Interesting opinion

[58teeth]

But spot on IMO.

Sorry...I tried to edit the link/title. Couldn't figure it out! Basically, it's Zirbel's opinion on the DiLuca hearing.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/6...heres-an-error-in-the-anti-doping-system.aspx

 

[Fester]

Zirbels case compares with the Costa brothers just recently. And the thing is, yes, the substance is a nasal decongestant with little benefit and in the same family of drugs as caffeine. And it was only "banned" last year. And they prooved it was in a contaminated amino acid supplement. In otherwords a mistake; like drifting a bit over the speed limit yet what is the minimum ban? 1 year. And don't forget that little mark next to their name: Rui Costa I fear may only ride the national circuit in Portugal, given how fickle and weird people tend to be.

 

[TERMINATOR]

But spot on IMO.

Sorry...I tried to edit the link/title. Couldn't figure it out! Basically, it's Zirbel's opinion on the DiLuca hearing.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/6...heres-an-error-in-the-anti-doping-system.aspx

DiLuca's case was completely mishandled as this was at least his second doping offense. The UCI or WADA will likely appeal this case and ask for more. The one reason the UCI didn't say anything publicly about DiLuca's sentence is because it had ordered DiLuca to pay a year's salary as a fine, but this appears to be unlikely given the Vinokourov precedent that says that agreement was not binding. The UCI was willing to overlook a short sentence in favor of cash.

As for Zirbel, he did not contest his sanction and had every right to do so. He waived his right to a hearing and therefore got what he deserved. Who accepts a plea bargain, and then complains about it?

Zirbel had nothing to lose by contesting his case. Yet he failed to even opt for a hearing, as DiLuca did. So I have little sympathy for Zirbel.

Finally, how many times does an athlete have to test positive for contaminated supplements before they realize they should not be taking this stuff? Anyone who tests positive after using supplements deserves the full 2 years for being stupid.

 

[HoustonHammer]

DiLuca's case was completely mishandled as this was at least his second doping offense. The UCI or WADA will likely appeal this case and ask for more. The one reason the UCI didn't say anything publicly about DiLuca's sentence is because it had ordered DiLuca to pay a year's salary as a fine, but this appears to be unlikely given the Vinokourov precedent that says that agreement was not binding. The UCI was willing to overlook a short sentence in favor of cash.

As for Zirbel, he did not contest his sanction and had every right to do so. He waived his right to a hearing and therefore got what he deserved. Who accepts a plea bargain, and then complains about it?

Zirbel had nothing to lose by contesting his case. Yet he failed to even opt for a hearing, as DiLuca did. So I have little sympathy for Zirbel.

Finally, how many times does an athlete have to test positive for contaminated supplements before they realize they should not be taking this stuff? Anyone who tests positive after using supplements deserves the full 2 years for being stupid.

I agree with this statement completely. A good alternative to supplements: food. What can supplements give you that a well-balanced diet can't? I'm sick of hearing this excuse and ADA's are too.

 

[NashbarShorts]

From the article:
"...and secondly, he didn’t buy the substance to boost his performance."

The guy they are referring to claims he tested positive b/c he took "ExtenZe".

ExtenZe is marketed as being a "male enhancer", I think Ron Jeremy was a spokesman. The product promises to grow your unit. "Longer fuller erections" type stuff. So technically-speaking, the guy did buy it to "boost his performance".

Sheesh, if I tested positive for taking this product, I would not go telling the world. Some things are better kept private

 

[boris&co]

In one of the Competitor Radio shows, with Mark Zeigler, they talk about LaShawn Merritt's DHEA positive. If I remember correctly, the suggestion is made that DHEA is used for controlling rebound effects after a course of steroids.

http://competitorradio.competitor.com/2010/04/mark-zeigler/

 

[131313]

As for Zirbel, he did not contest his sanction and had every right to do so. He waived his right to a hearing and therefore got what he deserved. Who accepts a plea bargain, and then complains about it?

Zirbel had nothing to lose by contesting his case. Yet he failed to even opt for a hearing, as DiLuca did. So I have little sympathy for Zirbel.

Umm....what??? Who the hell's going to pay for his representation? And what possible gain would there have been for him to contest the decision??

Finally, how many times does an athlete have to test positive for contaminated supplements before they realize they should not be taking this stuff? Anyone who tests positive after using supplements deserves the full 2 years for being stupid.

This comment is even more moronic that your last one. It's been said a million times, but I guess it needs repeating: there's absolutely no practical way to completely avoid contamination. Every sports drink, fortified cereals, every power bar contains synthesized compounds. No one can meet the standard you're suggesting. No one.

 

[NashbarShorts]

In one of the Competitor Radio shows, with Mark Zeigler, they talk about LaShawn Merritt's DHEA positive. If I remember correctly, the suggestion is made that DHEA is used for controlling rebound effects after a course of steroids.

http://competitorradio.competitor.com/2010/04/mark-zeigler/

Not having listened to the show, can you explain what is meant by "rebound effects"? Thanks -

 

[HoustonHammer]

This comment is even more moronic that your last one. It's been said a million times, but I guess it needs repeating: there's absolutely no practical way to completely avoid contamination. Every sports drink, fortified cereals, every power bar contains synthesized compounds. No one can meet the standard you're suggesting. No one.

In the general case, you make a fair statement that nobody has any guarantees against accidental contamination. But Terminator's position is halfway to the official stance of WADA. They're so sick of hearing about contaminated supplements that they include the following comment in the WADC:

"Conversely, a sanction could not be completely eliminated on the basis of No Fault or Negligence in the following circumstances: (a) a positive test resulting from a mislabeled or contaminated vitamin or nutritional supplement (Athletes are responsible for what they ingest (Article 2.1.1) and have been warned against the possibility of supplement contamination);..."

That doesn't mean an athlete might not get a half sentence if he can prove that the source was his supplements, but he can't use it as an excuse to get off completely.

 

[python]

<snip>This comment is even more moronic that your last one. It's been said a million times, but I guess it needs repeating: there's absolutely no practical way to completely avoid contamination.<snip>

the absolutist, black and white solutions to fix a complex problem typically stop dead once the author of the proposal or a member of his/her family gets hit by a misfortune.

such is the nature of the beast - we, and particularly some people on a big island across the Atlantic, advocate feel-good solutions that don't involve them.

supplement contamination and the fitness of the strict liability principles is a complicated enough problem.

food contamination and the application of the same much criticized legal criteria, is an infinitely more complicated issue.

an athlete has some control over his/her choice of supplements, he/she may have almost none when it come to food given the diversity of the cuisines, travel geography, differences in food regulation laws etc.

but calling someone an idiot for whatever is much easier than getting into their shoes...unless of course the misfortune hammer strikes one on the head.

 

[neineinei]

I am not saying anything about Zirbels case and how innocent or not he is, but he has a point. If someone get caught because of contaminated suplements or food and actually didn't mean to use PEDs they probably have no information to bargain with either, while people like DiLuca has information about doping to give so he can get his ban reduced.

It is very important that the anti doping organisations gets as much information as possible, and the dopers has lots of valuable information. But I don't think dopers should be able to get their ban reduced in any way. Dopers like DiLuca should get very, very big fines. Then they can use their information to bargain to get the fines reduced somewhat, but they should not be able to get their ban reduced. As it is now the organisations like CONI are giving away something which isn't really theirs to give away (the dignity and respectability of the sport).

So naturally UCI has managed to f**k up that the dopers should repay a years winnings after getting caught.

 

[Benotti69]

I am not saying anything about Zirbels case and how innocent or not he is, but he has a point. If someone get caught because of contaminated suplements or food and actually didn't mean to use PEDs they probably have no information to bargain with either, while people like DiLuca has information about doping to give so he can get his ban reduced.

It is very important that the anti doping organisations gets as much information as possible, and the dopers has lots of valuable information. But I don't think dopers should be able to get their ban reduced in any way. Dopers like DiLuca should get very, very big fines. Then they can use their information to bargain to get the fines reduced somewhat, but they should not be able to get their ban reduced. As it is now the organisations like CONI are giving away something which isn't really theirs to give away (the dignity and respectability of the sport).

So naturally UCI has managed to f**k up that the dopers should repay a years winnings after getting caught.

which was probably their intention anyway but not to do it in such a public manner as they would be quite happy to enforce it on riders they do not like, ie Vino or Pellizotti but not on someone like Contador......

 

[boris&co]

Not having listened to the show, can you explain what is meant by "rebound effects"? Thanks -

Really you should listen, it's interesting, Mark Zeigler is well informed and is prepared to talk about what he knows.

Anyway, rebound effects are this; if you take something that mimics the action of one of your bodies systems, and then after a period of time you stop, it takes a while for your body to recover. You go from a surplus to a deficit, before settling down to normal. Effectively the ringing that will occur any feedback system that is not sufficiently well damped.

A classic example of this, that many could probably easily relate to, would be quitting smoking.

In the show Mark Zeigler is passing on the opinion of Victor Conte. He talks about what is allegedly referred to as "PCT" - post cycle therapy. This is described as reduction in your bodies production of testosterone after a period of taking steroids. The suggestion is then made that athletes will take something to "kick-start" their bodies testosterone production - in the case of LaShawn Merritt the products used were DHEA and Pregnenolone (allegedly). It is further alleged that these are products commonly used for PCT.

It is important to note that:

i) This doesn't have to be valid science, it just needs to be something that athletes believe will work.
ii) I don't want anyone pulling me up on the validity of the science because, hey, I'm just transcribing something for the benefit of someone who didn't want to listen to it themselves.

For those that do actually want to listen the relevant section starts at about 5.50, and you might also be interested in the bit at about 23mins about the masters cyclist who tested positive. Or all of it really, the whole show (49mins) is just packed full of good gossip about doping, and nothing else. I know I'm going to have another listen later.

 

[131313]

That doesn't mean an athlete might not get a half sentence if he can prove that the source was his supplements, but he can't use it as an excuse to get off completely.

Agreed, and that's why the comment that "he didn't fight it, so he has no right to complain" just falls so flat to me.

What possible benefit is there, really? At best, he'd have had the suspension reduced to 12 months, and the case probably would have dragged on for 18 months... In the court of public opinion, people have already made up their minds. People who know him believe him, those who don't probably think he's guilty. If he were on the outside looking in, he'd think he's guilty!

He doesn't have a rich daddy to buy Howard Jacobs (like some other dirt bag domestic pros), so what option is there? Go into massive debt so he can ride 6 months earlier? Just doesn't make sense. He should still be allowed to whine about it on his blog...

I totally understand the frustration of all of the ridiculous excuses. They frustrate me too. But I find it more frustrating when I guy I (and many others) truly believe to be clean is forced to sit out for 2 years.

 

[washedup]

We would be opening the floodgates by giving shortened bans to guys like Zirbel. I vote for simply extending the bans for serious drugs.

I do believe we should reconsider non-enhancing drugs since they waste our time and resources. Still, I think riders need to reconsider the use of every "legal" supplement they can get their hands on. No doubt Zirbel bought his supplements with the idea that he would improve in some way shape or form. But gosh, can you blame him? It is a hard question...