• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Andre Cardoso positive for EPO

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Echoes said:
GuyIncognito said:
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.
 
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.
 
Re:

LaFlorecita said:
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.
 
Aug 18, 2017
582
0
0
Jun 27, 2013
4,352
2
0
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
 
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.
 
Re:

GuyIncognito said:
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.
 
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.
 
Feb 21, 2017
757
0
0
Re: Re:

Tim Booth said:
GuyIncognito said:
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....
 
Re: Re:

GraftPunk said:
Tim Booth said:
GuyIncognito said:
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.
 
Re: Re:

Catwhoorg said:
GraftPunk said:
Tim Booth said:
GuyIncognito said:
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.
It's also wrong. AFP reported - it's mentioned in the labs thread - that the contamination came from some dodgy urine samples from bodybuilders.
 
Aug 18, 2017
582
0
0
Re:

GuyIncognito said:
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
When it takes this long to hear from the UCI it usually results in a statement that the B sample result was inconclusive and the B sample will be re-tested (at another lab of their choosing) and that (surprise, surprise) the B sample is also positive.
Such is life, André
 
Re: Re:

Tim Booth said:
GuyIncognito said:
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
When it takes this long to hear from the UCI it usually results in a statement that the B sample result was inconclusive and the B sample will be re-tested (at another lab of their choosing) and that (surprise, surprise) the B sample is also positive.
Such is life, André
Could you provide recent examples of this? TIA.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Tim Booth said:
GuyIncognito said:
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
When it takes this long to hear from the UCI it usually results in a statement that the B sample result was inconclusive and the B sample will be re-tested (at another lab of their choosing) and that (surprise, surprise) the B sample is also positive.
Such is life, André
Could you provide recent examples of this? TIA.
there was some confusion about Rabottini's b-sample back then. An early press report said that it was sent to Lausanne, but in the end the result came back from Cologne - so either the report was wrong, or the test in Lausanne didn't deliver the desired result
 
Re: Re:

search said:
fmk_RoI said:
Tim Booth said:
GuyIncognito said:
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
When it takes this long to hear from the UCI it usually results in a statement that the B sample result was inconclusive and the B sample will be re-tested (at another lab of their choosing) and that (surprise, surprise) the B sample is also positive.
Such is life, André
Could you provide recent examples of this? TIA.
there was some confusion about Rabottini's b-sample back then. An early press report said that it was sent to Lausanne, but in the end the result came back from Cologne - so either the report was wrong, or the test in Lausanne didn't deliver the desired result
So, examples, and you come back with one rumour.

One.

Rumour.

Way. To. Go.

Where's the UCI statement you said is usual?
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
search said:
fmk_RoI said:
Tim Booth said:
GuyIncognito said:
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
When it takes this long to hear from the UCI it usually results in a statement that the B sample result was inconclusive and the B sample will be re-tested (at another lab of their choosing) and that (surprise, surprise) the B sample is also positive.
Such is life, André
Could you provide recent examples of this? TIA.
there was some confusion about Rabottini's b-sample back then. An early press report said that it was sent to Lausanne, but in the end the result came back from Cologne - so either the report was wrong, or the test in Lausanne didn't deliver the desired result
So, examples, and you come back with one rumour.

One.

Rumour.

Way. To. Go.

Where's the UCI statement you said is usual?
What about Pellizotti getting banned without a positive test and without legit evidence & indication either?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS