hrotha said:He could have ridden San Sebastian. And Poland
mmm good point, If he can get that ban turned back a few weeks maybe hell race Poland. Maybe that would be the first race back.
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. 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!
hrotha said:He could have ridden San Sebastian. And Poland
The Hitch said:But he didnt. There were no races to race anyway. Like i said, hes getting punished for the fact that it took them a month to test the sample.
If he cant return till August 24th then its basically a 2 year ban not a 1 year one.
Where there have been substantial delays in the hearing process or other aspects of Doping Control not attributable to the License-Holder, the hearing body imposing the sanction may start the period of Ineligibility at an earlier date commencing as early as the date of Sample collection or the date on which another anti-doping rule violation last occurred.
Walkman said:It doesn't matter, he could if he had wanted too. Well of course there will take some time to test the sample, it is the same thing every time. And if the UCI hadn't tried to sweep the whole thing under the carpet he had been notified earlier. The backside of being a protected rider, you know!
So, are you saying that he shuld get to compete in the Vuelta because otherwise it would basically be a two year ban and that would be wrong? You crack me up, are you sure you aren't "the hog" with a new nickname?
The Hitch said:mmm good point, If he can get that ban turned back a few weeks maybe hell race Poland. Maybe that would be the first race back.
The Hitch said:Im saying its wrong to give him a in effect 2 year ban and say its a 1 year ban. He hasnt ridden since the Tour. His test came from the Tour. SO i think he should be punished from.... the Tour. Makes sence to me.
The Hitch said:And comparing me to the hog? I cant believe there are so many people out there for whom any slight disagreement immediately makes everything personal. A bit of advice for you. WHen your arguing little issues like sport, you gain nothing from getting personal. Its pointless.
luckyboy said:Was August 24th when they announced it? Or when they tested it, and announced in September.. Just asking because I can't remember.
The Hitch said:If the ban starts from when the positive was found then they are basically punishing Contador for the fact that it took them a month to test the sample.
skidmark said:But that's how every dope case works. By the logic of your argument, Thomas Dekker should have only been suspended from July 2009 until Christmas 2009, because they found his late 07 sample to be positive in summer 09. Or Valverde, if they matched his blood from Fuentes' lab from June 2006 with a sample from July 2008, should have been suspended for 2 years from June 2006 and had his ban be over before he was even caught.
Otherwise they are just punishing those riders for the fact that it took them awhile to find evidence of their doping as well. Which, in my opinion, is how it should work (although I sure would love to see Valverde racing...)
The Hitch said:I think it should be backdated to the last race you rode. So if fail a test from 2008 and have ridden 2 seasons since, backdate the start to the last date you rode on.
The Hitch said:I think it should be backdated to the last race you rode. So if fail a test from 2008 and have ridden 2 seasons since, backdate the start to the last date you rode on.
skidmark said:But you have to at least concede the point that riders need to be stripped of the results from the race they test positive in, right? And then a 2 year ban would mean that essentially they are banned from that particular race for 3 years.
Merckx index said:If you mean they lose the chance of getting results in that race for three years, including the year they tested positive, yes.
If they can't do that, how about starting the suspension at the time the sample was withdrawn, regardless? Suppose Bert rode in some race after the Tour in the middle of August, before he was notified of the positive A sample. So what? He's going to lose any results of that race, anyway. He can make the reasonable argument that he had no way of knowing when he entered that race that he was going to test positive for the Tour. I don't see the big deal if the effective ban between races is a little less than one year, or two years, or whatever the suspension is. The point is, in either case, he will be barred from getting results for that length of time. What does it matter if he rode in a race during that time, if his results are nullified?