Jonathan Tiernan-Locke written to by UCI, asked to explain blood values

Page 90 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
gillan1969 said:
merckx index doesn't need me to defend him but the points he raises are irrespective of the details of the report...his point is broader

and re the the target...you guys (avoriaz and fmk_rol) obviously don't race, or if you do you must get off on beating up on sportive riders ;-)

Generally a scientific report would validate its 10-14 days claim with some reasoning. But there is none. It's just stated as fact with no reason as to why. In these types of hearings you don't get cross examination, you only can prove your side.

Because it was a blood draw measuring data points on specific parameters in the blood and not the presence of a foreign substances, I don't know how they can determine this timeframe. It's like they wanted the usage date to be the ToB and not the Worlds.

Most odd.
 
thehog said:
Generally a scientific report would validate its 10-14 days claim with some reasoning. But there is none. It's just stated as fact with no reason as to why. In these types of hearings you don't get cross examination, you only can prove your side.

Because it was a blood draw measuring data points on specific parameters in the blood and not the presence of a foreign substances in the blood I don't know how they can determine this timeframe. It's like they wanted the usage date to be the ToB and not the Worlds.

Most odd.

well its cleaner...in effect distance a sports governing body from any culpability...move on, nothing to see here.....hang 'em high
 
gillan1969 said:
and re the the target...you guys (avoriaz and fmk_rol) obviously don't race, or if you do you must get off on beating up on sportive riders ;-)

Home tour, local knowledge, weaker field, performed well before vs one day shoot out, no knowledge of course, best riders in world, never raced the distance.

I'd take my pragmatic approach to achieving success
 
timmers said:
Well it is has been claimed that it is easy and cheap. So how much will a course of EPO cost me and who do I ask on how to take it?


3000 IU for 25 quid seems about par.
I'd have to check back with Millar's book about his doses and timing, or trawl round body building forums for their ideas, unless someone wants to chime in, to get an idea of how much a full cycle costs.

Information is 'out there' for sure. May not be the best or most current programs, but its out there.

Given the cost of good quality bikes, wheels etc. However, I'd say that falls under cheap.

Cannot guarantee the quality, which is where an inside contact/help would be useful ie. THIS stuff is good, THAT stuff is a cheap knock off and a waste of money.
 
gillan1969 said:
you guys (avoriaz and fmk_rol) obviously don't race, or if you do you must get off on beating up on sportive riders ;-)

And mugging old ladies, you forgot to accuse me of that too.

Commenting on a report - asking questions that are answered in a report - without having taken the time to read that report really does suggest that the person speaking isn't to be taken seriously.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
3
0
fmk_RoI said:
Well with JTL it appears to have been the ToB as it was after that win that Sky actually committed to signing him. If they'd wanted his World's performance to be the deal-maker they would have held the contract over another week.

So JTL stopped doping immediately after the contract was signed, thats the spin here?
 
Avoriaz said:
Did I kick your kitten or something?

I gave you reasons why JTL would target the ToB over the WC. You just want a fight

no...I am suggesting that the mentality of a racer is to race against the best riders you can, to test yourself...by definition a race you know you can win is less of challenge than a race you know you probably won't. If JTL never races again i would imagine that the finale of the worlds will live longer in the memory than a stage finish in Slough (or somesuchlike)
 
fmk_RoI said:
And mugging old ladies, you forgot to accuse me of that too.

Commenting on a report - asking questions that are answered in a report - without having taken the time to read that report really does suggest that the person speaking isn't to be taken seriously.

...and you've not really understood the post...the point's raised are not answered in the report...the report infers a possible, more plausible, course of action which might have led to the blood values...as merckx rightly points out...it is but one of many potential scenarios

I see a man with a ferrari...he tells me he didn't steal it...that still leaves a large number of possibilities as to how he obtained it...I don't need to read a report to come to that conclusion...it's called common sense
 
the sceptic said:
So JTL stopped doping immediately after the contract was signed, thats the spin here?

Immediately after the contract he went on a bender.

Did he stop doping à la everyone else in 2006? That's not suggested. Did he dope specifically for the Worlds? UKAD don't say, they say the test taken before the Worlds indicates doping for the ToB, not based on the sample given the day before the race.
 
gillan1969 said:
...and you've not really understood the post...the point's raised are not answered in the report...the report infers a possible, more plausible, course of action which might have led to the blood values...as merckx rightly points out...it is but one of many potential scenarios

Actually, the fundamental question is. Read the question, read the report and you'll see.
 
fmk_RoI said:
Immediately after the contract he went on a bender.

Did he stop doping à la everyone else in 2006? That's not suggested. Did he dope specifically for the Worlds? UKAD don't say, they say the test taken before the Worlds indicates doping for the ToB, not based on the sample given the day before the race.

Like saying "Armstrong stopped doping after the 2nd rest day therefore was clean for the final time trial a few days later".

:rolleyes:
 
How did JTL's 2012 Worlds fit within Project Rainbow? Here's what Rod Elligworth had to say in his book:

"Great Britain went back to the 2012 world road championship in Valkenburg, Holland, with a defending champion, Mark Cavendish, and a Tour de France winner, Bradley Wiggins. It wasn't a course suited for Cav, with a steep hill to the finish, and Brad wasn't in the form he had enjoyed from March to August that year. So we went with the same mindset as a Mendrisio in 2009, at the start of the Worlds project: have a goal, and build the team behind that. Jonathan Tiernan-Locke was a good little climber and would have an outside chance, although he had never raced the distance before, and the lads got him in the perfect position in the final lap. Jon didn't quite have the legs, but you couldn't help but be encouraged to see young riders like him, Luke Rowe and Ian Stannard racing with no obvious nerves in the final laps."
 
thehog said:
Like saying "Armstrong stopped doping after the 2nd rest day therefore was clean for the final time trial a few days later".

I'll refer you back to an earlier comment, which you chose not to reply to (but have at least amended your argument):

Originally Posted by thehog
Correct, just as they annulled the result for the Worlds because he was administered drugs to enhance his performance.

On a point of pedantry, he was stripped of the Worlds placing as it came after the fatal test. He was stripped of the ToB victory because, in the opinion of UKAD, the post ToB ABP test suggested he'd doped prior to the ToB.

So UKAD said he doped for the ToB, but they didn't say he doped for the Worlds.

Yes, you can argue he was still gaining an advantage at the Worlds from the pre-ToB doping, but it is inaccurate to suggest he was stripped of the Worlds place because he had doped specifically for it. And that is the inference you have repeatedly made, whether intentionally or not.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
3
0
gillan1969 said:
paragraph 48....I'm not sure which bit of it you don't understand...and even it states that they are not even taking it (the timeframe for potentially taking and stopping the epo) into account in reaching their verdict

are you reading the same report as me?

This effort to distance sky from JTL seems rather silly considering sky had full access and knew everything about him long before the contract was signed.
 
fmk_RoI said:
I'll refer you back to an earlier comment, which you chose not to reply to (but have at least amended your argument):

Correction. They didn't say he doped "for" the ToB they made an estimation of when the possible drug was first administered.

They couldn't possibly make a conclusion on what the intent was unless they were able to read JTL's mind and Brailsford's.

10-14 days is an estimate with no explanation. Everyone including JTL is unsure how this estimate is derived*.




* unless of course there was supplementary documentation shared between the parties which is not included as part of the RD.