The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. 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!
Moose McKnuckles said:Interesting CN article. Perhaps the ban will be reversed.
sniper said:RFEC having serious trouble adding 1+1.
Altitude said:Fortunately it won't matter. WADA will appeal and he'll be handed at least a year. Pretty pathetic on the part of the Spanish though.
joe1265 said:I have one word for you - PLASTICIZERS
Arnout said:Not even the slightest chance the defense is indeed solid (after all, its a free country and all that)?
Are you guys as cynical in real life as in the clinic?
Arnout said:Not even the slightest chance the defense is indeed solid (after all, its a free country and all that)?
Are you guys as cynical in real life as in the clinic?
Digger said:For argument sake, lets say the Spanish drop hte year ban, and WADA appeal. While WADA are appealing, can he continue to race, like Valverde did until the CAS judgement came through?
Digger said:For argument sake, lets say the Spanish drop hte year ban, and WADA appeal. While WADA are appealing, can he continue to race, like Valverde did until the CAS judgement came through?
Moose McKnuckles said:
Altitude said:That's not the point. Under WADA code an athlete is responsible for what turns up in a control. Even if he could prove it was steak (which he obviously cannot), he'd still get a year.
Arnout said:Are you guys as cynical in real life as in the clinic?
sniper said:Haven't you seen the WADA report? It slams AC in the most convincing possible fashion, not even using the plasticizers as an argument.
Then some scientists, all hired by AC and including the more than dubious De Boer, slam the WADA report.
Are you as naive in real life as in the clinic?
Ask yourself:
1. Why didn't AC file charges against the butcher?
2. Why didn't AC do a hairtest?
3. What are the odds of the positive falling on the second rest day?
I'm not even talking about the plasticizer test or the Humo article.
sniper said:Haven't you seen the WADA report? It slams AC in the most convincing possible fashion, not even using the plasticizers as an argument.
Then some scientists, all hired by AC and including the more than dubious De Boer, slam the WADA report.
Are you as naive in real life as in the clinic?
Ask yourself:
1. Why didn't AC file charges against the butcher?
2. Why didn't AC do a hairtest?
3. What are the odds of the positive falling on the second rest day?
I'm not even talking about the plasticizer test or the Humo article.
GJB123 said:Please elaborate why De Boer is more than dubious.
Regards
GJ
Barrus said:What you mean the test that has not been confirmed, was not validated at the time and has completely not been used as evidence?
Met de Versnelling said:Off to CAS we go.
He'll get a year, regardless.
CAS might back date the ban to the Tour if they give him a year, means he could still ride the Vuelta.
Unless WADA/UCI can make the plasticisers stick, then his defence will in all likelihood (and this is just my opinion), stick at CAS.
Personally, i think he doped, and should get a 2 year ban. But it's more than conceivable that a year is all he will get.
Moose McKnuckles said:Exactly. Why do people keep bringing up that test?!? You can't test one guy but not everyone else.