Maxim Iglinsky positive for EPO

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 5, 2011
858
0
0
Vino attacks everyone said:
If anything this proves just how little efect EPO has. He won the LBL 2012 with ease while being clean, but now that he did EPO he sucked
Troll or candidate for dumbest ever comment? If it has hardly any effect what is all the fuss about, just give LA his 7 TDF titles back:rolleyes: If it was just a pre coffee impulsive fat finger post no worries:)
 
sniper said:
UCI simply shouldn't allow guys like Vino/Riis/JV back into the game.
How do you propose they stop them? A way that is legal at CAS and any other courts it could be appealed to? Remember, you can't make laws that are retroactive, and CAS is clear that you cannot add to the agreed penalties.

The only effective way to stop them is through the AIGCP/MPCC, with a voluntary rule about recruitment policies, though even that could probably be challenged in the courts were it to actually prove to be working and someone wanted to get around it.
 
Sep 6, 2014
283
0
0
rainman said:
Troll or candidate for dumbest ever comment? If it has hardly any effect what is all the fuss about, just give LA his 7 TDF titles back:rolleyes: If it was just a pre coffee impulsive fat finger post no worries:)
Relax mate, that post was said tongue in cheek, he is being sarcastic.
 
Jun 19, 2014
27
0
0
pastronef said:
it seems they have asked MAxim's B sample to be retested, so they can start in Lombardia and Almaty.
Nice to see MPCC bringing 'Crédible' cycling back.

Horner fails no UCI doping test but doesn't start his prime target for the season, due to MPCC rules, despite a reasonable explanation. (hard but fair, hurrah)

Iglinksy however fails a clear doping test but thanks to MPCC legal loopholes the team carry on.

Just the consistency the sport needs!
 
Aug 15, 2012
1,065
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
Darbopoietin? In 2014? Jesus Christ. That was detectable before it was well-known enough to have been put on the banned list twelve years ago. Why?
I wonder if they are trying to smokebomb us with irrationality (ie. "Darbo---? no one could be *that* stupid")... maybe that's the new evil genius doping plan.
 
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
The late season races has been important to Valentin. Last year he had a poor season with Ag2r, only to have Vino hiring him back to Astana. At Astana he rhas done very well at the Tour of Hainan

Won it in 2010 and 2011 and came second (after Gruzdev) in 2012.

Maxim won the first edition Tour of Almaty in 2013.

Could they have started doping in August for the late season races, small dosages to not make their bio passports too suspicious?

Of course Maxim riding clean as domestique through the Tour only to start take EPO a few days after seems a bit strange. There were a lot of testing at the Tour though, maybe he'd gone without anything for 3+ weeks, and then he needed to refuel. He came 26 at Classica San Sebastian.

Then he wasn't picked for Kazakhstans worlds team. They sent Daniil Fominykh, Andrey Zeits and Alexsandr Dyachenko.
 
rainman said:
Troll or candidate for dumbest ever comment? If it has hardly any effect what is all the fuss about, just give LA his 7 TDF titles back:rolleyes: If it was just a pre coffee impulsive fat finger post no worries:)
He is not trolling. Its just Brailsfords prophecy come true that someday clean performances will outdo juiced performances. Now the Iglinskys learned the hard way whats happening when you step up against a clean peloton - you´ll lose and gets punished.
 
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
GThere2 said:
Nice to see MPCC bringing 'Crédible' cycling back.

Horner fails no UCI doping test but doesn't start his prime target for the season, due to MPCC rules, despite a reasonable explanation. (hard but fair, hurrah)

Iglinksy however fails a clear doping test but thanks to MPCC legal loopholes the team carry on.

Just the consistency the sport needs!
Astana doesn't get to carry on because of MPCC legal loopholes. If it wasn't for MPCC Astana wouldn't sit out anything ever. If it was up to UCI they would carry on right through a long line of positives. Now they might have to sit out some race, sometime, while Sky and Tinkoff won't if they get several positives in a year. And we get to talk about it and point it out, thanks to MPCC.

Horner was taken out of the Vuelta for his own health. It is the reasonable explanation.
 
GThere2 said:
Nice to see MPCC bringing 'Crédible' cycling back.

Horner fails no UCI doping test but doesn't start his prime target for the season, due to MPCC rules, despite a reasonable explanation. (hard but fair, hurrah)

Iglinksy however fails a clear doping test but thanks to MPCC legal loopholes the team carry on.

Just the consistency the sport needs!
Just use your brain. This is a ridiculous post.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
Saw this on twitter(am I allowed to say who posted it, not sure of the rule here regarding twitter) and it's awesome.

"Maxim iglinsky shouldn't sweat it. Use the impey defense. And say he shook his brother's hand after he handled epo. Impey the genius."
 
Sep 6, 2014
283
0
0
BYOP88 said:
Saw this on twitter(am I allowed to say who posted it, not sure of the rule here regarding twitter) and it's awesome.

"Maxim iglinsky shouldn't sweat it. Use the impey defense. And say he shook his brother's hand after he handled epo. Impey the genius."
AH BRILLIANT, best ive read so far.
 
GThere2 said:
Nice to see MPCC bringing 'Crédible' cycling back.

Horner fails no UCI doping test but doesn't start his prime target for the season, due to MPCC rules, despite a reasonable explanation. (hard but fair, hurrah)

Iglinksy however fails a clear doping test but thanks to MPCC legal loopholes the team carry on.

Just the consistency the sport needs!
The whole point of requesting a b sample test is quite within the rules and absolutely necessary to give the athlete some opportunity to validate the test.

Remember, both the UCI and the IAAF have declared athlete positives on bad tests.

I have to find the link to an old story of an adamantly clean elite track and field coach who had his athlete sanctioned. He and the athlete watched them re-run the b sample test incorrectly. The coach argued the Verbruggen "I can make anyone positive" as the reason for the positive.
 
Jun 19, 2014
27
0
0
Kwibus said:
Just use your brain. This is a ridiculous post.
Not a particularly thought-provoking answer. Your point (re the subject matter) being?

" DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
"
 
Jun 19, 2014
27
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
The whole point of requesting a b sample test is quite within the rules and absolutely necessary to give the athlete some opportunity to validate the test.

Remember, both the UCI and the IAAF have declared athlete positives on bad tests.

I have to find the link to an old story of an adamantly clean elite track and field coach who had his athlete sanctioned. He and the athlete watched them re-run the b sample test incorrectly. The coach argued the Verbruggen "I can make anyone positive" as the reason for the positive.
Yes fair point, and I totally agree with necessity of b samples.

The issue I was trying to put was it will appear to outsiders that MPCC are cautious on one hand - the rule for cortisol is sensible - but are less cautious when 2 riders give positive tests.

Of course both riders should have correct procedure, second tests etc before any verdict, but given MPCC is a voluntary code, if a team finds 2 of its riders failing A tests, should they not be concerned and consider stopping whilst it is resolved ?

Then we can admire the teams strong stance, whatever the outcome -
riders guilty then team has shown its strength
riders innocent then the team and riders are exonerated and shows an even stronger integrity (losing a valuable race chance for its commitment to anti-doping).

Out of curiosity, has there ever been a case where 2 riders (same team, and close together in time) failed A tests then both passed B tests?
 
fmk_RoI said:
How do you propose they stop them? A way that is legal at CAS and any other courts it could be appealed to? Remember, you can't make laws that are retroactive, and CAS is clear that you cannot add to the agreed penalties.

The only effective way to stop them is through the AIGCP/MPCC, with a voluntary rule about recruitment policies, though even that could probably be challenged in the courts were it to actually prove to be working and someone wanted to get around it.
There's more than one way.

The UCI could write WADA compliant rules to prevent dopers from returning to the sport. But, we know as long as they generate sponsorship revenue, it's all good.

Of course, if the UCI adopted a higher standard for the people working the business/athlete support side, other IOC sports would be pressured to do something they don't want to do.
 
GThere2 said:
Yes fair point, and I totally agree with necessity of b samples.

The issue I was trying to put was it will appear to outsiders that MPCC are cautious on one hand - the rule for cortisol is sensible - but are less cautious when 2 riders give positive tests.

Of course both riders should have correct procedure, second tests etc before any verdict, but given MPCC is a voluntary code, if a team finds 2 of its riders failing A tests, should they not be concerned and consider stopping whilst it is resolved ?

Then we can admire the teams strong stance, whatever the outcome -
riders guilty then team has shown its strength
riders innocent then the team and riders are exonerated and shows an even stronger integrity (losing a valuable race chance for its commitment to anti-doping).
Generally speaking, hopefully this turns into an opportunity to teach that the MPCC is a higher standard that the UCI needs to adopt, not fight. And maybe, teach how weak the IOC anti-doping process really is.

There is a long, long way to go to alter the perception that WADA standards as they are applied mostly protect sports federations from athletes never testing positive.
 
GThere2 said:
You're looking for instant justice, regardless of the possible outcome.

For sure, yes, we can all agree that there is a 99.99% likelihood of the B sample confirming the A and that requesting the B is only delaying the inevitable. But the MPCC rules are clear (well, actually, they're far from clear, in English, but we all seem to understand them), that the auto-suspension arises once the B sample confirms the A (or the result of the A is accepted). That's the rule, and that's the rule that needs to be applied.

How would it appear to outsiders if the MPCC actually did have inconsistent application of their rules, if in this case they told Astana to suspend themselves based on the A sample but in the next decided on a strict application of the rules? We're supposed to trying to get inconsistent application of the rules done away with, not encouraging it.

Is the rule right or wrong? In essence, the stand down is right, the teams need to take some punishment for what their riders do, and it makes sense it only kicks in after a second (the first could be an accident, after that it looks like carelessness, or worse). The exact wording of it though, that it relies on the B sample to suspend a team while the A sample is enough to suspend a rider? Should we really be surprised that the MPCC rules have wiggle room? Give the voluntary nature of their code, and given the difficulties of getting people to agree to such a code, then no, I don't think that we should be surprised that the teams left themselves wiggle room.
 
hfer07 said:
I'm troubled by the thought of riders still using EPO nowadays, well knowing is a certainty to get caught. I mean- Vino knows better, doesn't he?
What if it's not certain they get caught? The UCI has not sanctioned athletes before and we know now, for sure, the UCI has not changed one bit in this regard.

We also are confident at this point that micro-dosing EPO and never testing positive even under a completely fair dealing sports federation has been done and likely still being done. And that's a legitimate "never test positive" too. In other words, the algo would never flag the sample.

If my crackpot theory is correct, the UCI is letting EPO positives go unsanctioned until a strategic need arises.
 
DirtyWorks said:
The UCI could write WADA compliant rules to prevent dopers from returning to the sport.
If the rule could be written into the WADA Code, then it would only apply to future cases, it could no be applied to the past, to Riis, to Vinokourov, to Saiz, to whoever. It would not do what you want done.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY