The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Probably he will but having signed an extension contract with Arkea this could very well be the demise between Nairo and his team...loosing UCI points, reputation and image is not something you can patch up with sponsors.
Another reason why they should have send Nairoman to the Giro instead.
Surely they must have been aware of the case before they announed the new contract yesterday.
IMHO, it‘s not fair that UCI made this Nairo Tramodol case public. They should have written the test result to Nairo, but not to the public.
I like that he didn‘t get banned. I however dislike that he got DQ‘d from the 2022 Tour.
I would have treated the case this way: OK, he was positive twice for Tramadol, but that doesn‘t matter, and that does not have any consequences.
Now I hope Nairo podiums the Vuelta, and podiums next year‘s TdF.
A sad case. What has Nairo done that he is treated this way? Gladly, Arkea prolonged his contract. I hope this Tramadol case will make him even mentally stronger.
Indeed they were wrong also to ban Ricco on 2008, should have just informed him of the CERA positive in private and let him raceIMHO, it‘s not fair that UCI made this Nairo Tramodol case public. They should have written the test result to Nairo, but not to the public.
I like that he didn‘t get banned. I however dislike that he got DQ‘d from the 2022 Tour.
I would have treated the case this way: OK, he was positive twice for Tramadol, but that doesn‘t matter, and that does not have any consequences.
Now I hope Nairo podiums the Vuelta, and podiums next year‘s TdF.
A sad case. What has Nairo done that he is treated this way? Gladly, Arkea prolonged his contract. I hope this Tramadol case will make him even mentally stronger.
IMHO, it‘s not fair that UCI made this Nairo Tramodol case public. They should have written the test result to Nairo, but not to the public.
I like that he didn‘t get banned. I however dislike that he got DQ‘d from the 2022 Tour.
I would have treated the case this way: OK, he was positive twice for Tramadol, but that doesn‘t matter, and that does not have any consequences.
Now I hope Nairo podiums the Vuelta, and podiums next year‘s TdF.
A sad case. What has Nairo done that he is treated this way? Gladly, Arkea prolonged his contract. I hope this Tramadol case will make him even mentally stronger.
IMHO, it‘s not fair that UCI made this Nairo Tramodol case public. They should have written the test result to Nairo, but not to the public.
I like that he didn‘t get banned. I however dislike that he got DQ‘d from the 2022 Tour.
I would have treated the case this way: OK, he was positive twice for Tramadol, but that doesn‘t matter, and that does not have any consequences.
Now I hope Nairo podiums the Vuelta, and podiums next year‘s TdF.
A sad case. What has Nairo done that he is treated this way? Gladly, Arkea prolonged his contract. I hope this Tramadol case will make him even mentally stronger.
parody?
Indeed they were wrong also to ban Ricco on 2008, should have just informed him of the CERA positive in private and let him race
Uh, so there should be no punishment for using banned substances??
Difficult to say…
I actually think they (UCI and WADA) should consider whom (which rider) it concerns. So if Rider A (here: Nairo) is positive, they should still count in what Nairo gave to global cycling in general, and cycling in Southern America, within the last ten years or so. Also Arkea and Samsic should be rewarded for pushing money into cycling, and not punished.
If Rider B (another rider, from another team) would be positive, they could still sanction him.
Punishing Nairo - IMHO - is not a correct decision, because he‘s a good guy from a good entourage.
There‘s a lot wrong with this but I don‘t want to discuss doping hereDifficult to say…
I actually think they (UCI and WADA) should consider whom (which rider) it concerns. So if Rider A (here: Nairo) is positive, they should still count in what Nairo gave to global cycling in general, and cycling in Southern America, within the last ten years or so. Also Arkea and Samsic should be rewarded for pushing money into cycling, and not punished.
If Rider B (another rider, from another team) would be positive, they could still sanction him.
Punishing Nairo - IMHO - is not a correct decision, because he‘s a good guy from a good entourage.
Difficult to say…
I actually think they (UCI and WADA) should consider whom (which rider) it concerns. So if Rider A (here: Nairo) is positive, they should still count in what Nairo gave to global cycling in general, and cycling in Southern America, within the last ten years or so. Also Arkea and Samsic should be rewarded for pushing money into cycling, and not punished.
If Rider B (another rider, from another team) would be positive, they could still sanction him.
Punishing Nairo - IMHO - is not a correct decision, because he‘s a good guy from a good entourage.
Difficult to say…
I actually think they (UCI and WADA) should consider whom (which rider) it concerns. So if Rider A (here: Nairo) is positive, they should still count in what Nairo gave to global cycling in general, and cycling in Southern America, within the last ten years or so. Also Arkea and Samsic should be rewarded for pushing money into cycling, and not punished.
If Rider B (another rider, from another team) would be positive, they could still sanction him.
Punishing Nairo - IMHO - is not a correct decision, because he‘s a good guy from a good entourage.
No, I‘m serious, actually… Maybe because I like Nairo very much, as a rider, and even more so as a person…
He didn‘t breach doping rules but this is as close as it getsThis is just symptomatic of the reason why fans are often willing to suspend their disbelief or throw a blind eye to doping. Well I'm sorry but irrespective of whether or not he is a nice guy, if he doped then he deserves to suffer the consequences. He has benefitted by gaining an unfair advantage over other riders.
This halfway house of being disqualified yet not serving a ban makes little sense. Either he breached doping rules or he didn't.
But as far as I know, Arkea is part of MPCC...He didn‘t breach doping rules but this is as close as it gets
Well the UCI did specify that he did not breach doping rules, but only for "health concerns" was his Tour disqualified. It seems to me that until a substance is placed on the banned list of doping products, the UCI would best not be concerned. It just creates confusion and fuels suspicion.This is just symptomatic of the reason why fans are often willing to suspend their disbelief or throw a blind eye to doping. Well I'm sorry but irrespective of whether or not he is a nice guy, if he doped then he deserves to suffer the consequences. He has benefitted by gaining an unfair advantage over other riders.
This halfway house of being disqualified yet not serving a ban makes little sense. Either he breached doping rules or he didn't.
Well, they‘ve kinda achieved that. Not in the MPCC-intended way thoughBut as far as I know, Arkea is part of MPCC...
MPCC site:
MPCC is also a whistleblower on corticosteroids, tramadol, stilnox and mechanical doping.
This is just symptomatic of the reason why fans are often willing to suspend their disbelief or throw a blind eye to doping. Well I'm sorry but irrespective of whether or not he is a nice guy, if he doped then he deserves to suffer the consequences. He has benefitted by gaining an unfair advantage over other riders.
This halfway house of being disqualified yet not serving a ban makes little sense. Either he breached doping rules or he didn't.