Ezequiel Mosquera Acquitted

Jun 16, 2009
3,171
0
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
Yeah, that was a surprise... The comments are pretty funny, providing you can read spanish.

Well it's very simple - the B-sample was negative in Köln/Cologne
 
The article doesn't say he was acquitted. It says the investigation is still ongoing, because they haven't found any banned substances, but they still have to determine if he took it IV. If he did, he gets a suspension.

Personally I think it's silly that they need to find both the masking agent and the substance being masked. What's the point then?
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
0
0
Odd they're going to determine if he's positive if its over a critical level, otherwise he's off! :eek:

Nothing on CN :D
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
ElChingon said:
Odd they're going to determine if he's positive if its over a critical level, otherwise he's off! :eek:

Nothing on CN :D
He'll be free... Nice to see that they document their complicity beforehand, though.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
Bravo to the new generation that refuses to follow the path that was laid before them!
 
Oct 11, 2010
777
0
0
Vacansoleil will be happy. Mosquera will be sure to wear a different costume to the next masquerade.
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
Mosquera has sent out a press release denying that there's any truth to this story.

Which should be obvious when you read the article and see about another three different blatant lies in it.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
issoisso said:
Mosquera has sent out a press release denying that there's any truth to this story.

Which should be obvious when you read the article and see about another three different blatant lies in it.
Could you elaborate? Google Chrome translation is almost unreadable so the article makes little sense to me.
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
ultimobici said:
Could you elaborate? Google Chrome translation is almost unreadable so the article makes little sense to me.
Mosquera sent out his statement earlier, saying there's no truth to the Marca story. There's really not much more to it, other than Mosquera once again claiming he didn't take anything, is innocent, etc.
 
python said:
where did you get that ?

WADA denies reports that it cleared Ezequiel Mosquera of doping
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/6260/WADA-denies-reports-that-it-cleared-Ezequiel-Mosquera-of-doping.aspx

well, good posted, very contradictory news indeed, let's see what happen, right now it seems everything could be possible

but if there is no EPO, and the substance or masked product is no among the banned substances, if evreything is that he hasn't a TUE, so taking all this in consideration and he IS not a positive... but a suspect, etc, then a minor sanction could be the only option, 3 months or 6, then he might be for the Tour and Vuelta.

You cannot put someone out for two years just based in "torturing the data" or speculating, TO BE OR NOT TO BE... POSITIVE/NEGATIVE
 
Jun 29, 2009
589
0
0
HES IS a banned substance, a positive a-sample just doesnt result in automatic suspension as EPO does(because HES itself is not a performance enhancing product itself), if the b-sample is positive he will get a 2 year suspension.

"Masking agents are prohibited. They include:
Diuretics, probenecid, plasma expanders (e.g. glycerol; intravenous
administration of albumin, dextran, hydroxyethyl starch and mannitol) and
other substances with similar biological effect(s)."


http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-Prohibited-list/WADA_Prohibited_List_2010_EN.pdf
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
Sophistic said:
HES IS a banned substance, a positive a-sample just doesnt result in automatic suspension as EPO does(because HES itself is not a performance enhancing product itself), if the b-sample is positive he will get a 2 year suspension.
A positive A-sample only results in a sanction in the event that a rider declines the testing of the B-sample, effectively admitting their guilt. The substance is irrelevant.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
the important issue about the mosquera's a-sample is the date that he learned of his positive - 30 october. per the uci/wada rules the b-sample is supposed to be analysed withing 7 working days. here we're a month later and it's not been open.

why ?

something is going on we are not told.

it's a different sort of delay than in contador's case b/c there both a- and b-samples were already processed.

for a reference - since it's never reported by the media - hes starches are used not only as a blood volume expander but also as:

(i) in blood storage (sedimentation agent assisting in separating red blood cells)
(ii) an additive for long-term (up to 10 y) blood freezing
(iii) a binding agent for the latest epo variants

here you got the full scoop hardly available anywhere else.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
0
0
If Mr.python wasn't officially sent to us, we would still live in caves.

It's like "Die Sendung mit der Maus", but can be called "Die Sendung mit der python" anyway.

I think he also invented the wheel. Mankind would have been lost without him.
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,171
0
0
A bit slow those WADA infidels and them UCI cockroaches

"L'échantillon B de Mosquera en attente"

posté par Pierre-Marie Tricaud le 06/11/2010 à 13h45

L'UCI a confirmé que l'échantillon B d'Ezequiel Mosquera n'avait pas encore été analysé. Le coureur de l'équipe Xacobeo-Galicia, deuxième du dernier Tour d'Espagne, avait été contrôlé positif lors de la 18ème étape de la Vuelta à l'Hydroxyéthylamidon, qui peut être utilisé comme agent pour masquer l'EPO.
[http://cyclismactu.net]

Spanish media today "El ¿no dopaje de Mosquera"
It is therefore desirable to see a statement from the UCI on the case exactly, "adverse analytical finding Mosquera. Today, the UCI has warned the Spanish rider Ezequiel Mosquera have adverse analytical findings (presence of hydroxethyl based on the results of the laboratory accredited by WADA in Cologne) and the residual urine test found their competitive in the Tour of Spain on September 16, 2010. " The word used by the UCI is "adverse analytical findings", but never say in its statement that Mosquera had been a case of positive or who have been punished for precautionary measures as with the other cyclists who are positive. Therefore, it is considered a warning to both drivers and at no time urged their national federation to punish them.

Therefore, we have a case in which the media have misinterpreted the words of the UCI, I will not focus on whether it was with morbid reasons or simply out of ignorance, and have sold for as a case Mosquera doping when it really has not been
original @: sportius.wordpress.com/

At first denying as usual and now this, looks like Mosq can go for a massive pay-out ... yeah we know them clown at these pocketing institutions
 
DAOTEC said:
A bit slow those WADA infidels and them UCI cockroaches

[http://cyclismactu.net]

Spanish media today "El ¿no dopaje de Mosquera"
original @: sportius.wordpress.com/

At first denying as usual and now this, looks like Mosq can go for a massive pay-out ... yeah we know them clown at these pocketing institutions
Hey DAO, you've lost me a bit on this. I thought both Mosquera and WADA had responded on the lack of a B sample test yet. Can you clarify your point?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY