Teams & Riders Nairo Quintana discussion thread

Page 368 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Another reason why they should have send Nairoman to the Giro instead.

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.
Surely they must have been aware of the case before they announed the new contract yesterday.
 
Reactions: Ilmaestro99
Hmm...would you sign a contract with an athlete that got disqualified in the biggest stage race of the year?

I'm sure they will appeal to the UCI, but I see how Quintana's situation is easily becoming fragile.
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.
 
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.
Get real dude, Tramadol has been a banned substance since 2019 lol
 
Reactions: saunaking
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 race
 
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?
 
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.
Uh, so there should be no punishment for using banned substances??
 
Reactions: saunaking
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.
 
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.
WTF are you talking about?

I like and praise Nairo but what you wrote basically means that the law is not the same for everyone.

We know it isn't, I can recall reasonable arguments about Froome and salbutamos but its spirit that should stand.

And who would decide what are a good entourage and a good contribution to cycling in general?

I just find it strange that the reason for Nairo's disqualification is tramadol, a pain killer and not something more serious. It's a rookie mistake if you are into it and not worth the risk.
 
Reactions: Gratemans
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 here
 
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.
You should apply for a job at the UCI, cause those views would generally fit in nicely there ;)
 
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.
Wtf did I just read :tearsofjoy:
 
No, I‘m serious, actually… Maybe because I like Nairo very much, as a rider, and even more so as a person…
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.
 
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.
He didn‘t breach doping rules but this is as close as it gets
 
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 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.
Also, lots of testimony from pro riders point in a very different direction than Quintana being a nice guy.
 
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.
You must be on tramadol yourself
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY