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.
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Re:
There have been cases in which the scientists from the testing labaratories, have mis-analysed the test results - This is a possible scenario.
LaFlorecita said:
There have been cases in which the scientists from the testing labaratories, have mis-analysed the test results - This is a possible scenario.
Re:
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.
GuyIncognito said:
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.
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
I don't see another explanation for the delay
Re:
linked ?
WADA provisionally suspends Chatenay-Malabry laboratory
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-provisionally-suspends-chatenay-malabry-laboratory/
GuyIncognito said:
linked ?
WADA provisionally suspends Chatenay-Malabry laboratory
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-provisionally-suspends-chatenay-malabry-laboratory/
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.
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:
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.GuyIncognito said:
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.
Re: Re:
Who knows? I'm curious about the sample that contained so much steroids that it contaminated all the equipment....
Tim Booth said:
Who knows? I'm curious about the sample that contained so much steroids that it contaminated all the equipment....
Re: Re:
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.
GraftPunk said:
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:
It's also wrong. AFP reported - it's mentioned in the labs thread - that the contamination came from some dodgy urine samples from bodybuilders.Catwhoorg said:
Re:
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
GuyIncognito said:
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:
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
fmk_RoI said:
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:
One.
Rumour.
Way. To. Go.
Where's the UCI statement you said is usual?
So, examples, and you come back with one rumour.search said:
One.
Rumour.
Way. To. Go.
Where's the UCI statement you said is usual?
Re: Re:
What about Pellizotti getting banned without a positive test and without legit evidence & indication either?fmk_RoI said:
Is Andre seriously still awaiting notification of his B sample results? Or have I missed an announcement?
Re: Re:
Only today we've heard Ruffoni's ban announced. It takes some time.Zinoviev Letter said:
Re: Re:
The way the Pellizotti & Rabottini cases were handled ain't got nothing to do with justice. Not that I believe both ain't no dopers, but if the prosecutor can't show up valid evidence they're unguilty on all charges. You can't just make up facts and stretch law to convinct them. That's not how justice works. Rasmussen never got fairly sentenced based on any plausible law & order as well.search said:
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
Tour of the Alps 2024 (April 15 - 19)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 273
-
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Latest: Logic-is-your-friend
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram