• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Official 1 year ban

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 1, 2009
328
0
0
Susan Westemeyer said:
And North Americans are the only ones interested in cycling?

Susan
Nope, but when on an English speaking board there's sure going to be a lot of bias that way, such as people conducting polls of people in their workplace and finding one Armstrong is the only cyclist anyone has heard of.

-dB
 
Jul 28, 2009
251
0
0
Francois the Postman said:
[to all]

We have and have had plenty of threads that deal with that. I don't mind when infrequent posters state their opinions, but regulars should have a reasonable sense what merry dance is best left alone. Some "discussions" are unresolvable and nothing but distracting regurgitations of the same boring points.

I won't look too kindly on people turning this into yet another chaingate or Andy doped too or whatever thread. If you want to do that, dig up one of the many threads that deal with it. After reading the whole thing from start to finish. Just to remind yourself how merry the dance is.

Just FYI.
you're right. sorry bout that one.
 
hfer07 said:
this announcement is mean less if it isn't validated by McQuaid/UCI at all-so lets wait until the "wise guy" speaks out....
most likely this verdict will be appealed by both, AC & UCI & sadly will be ridiculously extended for at least another six months
, to the point that any chances of Contador riding this year will be reduced to a mere appearance at Lombardy.....
peloton said:
don't say I didn't tell you folks---Pat once again meeting all expectations for corruption & poor judgement. He just needs to go public and say he wants AC to quit the sport, so he can profit from the Schleck Bros. from now on...
 
peloton said:
"Only the definitive decision, that must be issued by the RFEC, can fulfil this purpose – within the time period established by the regulations – for the UCI, for WADA and for the rider himself."

I'm with hfer on this.
The UCI passed the live hand grenade to the RFEC because they didn't want to take the flak that is now hitting the REFC, by actually making a decision.

In the meantime, they back tracked on Bertie, from the new, protected superstar, to celebrity scapegoat.

So now, we get more of their double talk and foot dragging.
Boy, they sure learnt a lot from the Valverde fiasco.:rolleyes:

The UCI are the ultimate fog making machine.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Mellow Velo said:
"Only the definitive decision, that must be issued by the RFEC, can fulfil this purpose – within the time period established by the regulations – for the UCI, for WADA and for the rider himself."

I'm with hfer on this.
The UCI passed the live hand grenade to the RFEC because they didn't want to take the flak that is now hitting the REFC, by actually making a decision.

In the meantime, they back tracked on Bertie, from the new, protected superstar, to celebrity scapegoat.

So now, we get more of their double talk and foot dragging.
Boy, they sure learnt a lot from the Valverde fiasco.:rolleyes:

The UCI are the ultimate fog making machine.
be that as it may, I'm the first to celebrate the UCI if AC gets the full two years.
I do believe that'd be a good sign.
Rest assured that the case against Armstrong will soon reveal the UCI as a corrupt bunch. By that time, the UCI'll be forced to clean up more thoroughly.
 
Mellow Velo said:
"Only the definitive decision, that must be issued by the RFEC, can fulfil this purpose – within the time period established by the regulations – for the UCI, for WADA and for the rider himself."

I'm with hfer on this.
The UCI passed the live hand grenade to the RFEC because they didn't want to take the flak that is now hitting the REFC, by actually making a decision.

In the meantime, they back tracked on Bertie, from the new, protected superstar, to celebrity scapegoat.

So now, we get more of their double talk and foot dragging.
Boy, they sure learnt a lot from the Valverde fiasco.:rolleyes:

The UCI are the ultimate fog making machine.
My theory was that the UCI was trying to protect Contador from the beginning, but it all makes sense if we assume they think Contador is damaged goods now and that their interests would be best served by promoting Andy. From that point of view, it would make sense for the UCI to stall the process as much as possible so that they can keep working on the PR of selling Andy as the Tour champion. If this is true, then Contador might find it hard to return to the elite, as he wouldn't be a UCI favourite anymore. But this is just me getting carried away with speculation because I'm BORED.
 
Jul 19, 2009
372
0
0
So why won't Contador lose his points? He cheated. So theoretically with this ruling, anyone can cheat on a big race, get alot of points and benefit their team without any loss of points.

Total BS. How does this not promote more cheating? To be honest, I'm a newer fan and before did think that the UCI tried their best to enforce rules, but now I see what a joke it is.
 
Aug 11, 2009
722
0
0
craig1985 said:
Well if Alberto was a vegan, he never would of had these problems at all.
Just having some fun here, but no meat = no excuse.

If anything, cutting the suspect, poorly regulated flesh from the diet looks like a bad move. More likely Alberto will be stocking his pantry shelves with "100% pure" whey protein, vitamin supplements, etc. and anything else he might be able to blame in the future.
 
Oct 5, 2010
1,018
0
0
hmm

well as the UCI is "not a rich organisation" (as they tell us is the reason for accepting LA's donation) .... perhaps they will appeal to the CAS to try and get the full 2 years.

In that way, they can apply for the rules to be applied for AC to have to pay them 70% of his salary.
 
AussieGoddess said:
hmm

well as the UCI is "not a rich organisation" (as they tell us is the reason for accepting LA's donation) .... perhaps they will appeal to the CAS to try and get the full 2 years.

In that way, they can apply for the rules to be applied for AC to have to pay them 70% of his salary.
You mean just linke Vino ........................... didn't need to in the end.

Regards
GJ
 
Oct 31, 2010
171
0
0
Would he really retire on a 1yr ban??
Would you??
I wouldn't, but then I'm not in his clips..

The way I see it now is if it is 1yr, starts last July, finishes this Aug, then really he's only got to get through the next 7 months...

As there has been no "appeal".. 7 months on holiday seem's kinda neat.
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,083
0
0
Berto will appeal and be acquitted

* China's Fuyu Li: 50-100 picograms on March 23

* Italy's Alessandro Colò: 200 picograms on April 25

* Germany's Dimitrij Ovtcharov: 75 picograms on September 22


? Philip Nielsen anybody ?


UCI will go bankrupt !!!!
 
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
DAOTEC said:
* China's Fuyu Li: 50-100 picograms on March 23

* Italy's Alessandro Colò: 200 picograms on April 25

* Germany's Dimitrij Ovtcharov: 75 picograms on September 22
these are correct numbers as i recall them. and they are very significant for contador's contamination theory because in at least two cases the elapsed time between alluded to timing of food administration and a timing of giving the positive sample was longer than in contador’s case.

For ex, german scientists estimated that botcharov’s sample that contained more clen than contador’s was given 3-5 days before the fateful dinner in china whereas contador was negative for clen a night before the positive.
 
auscyclefan94 said:
I would think someone who is as prone to emotional outbursts (not trying to be disrespectful) as you would understand this particular issue much better. He said something rash/imprudent in the emotion of the moment and subsequently tried to downplay it. Plus given the brief synopsis I have of RFEC's (sp) decision, they accepted his defense, but applied the WADA regulations which required a minimum of 1 year. So he doesn't really have much of a reason to retire. That being said, if WADA is successful in appealing this decision to CAS and the reject his defense and impose the two year ban, I wouldn't be surprised if he revisited this decision.
 
python said:
these are correct numbers as i recall them. and they are very significant for contador's contamination theory because in at least two cases the elapsed time between alluded to timing of food administration and a timing of giving the positive sample was longer than in contador’s case.

For ex, german scientists estimated that botcharov’s sample that contained more clen than contador’s was given 3-5 days before the fateful dinner in china whereas contador was negative for clen a night before the positive.
I am afraid I do not quite understand what you mean. I guess you mean that the positive in other cases was 3-5 days after the fatefull dinner instaed of before. Because if was positive before eating the dinner, me thinks he would really have a problem. ;)

Does this different time frame imply that Contador got the Clen into his system in another way or at another time or both? Was Botcharov also tested in the time frame between eating the meal and testing positive?

Regards
GJ
 
Jul 16, 2010
16,254
0
0
flicker said:
Respectfully auscycle, why do you listen and believe any of these athletes anyway? Somehow they tell more yarns than politicians...
You've never been to Belgium have you? They tell more bs than Tom Boonen.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS