• 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 @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Contador is...

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Contador is...

  • Guilty of this, and plenty of other stuff.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
Maxiton said:
Anyway, I'm taking Vaughters' recent statement as the basis for my point. Vaughters statement is essentially as follows. Was the outcome of the race changed by this substance? No. It's a microscopic trace which effects no outcome, so while it might, perhaps, violate the letter of the rule, it doesn't violate the rule's intent. Given this fact, combined with the impossibility of determining its origin, it should not be sanctioned for.

Since Vaughters is no doping apologist, his argument carries some weight here.

That comment by former "Zero Tolerance" Vaughters was puzzling...

Is he saying it is OK to test positive as long as the race outcome is not affected? Yikes, I have not even heard a FanBoy use that one! I like it;)

And the outcome of the race was decided by only 39 seconds for crying out loud waawaa. How does Jonathon know if the Clen had no impact?

A blood transfusion with a trace of clen could very well have had an impact.

Heck, even a doped-up steak might have had an impact, chocked full of deliciousness and fortification. They ate steak just for that reason - to have a positive impact on the race.

Well, at least this does have a silver lining for Alberto. Many people will now forget the race was decided by that unsportsmanlike attack during Andy's mechanical. Well, most people will forget that - not all. SSDD sigh.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
Chuffy said:
Starting a team with an expressedly anti-doping ethos counts for more than simply running his mouth off. Don't get me wrong, I like it when the riders speak out, that can only be a good thing, but I'd argue that running a team like Garmin is a far stronger attempt to shift the underlying culture of pro-cycling and that's why he should be listened to. Not to mention that he's been around the block a bit and knows what he's talking about...

I am ok with that. But what disturbs me is that he stops talking about when it comes to the point what he knows or he just speaks in riddles when it gets serious.
 
Aug 9, 2010
448
0
0
Visit site
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
I am ok with that. But what disturbs me is that he stops talking about when it comes to the point what he knows or he just speaks in riddles when it gets serious.
I think he's dancing along a fine line. Yup, he could spill his guts on a lot of stuff (USP era) but there is the potential for that to have an impact on what he and Garmin are trying to achieve now. What would you do under the circumstances?
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
Chuffy said:
I think he's dancing along a fine line. Yup, he could spill his guts on a lot of stuff (USP era) but there is the potential for that to have an impact on what he and Garmin are trying to achieve now. What would you do under the circumstances?

I would talk openly (if Armstrong didn´t threat me with a basballbat or something), or i would talk to the Grand Jury (if Armstrong did threat me with a baseballbat or something)