******bad Sanchez

[gregod]

i understand sanchez' feelings.

when i was in high school, i ran the anchor leg of a 4X800 relay. i was narrowly beaten to the line in what was a very hard fought race. it sucked to lose, but my team and i were mostly happy since we all ran PBs and the team that beat us ran the fastest time of the year. about 20 minutes later when they were passing out the medals we were informed that the team that beat us were DQ'd because after their anchor crossed the line he spiked the baton.

personally, i felt cheated by being given a first place that we did not earn. i would rather have had the second place that i knew we earned. one other team member felt the same as me. the coach and second and third legs were happy with the win.

FWIW

 

[Bonkstrong]

i understand sanchez' feelings.

when i was in high school, i ran the anchor leg of a 4X800 relay. i was narrowly beaten to the line in what was a very hard fought race. it sucked to lose, but my team and i were mostly happy since we all ran PBs and the team that beat us ran the fastest time of the year. about 20 minutes later when they were passing out the medals we were informed that the team that beat us were DQ'd because after their anchor crossed the line he spiked the baton.

personally, i felt cheated by being given a first place that we did not earn. i would rather have had the second place that i knew we earned. one other team member felt the same as me. the coach and second and third legs were happy with the win.

FWIW

OT: What does that mean??

 

[Sandy Chamois]

OT: What does that mean??

It means he slipped it some alcohol with the intention of taking advantage of it later.

 

[maltiv]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sanchez-on-2010-tour-de-france-podium

Can we send him honourary forum access to the clinic so he can see what people really think of these retards.

Funny how you think that most people would agree with you or hate on Sanchez, but it seems to be the other way around. You see, some of us have actually read CAS's verdict and are capable of understanding more advanced scientific results than "positive test = doper". Since CAS's conclusion is that Contador's positive test most likely came from contamination then it would be completely unreasonable for Sanchez to be particularly happy about it.

Please tell me how you think Contador got 50 picograms of Clenbuterol in his body, since you apparently know more than CAS. Personally I can't think of anything else than either contamination or blood doping, but CAS concluded that the latter was not the case after studying his blood profiles and other evidence.

 

[gregod]

... their anchor crossed the line he spiked the baton.
...

OT: What does that mean??

it means, like in american football, the runner threw the baton down on the ground. it is OK do drop the baton, but not to throw it.

 

[hrotha]

Funny how you think that most people would agree with you or hate on Sanchez, but it seems to be the other way around. You see, some of us have actually read CAS's verdict and are capable of understanding more advanced scientific results than "positive test = doper". Since CAS's conclusion is that Contador's positive test most likely came from contamination then it would be completely unreasonable for Sanchez to be particularly happy about it.

Please tell me how you think Contador got 50 picograms of Clenbuterol in his body, since you apparently know more than CAS. Personally I can't think of anything else than either contamination or blood doping, but CAS concluded that the latter was not the case after studying his blood profiles and other evidence.

Actually, his blood profiles were completely compatible with (and indeed pointed at) a transfusion. The theory was deemed unlikely solely on the grounds of the pharmacokinetics of clenbuterol.

 

[nevada]

Actually, his blood profiles were completely compatible with (and indeed pointed at) a transfusion. The theory was deemed unlikely solely on the grounds of the pharmacokinetics of clenbuterol.

Huh, not what Maltiv says and he says he's very clever.

See, the way he got the clen was because he went on a training camp, used clen and probably other stuff, rested up for a few days, had his blood drawn - it was tested by a dodgy doc who didnt test to that low value and the stored the blood as safe. Hey presto - infected blood and infused on the rest day. FFw'd to today and CAS and a load of fanboys on here think he's innocent.

 

[Nilsson]

Actually, his blood profiles were completely compatible with (and indeed pointed at) a transfusion. The theory was deemed unlikely solely on the grounds of the pharmacokinetics of clenbuterol.

Not exactly. There were some fluctuations compared to other years, and Ashenden could describe them as 'atypical' at best. Even he had to admit that he couldn't say it was blood doping. On the contrary even, because of his reticulocytes that were higher. Something that contradicts transfusion and insists that AC should have used an EPO-like substance (as well) - of which is no sign at all...

AC could have been blood doping, but he also could have not. You can assume some smoking guns, but there is no case against him. We have to accept that and I might even feel a bit sorry for him, because of all the misinterpretations.

More importantly, this case was about clenbuterol. Could a transfusion have been the cause of his clen positive? And was it more likely than the other two theories? For several reasons the answer has to be no...

 

[The Hitch]

To add to the "its not the same 18 months later" argument, Matthew Pinsent winner of 4 Olympic gold medals and countless world ones, always said that he would trade all his world and Olympic medals just to win the next race.

Samu is not going to be crying with joy 2 tdfs later.

 

[hrotha]

Not exactly. There were some fluctuations compared to other years, and Ashenden could describe them as 'atypical' at best. Even he had to admit that he couldn't say it was blood doping. On the contrary even, because of his reticulocytes that were higher. Something that contradicts transfusion and insists that AC should have used an EPO-like substance (as well) - of which is no sign at all...

AC could have been blood doping, but he also could have not. You can assume some smoking guns, but there is no case against him. We have to accept that and I might even feel a bit sorry for him, because of all the misinterpretations.

Of course it wasn't conclusive, I didn't claim otherwise. The data was treated as not strong enough to support a case by itself, but they were signs that something was afoot - again, not enough to sanction him, but definitely enough to not go around saying that it's been proved at CAS that Contador didn't transfuse.

To the bolded part - not sure I know what you mean. As for the absence of EPO in his samples, come on, you know how this works.

More importantly, this case was about clenbuterol. Could a transfusion have been the cause of his clen positive? And was it more likely than the other two theories? For several reasons the answer has to be no...

I haven't disputed this, and in fact this is my point. People are using CAS's ruling to say Contador didn't transfuse, which is not what the ruling says precisely because that fell outside of their capabilities.

 

[Christian]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sanchez-on-2010-tour-de-france-podium

Can we send him honourary forum access to the clinic so he can see what people really think of these retards.

There is dirty Bertie, now there is "unclean" Sanchez

 

[GJB123]

I haven't disputed this, and in fact this is my point. People are using CAS's ruling to say Contador didn't transfuse, which is not what the ruling says precisely because that fell outside of their capabilities.

But neither did CAS say he did transfuse. Same difference and still there is a sh1tload of people on this forum who persist in stating exactly that he did transfuse and is therefore a cheat and a doper. Now AC might very well be all of that, but one can not base that on the CAS-ruling.

Fact of the matter is that after the CAS-ruling there is no concrete evidence that he did dope during TdF 2010 nor that he didn't. All we know for sure, is that he had a positive for CB for which he, according to CAS, failed to supply a satisfactory reason on how it entered his body, hence the ban.

Regards
GJ

 

[The Hitch]

it means, like in american football, the runner threw the baton down on the ground. it is OK do drop the baton, but not to throw it.

How does that provide an advantage?

 

[GJB123]

How does that provide an advantage?

It doesn't, but it is aginast the rules. Hence the comparison he makes with AC's case. 50 picogram, no performance advantage, least unlikely source a supplement, but still a penalty.

 

[Sandy Chamois]

"unclean" Sanchez

I saw what you did there.

/full credit to Urban Dictionary
//cary on lads

 

[Nick C.]

How does that provide an advantage?

no earthly idea since your team is done but maybe they bounce around which might be a bad thing for the other runners.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Huh, not what Maltiv says and he says he's very clever.

See, the way he got the clen was because he went on a training camp, used clen and probably other stuff, rested up for a few days, had his blood drawn - it was tested by a dodgy doc who didnt test to that low value and the stored the blood as safe. Hey presto - infected blood and infused on the rest day. FFw'd to today and CAS and a load of fanboys on here think he's innocent.

I don't think Alberto Contador is innocent. However, CAS has ruled that they think the clen is more likely from a different source than the concrete innocent (meat) or concrete guilty (transfusion) source, and though we may question their judgment, or theorise about what points to what, ultimately they have access to more information than we do. Maybe the transfusion is plausible but the evidence is not conclusive enough for them to lay their colours down given that they're hamstrung by legality - much as Armstrong's 2009 Tour samples showed suspicious behaviour, but within acceptable parameters so as that we couldn't say for certain what it was due to even if the behaviour dropped strong hints.

But I don't understand how this makes anything Sánchez said bad. The only thing that can possibly make any of what he said bad was the omission of the word probably from the statement regarding the CAS statement (ie "recognized that he had probably not doped").

How can you object to his comments about the podium? Maybe if you lost out to somebody who cheated you would be annoyed, but you're not Samuel Sánchez and you can't project your feelings onto him. Maybe he was annoyed, but ultimately he's saying that he's not happy about getting onto the podium that way because he didn't get to experience the elation of it. He doesn't say that he doesn't accept the podium position, just that it doesn't bring him the joy that it would have done had he been 3rd in Paris. Notwithstanding that also, though he is fine with himself being moved up, the guy who's been disqualified is his friend, and he doesn't exactly want to be leaping around celebrating. After all, if I'd had something that I perceived as unjust happen to me (even if I actually deserved it from an outsider's perspective) and one of my friends profited from it, I'd get pretty upset if he was then running his mouth about it.

 

[Angliru]

What is wrong with what he said?


Either you're reading more into his words, or English is far from your first language.

The first sentence is referring to his friend, what would one expect him to say? "Hang the doper"?

The second is in no way, shape or form condoning doping. All he is saying is he can't get excited about it as he missed out on the podium etc.

Maybe before being allowed to post in the Clinic we should insist on a reading, writing & reasoning test?

+1000 Exactly.

 

[Angliru]

Funny how you think that most people would agree with you or hate on Sanchez, but it seems to be the other way around. You see, some of us have actually read CAS's verdict and are capable of understanding more advanced scientific results than "positive test = doper". Since CAS's conclusion is that Contador's positive test most likely came from contamination then it would be completely unreasonable for Sanchez to be particularly happy about it.

Please tell me how you think Contador got 50 picograms of Clenbuterol in his body, since you apparently know more than CAS. Personally I can't think of anything else than either contamination or blood doping, but CAS concluded that the latter was not the case after studying his blood profiles and other evidence.

...but don't you know that the REAL experts are here in the clinic, not the one's that actually do this for a living as professionals?

 

[The Hitch]

...but don't you know that the REAL experts are here in the clinic, not the one's that actually do this for a living as professionals?

I dont see what pros you are reffering to. There are pros who check tests. Pros who administer the anti doping. Pros in charge of prosecution, pros in charge of defense.

But that is all based on tests. There are no pros paid to go - oh look this rider was a sprinter 5 years ago now hes winning on 11% climbs with ease, for example.

Sure if we just look at tests we can leave it to the pros. But if we consider the fact that many riders are getting through the tests, you can't just rely on the tests to make judgments on who may or may not be doping.

If you did Frank Schleck for example would be a 100% clean rider.

 

[function]

I dont see what pros you are reffering to. There are pros who check tests. Pros who administer the anti doping. Pros in charge of prosecution, pros in charge of defense.

But that is all based on tests. There are no pros paid to go - oh look this rider was a sprinter 5 years ago now hes winning on 11% climbs with ease, for example.

Sure if we just look at tests we can leave it to the pros. But if we consider the fact that many riders are getting through the tests, you can't just rely on the tests to make judgments on who may or may not be doping.

If you did Frank Schleck for example would be a 100% clean rider.

That's because in the real world the burden of proof is higher.

 

[The Hitch]

That's because in the real world the burden of proof is higher.

This is the same world where Lance Arrmstrong won 7 Tours clean, and where every other sport apart from evil cycling is 100% clean?