i think the argument is that as long as UCI/lab can't prove that hes was taken intravenously Mosquera hasn't technically doped. seems kinda silly, but i guess this will be the official line
Nah it got pathetic in July 1999.JMBeaushrimp said:I think it's time that the UCI had their feet to the coals as per their AAF results and the resultant lack of sanctions.
An AAF should warrant some digging. Not feet dragging, as has been shown with this result and AC's.
I don't really want to have to beat this stinking carcass of a horse anymore, but how about a public outcry of getting the UCI out of the doping control game alltogether?
This is actually starting to get pathetic...
Exactly. The spanish press are making up crap after crap in this case....Susan Westemeyer said:The UCI never says "positive". They always say "adverse analytical finding" for the A Sample. That is their standard language.
He does now. In a press statement, he has made it clear that Mosquera will remain sidelined as long as the investigation has not reported, even after they did receive the green light from the UCI to field Mosquera in the meantime.DAOTEC said:Speaking with BNDeStem.nl, Vacansoleil manager, Daan Luijkx, does not feel there's anything keep him from putting the runner-up finisher at the 2010 Vuelta into races.
sourceLa Justicia anula la sanción de Mosquera
La Audiencia Nacional da la razón a Ezequiel Mosquera y anula su sanción de dos años por dopaje por el análisis que detectó hidroxietil almidón en su organismo en la Vuelta a España 2010 en la que acabó segundo.
La justicia ordinaria ha atendido el recurso del exprofesional gallego. En concreto, la Sección Sexta de la Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de la Audiencia Nacional estima el recurso interpuesto por Mosquera contra la resolución del Comité Español de Disciplina deportiva (24 febrero 2012), "quedando anulada y sin efecto la mencionada resolución sancionadora”, según la sentencia a la que ha tenido acceso BiciCiclismo.
If the athlete requests to be (or have a representative) present that timing fpr testing goes out the window.python said: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.
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.
Maybe there was no explanation other than he is 39 years old and won't come back to racing!hrotha said:Lol, the other thread was "not relevant"? OH YEVGENI.
Anyway, this is BS, and I hate that some people are talking about how the court established Mosquera's innocence. We haven't seen the court's reasoning, but it was likely some lame technicality that did it. They certainly didn't establish that Mosquera was clean.