sanction to be administered from now on to every cyclist who, by any reasons whatsoever (medical, genetical, economical or sexual), presents any microdose of any substance listed as doping in any analysis. No matter if the purpose was to dope or not.
Which in English translates as: "TAS didn't say Contador had doped, but the clembuterol was there".
Right. All I want is the same policy of punishment/sanction to be administered from now on to every cyclist who, by any reasons whatsoever (medical, genetical, economical or sexual), presents any microdose of any substance listed as doping in any analysis. No matter if the purpose was to dope or not.
thehog
BANNED
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
hfer07 said:
I would agree.
Pat needs to ask Berlusconi to join the UCI. That would be fun! Bunga Bunga parties with free EPO for all! Italian riders with good looking wives to be free of tests and any rider who invites the UCI executive board for dinner gets a free pass as well.
Let the good times roll....
roundabout said:
I'm not giving a spin on any fact; if anyone does, it's probably you (because you don't fully understand them).
The Li case is different than the Contador case, in many ways. You can't compare the two, mainly because of different facts and different timing. It's the timing that is most sorry for Li. If he would have tested positive after Contador (and Ovtcharov), he most likely would have been given a free-pass (immediately) - like Ovtcharov and the Mexican soccer players...
The most different to Contador's case in comparson to all other cases, is that Contador didn't test positive 'out-of-the-blue' but in succession to negatives. It's that fact that opened the door to more investigation, contacting WADA and testing Contador's samples of the following days for clenbuterol in Cologne as well...
About Li. I find it strange that we never heard of him anymore, after getting the same defense as Contador (by Douwe de Boer) in first instance and never receiving a suspension after that. It's also doesn't correspond with his compatriot Tong Wen, who tested positive for clenbuterol during the world championships judo in the Netherlands in 2010 and (despite of being on the wrong end of the time table) in the end managed to get off on procedural mistakes, helped by the lawyers who worked for Contador later on (like Morgan, Lewis and Rigozzi)...
Li was and is very unlucky, I will be the first to admit that and feel sorry for him. Also there are some unusual things going on in that case, like offically still awaiting a verdict, but it's bull**** to blame Contador for any of that...
- Jun 7, 2010
- 19,196
- 3,092
- 28,180
Nilsson said:
Let's take it point by point.
Where am I spinning?
Would it be when I wrote that Li just quit when he was fired by his team?
Oh, wait. That was you, wasn't it, Mr "I fully understand the facts which is why I can lie"?
Or would it be when I posted about Zorzoli handing over the documentation in person? I see that despite writing 5 paragraphs and accusing me of not fully understanding the facts you failed to mention it once. Surely with your superior knowledge you would have proven me wrong. Maybe it's part of his job description- Chief Medical Officer-Postman of the UCI. No? Okay.
Second point. You blabber on about the timing. Once again it's more dishonesty from you. Contador's case was sat on before the Ovtcharov's test and the cases in Mexico became public. It's the typical irrelevant argument that I've come to expect from you.
Third point. Ovtcharov did not get a free pass immediately. He had done more to prove his innocence than Contador ever did.
Fourth point. Pay attention to this paragraph
Do you think that happened with Li? No, he was suspended and fired 4 weeks after the positive only with the A sample analyzed. Do you honestly think that it was because of a singular test instead of a number of them like with Contador? I am certain that a study would have been possible in Li's case to determine whether he took clenbuterol in performance enhancing doses. But once again it's no surprise that you completely misunderstand things and go off on a tangent.
Fifth point. I am not sure why you bring Tong Wen into this when you yourself said that he got off due to procedural mistakes. Was it show that you have a news alert set to "clenbuterol"? If so i don't really care and you're wasting space as usual.
Sixth point. It's my understanding that Li cannot race. Whether it's informal or not is again beside the point. Also, If you have information that Li is free to ride, you're free to share it since I "don't fully understand the facts".
Seventh point. You admit that Li is very unlucky. Wonder, why you are unable to admit that his case was not handled the way McQuaid described? Timing? Rubbish. Probably because bleating about luck is better than admitting that Contador got better treatment from the UCI.
And finally, I am not blaming Contador for anything. Just highlighting that reality is different to McQuaid's proclamations. I am at loss as to why you would even think that anyone would blame Contador so it's your preemptive strike against nobody in particular that is bull****.
roundabout said:
Nine out of ten times, a doping case is a standard doping case. It's a clear positive 'out-of-the-blue', and (especially in Cycling) it's normally handled quite poorly; Li was not an exception to that (mostly because of timing). You can try to argue that Contador's case was handled differently (IMO like it should always be) but it was a different case as well. Something that has been stipulated already (facts, and, yes, the profile of the rider)
You really don't like it, but timing is crucial in relation to clenbuterol. The way authorities (most importantly WADA) look at clenbuterol has changed very quickly, especially in relation to China and Mexico. If Li had tested positive after Ovtcharov, it would have been much easier for him, because Ovtcharov (with the help of the Cologne lab, and studies the lab did on German tourists coming back from China after that) made a big breakthrough.
- Jun 7, 2010
- 19,196
- 3,092
- 28,180
Ok I am not in the mood to discuss your diatribe so let's get straight to the point. Do you agree that the handling of Li's case was different than how McQuaid described that such cases are handled?
roundabout said:
McQuaid didn't describe how a case like Li should have been handled, that's your interpretation. McQuaid only said something about the different handling of Contador's case. It's your choice to link that to Li's (without keeping in mind the different facts, circumstances and timing) and make a judgment, that IMO is wrong...
- Jun 7, 2010
- 19,196
- 3,092
- 28,180
Ah, screw it. There is such garbage posted that I won't let it go.
Posting that I don't understand is easy. Pointing explicitly where I don't understand is a lot harder so it gets substituted by going off on yet another tangent or in one particularly galling case deliberately misreading/twisting what I wrote.
Ok, how should I understand the words "just quit"? You never wrote fired until your last post. Further, I am talking about the initial treatment of the positive, not the sanctioning so once again I am not sure where WADA and the Chinese federation come into it.
Regarding Zorzoli, do you honestly believe that the Chief Medical Officer of the UCI moonlights as a postman and personally delivers the documentation to all the cyclists who test positive? I don't know how willfully ignorant one can be to not even start to think that something might be amiss here. And yet here we are, when the different treatment of the positive is highlighted it's apparently not a problem.
Next, I am not sure how you got from the paragraph you quoted that I "agree" that there's pre and post Contador. It's neither obvious there nor in the context of the post and yet here I suddenly "agree" with you despite you writing thrice about me misunderstanding elsewhere.
Ovtcharov got a free pass only when he was able to prove his innocence. He did so convincingly that WADA didn't appeal the case. But most importantly in the context of this discussion his arguments were listened to.
Your talk of the Contador's case being a clear case of contamination is deliberately misleading. It doesn't take 500+ days to rule on a "clear" case of contamination. Infact all the arguments that you provided in favor of that are far from clear cut but following the previous discussion about the blood values it's obvious that you are unwilling to look at them critically without adding your own spin.
It's quite telling than in response to the main point you yet again decide that the sanctioning is more important when it's not about that at all. Even though I get the impression that it's hopeless, I'll post my question again in the hope that I will get an honest on-topic response this time around
Or even better, why do you think that he wasn't listened to? And try answering based on information available in April-May 2010, so no favorite subjects like Contador etc.
Further, petty arguments? She is an Olympic champion and Li is a bit of a nobody in the context of their respective sports. And here we are, one was cleared, the other can't ride. It's possibly a problem on the cycling side (my point), or there is indeed different treatment based on the athletes standing within the sport. Yeah, it's probably not a waste of space since you so eloquently highlighted the problem. Thanks.
Then, you say it's my misunderstanding that Li can not ride. Where is the information to the contrary? Right, nowhere. You had ample time and you couldn't come up with it. I can say that you're a shill and there would be more evidence of that than anything you brought to the table regarding Li's current status. Also, since you don't even know apparently (although I suspect you're just playing dumb here) if he is alive or not how can you honestly state that it's my mis(understanding)? Right...
Finally, it's good that you seem (just to avoid any misunderstandings, you see) to admit that Li's case was handled poorly. And it's good that you admit that the profile of the rider matters. I ask you then, why the hell did you go off writing yet another propaganda piece about Contador how his case was obviously different, yadda, yadda, yadda?
But then finally you return to the same crap about timing. The question I ask, is why were Li's arguments ignored. Would it be by any chance because he is a nobody in cycling and the Chinese federation wouldn't want to fight tooth and nail for him?
Posting that I don't understand is easy. Pointing explicitly where I don't understand is a lot harder so it gets substituted by going off on yet another tangent or in one particularly galling case deliberately misreading/twisting what I wrote.
Ok, how should I understand the words "just quit"? You never wrote fired until your last post. Further, I am talking about the initial treatment of the positive, not the sanctioning so once again I am not sure where WADA and the Chinese federation come into it.
Regarding Zorzoli, do you honestly believe that the Chief Medical Officer of the UCI moonlights as a postman and personally delivers the documentation to all the cyclists who test positive? I don't know how willfully ignorant one can be to not even start to think that something might be amiss here. And yet here we are, when the different treatment of the positive is highlighted it's apparently not a problem.
Next, I am not sure how you got from the paragraph you quoted that I "agree" that there's pre and post Contador. It's neither obvious there nor in the context of the post and yet here I suddenly "agree" with you despite you writing thrice about me misunderstanding elsewhere.
Ovtcharov got a free pass only when he was able to prove his innocence. He did so convincingly that WADA didn't appeal the case. But most importantly in the context of this discussion his arguments were listened to.
Your talk of the Contador's case being a clear case of contamination is deliberately misleading. It doesn't take 500+ days to rule on a "clear" case of contamination. Infact all the arguments that you provided in favor of that are far from clear cut but following the previous discussion about the blood values it's obvious that you are unwilling to look at them critically without adding your own spin.
It's quite telling than in response to the main point you yet again decide that the sanctioning is more important when it's not about that at all. Even though I get the impression that it's hopeless, I'll post my question again in the hope that I will get an honest on-topic response this time around
Or even better, why do you think that he wasn't listened to? And try answering based on information available in April-May 2010, so no favorite subjects like Contador etc.
Further, petty arguments? She is an Olympic champion and Li is a bit of a nobody in the context of their respective sports. And here we are, one was cleared, the other can't ride. It's possibly a problem on the cycling side (my point), or there is indeed different treatment based on the athletes standing within the sport. Yeah, it's probably not a waste of space since you so eloquently highlighted the problem. Thanks.
Then, you say it's my misunderstanding that Li can not ride. Where is the information to the contrary? Right, nowhere. You had ample time and you couldn't come up with it. I can say that you're a shill and there would be more evidence of that than anything you brought to the table regarding Li's current status. Also, since you don't even know apparently (although I suspect you're just playing dumb here) if he is alive or not how can you honestly state that it's my mis(understanding)? Right...
Finally, it's good that you seem (just to avoid any misunderstandings, you see) to admit that Li's case was handled poorly. And it's good that you admit that the profile of the rider matters. I ask you then, why the hell did you go off writing yet another propaganda piece about Contador how his case was obviously different, yadda, yadda, yadda?
But then finally you return to the same crap about timing. The question I ask, is why were Li's arguments ignored. Would it be by any chance because he is a nobody in cycling and the Chinese federation wouldn't want to fight tooth and nail for him?
- Jun 7, 2010
- 19,196
- 3,092
- 28,180
Nilsson said:
Wow, just wow. You're a the biggest apologist here. Period.
So, how should Li's case have been handled? Do you think it's correct that the whole world knew that he tested positive right after the A sample results came in?
Why do you think Li's case is different in the context of McQuaid's quote? He tested positive for Clenbuterol not EPO. Check. He tested at a low quantity. Check. His image would have been damaged irreparably. Check. Why didn't UCI send Zorzoli over to help with the defense/listen to the explanations?
Do "facts, circumstances and timing" of which you have a very tenuous grasp really account for this?
Be honest now.
roundabout said:
Come on, do you really want me to say you're narrow minded now, do you? This is getting us nowhere...
No, I don't and I never said I did, but unfortunately it is standard procedure (too often, especially in cycling).
I'm not going to repeat myself again. If you don't want to understand or accept it, be my guest.
Yes, everyone should acknowledge Li's case and Contador's case are not the same, period. Even if you only accept the pure negative approach of Contador being (too) high profile..
- Jun 7, 2010
- 19,196
- 3,092
- 28,180
No, it's your "arguments" or rather your ability to look for excuse upon excuse upon excuse (however irrelevant they actually are) for the different treatment that are getting us nowhere.
And it's your tactic of saying that I am wrong, I don't understand etc combined with your ability to only very selectively answer my questions that inevitably leads to frustration.
And you are free to repeat yourself again, because so far you have failed to come up with anything that even remotely suggests that my "judgement" is wrong or why it is ok that the UCI didn't want to look deeper into Li's positive. Stating the obvious that Contador was too high profile is not a "pure negative" approach in the absence of any arguments to the contrary however much you try to spin it (yet again, I may add).
Seriously, let's hear it. And try doing it without telling what "everyone" should think. There are grownup people posting here who can make their own minds up.
And it's your tactic of saying that I am wrong, I don't understand etc combined with your ability to only very selectively answer my questions that inevitably leads to frustration.
And you are free to repeat yourself again, because so far you have failed to come up with anything that even remotely suggests that my "judgement" is wrong or why it is ok that the UCI didn't want to look deeper into Li's positive. Stating the obvious that Contador was too high profile is not a "pure negative" approach in the absence of any arguments to the contrary however much you try to spin it (yet again, I may add).
Seriously, let's hear it. And try doing it without telling what "everyone" should think. There are grownup people posting here who can make their own minds up.
The big issue for Fuyu Li was that when he tested positive after being in China, his own country's officials were not going to accept any claim of tainted meat. Letting him off would be an admission that hurts national pride, and no way are the Chinese bureaucrats admitting to food safety concerns to save an unknown rider in a little-known sport.
Now if Li had tested positive after the Ovtcharov case, MAYBE he could have gotten off. But even then, who knows? It gets back to this issue of having individual nations make rulings rather than an international body. We always assume your own country's fed will protect you, but in cases where national politics/pride come into play, it's also easy for a rider to be scapegoated by his country. Li never did appeal to CAS - wonder why?
Now if Li had tested positive after the Ovtcharov case, MAYBE he could have gotten off. But even then, who knows? It gets back to this issue of having individual nations make rulings rather than an international body. We always assume your own country's fed will protect you, but in cases where national politics/pride come into play, it's also easy for a rider to be scapegoated by his country. Li never did appeal to CAS - wonder why?
Beech Mtn said:
guilty or not guilty, he probably didn't have the means to appeal to CAS and must have known it was a lost case anyhow, especially without his own federation's backup.
So contador vs. Li: two similar cases on the surface, but one highprofile racer who manages to get support from his federation and buy himself the
best lawyers in town, and one low-profile racer, thrown under the bus.
In all objectivity, we know Dirty is one of the bigger dopers out there, yet owing to his fortune (which he earned by cheating) he almost manages to skate free for the second time in a row (miraculously having escaped Puerto-sanctions).
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 40K
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s ITT, September 21- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 942
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram