• 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 @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Stefan Denifl

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Of course he claims to never have actually doped but let's be real, he did that to not lose his results and no way he would have come out like this if he had never actually done anything wrong.
On another note, Austrian cycling is f*cked
 
Gigs_98 said:
Of course he claims to never have actually doped but let's be real, he did that to not lose his results and no way he would have come out like this if he had never actually done anything wrong.
On another note, Austrian cycling is f*cked

Yup, the end of austrian cycling for good it seems.
 
Serpentin said:
Gigs_98 said:
Of course he claims to never have actually doped but let's be real, he did that to not lose his results and no way he would have come out like this if he had never actually done anything wrong.
On another note, Austrian cycling is f*cked

Yup, the end of austrian cycling for good it seems.
Very curious if there are any bora links as so many Austrians ride for them.
 
Mar 14, 2009
3,436
0
0
Visit site
Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
Fanboy mode:
So does this add another win to Alberto's palmares?

So one convicted doper gets stripped of his win in favor of another convicted doper.

Priceless ... only possible in cycling :cool:
 
Preidler is saying that it was an attempt to transfuse blood. That he never actually did it. I am not sure what is the difference in the eyes of the UCI. Maybe a lessen ban. But I don't believe that for a second.

Maybe is time to open a new thread about the Doctor ring! (like we did with Fuentes).
 
Re: Re:

Escarabajo said:
Jancouver said:
TourOfSardinia said:
Fanboy mode:
So does this add another win to Alberto's palmares?

So one convicted doper gets stripped of his win in favor of another convicted doper.

Priceless ... only possible in cycling :cool:
Remember when Ekimov was complaining that he was being robbed when Hamilton was caught for doping?
That was the worst!
Remember when Ullrich's last results were voided, awarding wins to Julich and Koldo Gil
 
Re:

Escarabajo said:
Preidler is saying that it was an attempt to transfuse blood. That he never actually did it. I am not sure what is the difference in the eyes of the UCI. Maybe a lessen ban. But I don't believe that for a second.

Maybe is time to open a new thread about the Doctor ring! (like we did with Fuentes).

in the interview Preidler mentions that it means the end of his career anyway, no matter the length of the ban (which is likely to be still 4 years by the way. There's the same penalty for "use" and "attempted use", afaik. And he clearly confessed the attempt.)

So if he indeed didn't tell the whole truth, it probably was not to get a shorter ban
 
Comment by Marcel Kittel on the case:
https://www.marcelkittel.de/en/
Gist of it: Shocked by the revelations that Schmidt still was part of doping programm in cycling and that he apparently purchased doping equipment from Stefan Matschiner who had just been busted before. Also shocked that his home town Erfurt is in the centre of investigations. Mentions his UV-treatment and how young athletes should be extremely careful as to who they trust.
 
Re: Re:

search said:
Escarabajo said:
Preidler is saying that it was an attempt to transfuse blood. That he never actually did it. I am not sure what is the difference in the eyes of the UCI. Maybe a lessen ban. But I don't believe that for a second.

Maybe is time to open a new thread about the Doctor ring! (like we did with Fuentes).

in the interview Preidler mentions that it means the end of his career anyway, no matter the length of the ban (which is likely to be still 4 years by the way. There's the same penalty for "use" and "attempted use", afaik. And he clearly confessed the attempt.)

So if he indeed didn't tell the whole truth, it probably was not to get a shorter ban

Personal reasons? He's 28, so if he gets a four-year ban he'd ben 32 by the time the ban is over. Certainly wouldn't be the first to return from a ban at that age.
 
Re: Re:

RedheadDane said:
search said:
Escarabajo said:
Preidler is saying that it was an attempt to transfuse blood. That he never actually did it. I am not sure what is the difference in the eyes of the UCI. Maybe a lessen ban. But I don't believe that for a second.

Maybe is time to open a new thread about the Doctor ring! (like we did with Fuentes).

in the interview Preidler mentions that it means the end of his career anyway, no matter the length of the ban (which is likely to be still 4 years by the way. There's the same penalty for "use" and "attempted use", afaik. And he clearly confessed the attempt.)

So if he indeed didn't tell the whole truth, it probably was not to get a shorter ban

Personal reasons? He's 28, so if he gets a four-year ban he'd ben 32 by the time the ban is over. Certainly wouldn't be the first to return from a ban at that age.

I guess it's not everyones cup of tea to come back and face all those people you betrayed. And then there also is the press. Hope he stays away for ever.
 

TRENDING THREADS