Dekker's B-sample also positive, admits to doping

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

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
issoisso said:
The UCI quite wants lifetime bans. They just can't give them. They spent years fighting with the WADA to get the maximum ban to be extended to 4 years. Which they got finally this year. Now they're fighting for the possibility of lifetime bans.

It'll take many years, if they ever get them.

The 4 year rule was introduced this year for what the UCI calls 'Aggravating Circumstances'; Chapter X SANCTIONS AND CONSEQUENCES 305.

However Thomas might have been smart because there is a 'get out clause' of
A License-Holder can avoid the application of this article by admitting the anti-doping rule violation as
asserted promptly after being confronted with the anti-doping rule violation by an Anti-Doping
Organisation.
.

Pat McQuaid has said he personally wants lifetime bans but it should be noted that no rider has yet been hit with a 4 year ban since its introduction.
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
luckyboy said:
Why are WADA against this exactly?

Because they don't quite realize that 99% of cheaters come back and immediately cheat again. They're still living in the magical land of honesty where cheaters regret what they did and don't do it agian.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
issoisso said:
The UCI quite wants lifetime bans. They just can't give them. They spent years fighting with the WADA to get the maximum ban to be extended to 4 years. Which they got finally this year. Now they're fighting for the possibility of lifetime bans.

It'll take many years, if they ever get them.

Not exactly.

WADA already has Lifetime bans for a second offense. The UCI fights with WADA because they hate WADA, not because they hold any moral high ground.
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
Race Radio said:
Not exactly.

WADA already has Lifetime bans for a second offense. The UCI fights with WADA because they hate WADA, not because they hold any moral high ground.

We're talking first ban. The UCI have openly admitted time and time again that they want lifetime bans as a maximum for a first offence but the WADA doesn't agree.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
issoisso said:
We're talking first ban. The UCI have openly admitted time and time again that they want lifetime bans as a maximum for a first offence but the WADA doesn't agree.

As I wrote earlier - the 4 year ban came in to effect this year for what is called 'Aggravating Circumstances' - which was adopted from Article 10.6 of the WADA Code.

Pat McQuaid said thisabout Schumacher & Kohl in October last year:
"In these cases [Kohl and Schumacher], considering that these guys were given the product and then went and took it for the Tour de France, it would be very much classified as willful cheating. Next year a rider in that position would face a four year ban."

Since the introduction of the 4 year ban none of the 32 riders caught to date have faced a 4 year ban - what Pat says and what Pat does are often two different things.
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
As I wrote earlier - the 4 year ban came in to effect this year for what is called 'Aggravating Circumstances' - which was adopted from Article 10.6 of the WADA Code.

Pat McQuaid said thisabout Schumacher & Kohl in October last year:
"In these cases [Kohl and Schumacher], considering that these guys were given the product and then went and took it for the Tour de France, it would be very much classified as willful cheating. Next year a rider in that position would face a four year ban."

Since the introduction of the 4 year ban none of the 32 riders caught to date have faced a 4 year ban - what Pat says and what Pat does are often two different things.

Wasn't Pat. I don't think his own mother would take his word.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
issoisso said:
We're talking first ban. The UCI have openly admitted time and time again that they want lifetime bans as a maximum for a first offence but the WADA doesn't agree.

Do you have a link for this? I do not recall McQuaid ever making this claim. I would doubt that any such claim would be anything more they yet more fake posturing by the UCI.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Race Radio said:
Do you have a link for this? I do not recall McQuaid ever making this claim. I would doubt that any such claim would be anything more they yet more fake posturing by the UCI.
Yes - Pat did (kindof) say that.

However it was in the same article that he makes the claim that if Schumacher & Kohl had failed this year they would have been hit with the 4 year sanction. Which I have already said that no-one since its introduction has been subject to.

Here is the quote:
"I have said before that I would like to see them out of the sport for good. That is purely on a personal level,"
....from this article.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Yes - Pat did (kindof) say that.

However it was in the same article that he makes the claim that if Schumacher & Kohl had failed this year they would have been hit with the 4 year sanction. Which I have already said that no-one since its introduction has been subject to.

Here is the quote:
"I have said before that I would like to see them out of the sport for good. That is purely on a personal level,"
....from this article.

As usual Pat says one thing and does another.
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
Dekker_Tifosi said:
If so, can we then do the same thing with Basso, Ricco, Sella, Vinokourov, Kashechkin, Valverde and others please?

Simple matter of same threatment.

Oh yes, please!! I get absolutely bilious just reading their names. Who'd ever feel any sort of excitement or enthusiasm seeing them on a team roster or, even worse, on a podium again? Their wives and bank-managers? Dekker looking forward to the end of the two-year suspension, intent on "going to show that his victories was due to his natural talent" is the ultimate turn-off. If they had even the least bit of respect for their audience and the sport they'd fade away into the obscurity they so deserve. I have nothing but utter contempt for their actions.
:eek:
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
WHY hand out suspensions...?

Animal said:
He can f**k off.

He "takes resopnsiblilty"? he "made a mistake"?

Total shit.

He cheated, and lied through his teeth, insisting on a ciounter analysis when he knew he'd done it. Just like all the others who think they know better than checmists and biologists.

He should be banned for life.
Come on now...There are so many riders , why bag on one guy like he raped a kid? Its not going to stop blood doping. Randomely stopping the pack halfway though a race and taking blood samples would. Why dont they do that? Saline, and plasma hemodilution would have worn off after a couple of hours.

All it does is pick on one guy. Lance Armstrong is a very, very rich man and he hasnt been suspended. Neither have the other top 50 that are doped for sure, and the thousands of other cyclist that use banned drugs.

I doubt Dekker has much money at all... Certainly not all the fancy toys and the woman Lance Armstrong has had for his popularity and celebrity. Or any other top sports figure that dopes (nearly 100% of them.)
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
a lot of you guys are to tough.

i don’t like how dekker was screwing with the system til his b sample turned positive. he sure as hell deserves a ban under the existing rules. but look at some other dopers who cheated never admitted and did everything under the sun to outlast outspend and outrun the authorities. they used every dirty trick known to brainwash fans and the media. these hamiltons and floyds insulted our intelligence and took us fans for idiots when even a brain dead could see see through the evidence.

Dekker lied admitted and now let him rest with his guilt in peace. may be his reflection will lead to something good.
 
I think you're a little harsh there Animal. I agree with most of what you said, but this is again another sign that the system is broke. It is set-up to where Dekker took the most practical path for him to continue racing. Deny, deny, deny, and fight it all the way. Do that, and you might get away with it.

Confess, and you're banned for sure. Speak out at all, and you're ostracized for life by not only your fellow cyclists, but frequently by teams, and even organizations.
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I think you're a little harsh there Animal. I agree with most of what you said, but this is again another sign that the system is broke. It is set-up to where Dekker took the most practical path for him to continue racing. Deny, deny, deny, and fight it all the way. Do that, and you might get away with it.

Confess, and you're banned for sure. Speak out at all, and you're ostracized for life by not only your fellow cyclists, but frequently by teams, and even organizations.

And that there is the rub.

On another thread everybody was for lifetime bans on first offense, yet that fosters the type of denial it takes to cause real change. And, as you say they might get away with it so what is there to lose?

The answer is somewhere in between IMO....sanctions lenient enough to cause confessions, busting of systems, and general attitude adjustment in the peloton but not so lenient enough where there is no incentive to change.
 
Oh well, on the bright side, Dekker at least made 1 record in the cycling world. The first rider ever in the history of the sport to be tested positive from retrotesting.

Although you could say Armstrong was the first, but he never got suspended for the 7 positive epo samples from 99, so that doesn't count right?
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Dekker_Tifosi said:
Oh well, on the bright side, Dekker at least made 1 record in the cycling world. The first rider ever in the history of the sport to be tested positive from retrotesting.

Although you could say Armstrong was the first, but he never got suspended for the 7 positive epo samples from 99, so that doesn't count right?

Have you ever heard of CERA?
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Dekker_Tifosi said:
That wasn't so retrotesting, that was, at most, 1 year (olympics)

?

How was it NOT retro testing? One year later is not retro? Most would say anything that it tested outside the normal timeline is retro.
 
Mar 10, 2009
9
0
0
others?

Dekker_Tifosi said:
If so, can we then do the same thing with Basso, Ricco, Sella, Vinokourov, Kashechkin, Valverde and others please?

Simple matter of same threatment.

But... Absolutely. No need to name them all. But that Tyler Hamilton saga, the Landis' whisky defense, Rebellin offering his Olympic medal to clean cycling before being caught, Vandenbrouke's dog medication, Jeanson's 53+ hematocrit...

that was not the thread subject, but no, I do not leave them out at all...
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,268
1
0
TempeteOntheRoad said:
But... Absolutely. No need to name them all. But that Tyler Hamilton saga, the Landis' whisky defense, Rebellin offering his Olympic medal to clean cycling before being caught, Vandenbrouke's dog medication, Jeanson's 53+ hematocrit...

that was not the thread subject, but no, I do not leave them out at all...

I loved Museeuw's fake glasses and his father's car to go 'undercover' and get the stuff in Aachen, Germany (?)
 
May 6, 2009
8,522
1
0
Rabobank deny they knew what was going on and they were unware of Dekker's positive test for EPO whenthey terminated his contract last year. So they say anyway.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
craig1985 said:
Rabobank deny they knew what was going on and they were unware of Dekker's positive test for EPO whenthey terminated his contract last year. So they say anyway.

They did not know of the EPO positive as it was only (re) tested recently. They did know about his unusual values.
 
Race Radio said:
They did not know of the EPO positive as it was only (re) tested recently. They did know about his unusual values.

So why did they get rid of him? Was it because he was doping? Or was it because they realized that with a more moderate doping program, Dekker would not be able to get the results to justify his salary?