Tom Danielson

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Yeah but like wtf not everything Alexi says is rubish. But hey man you are in your own GL world and guess what it fits the agenda so roll with that.

@ JV what a freaking tool. We should nic name him the bee-sting.

it is a good nickname, but he is no mohammed ali is he?

I know I know, the Credit Agricole sting circa 2000/2001...

and he and Roger Legeay decide not to get it cortisoned up (verb neologism), cos that would be doping. yeah right... i did believe that for about a decade. not any more.

and the one about him ringing up Roger Legeay also, and telling him he would dope to get results for Credit Agricole cos he felt guilty about not performing and getting the wins...

do I believe this now?

not on your life neither...

 

[Enrico Gimondi]

looks like Tummy D has resurfaced. On Instagram he is posting photos at a cycling camp it looks like he is working with.

 

[Irondan]

Is this a cycling camp with juniors? That's an unsettling thought...

 

[Enrico Gimondi]

I do not know. It appears it is "Cinch Cycling Camps" in Arizona. I don't know anything about it. I stumbled upon his page last night accidentally and saw some photos.

Maybe someone with more knowledge can talk a little about the camp.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

As his Twitter comments showed, JV knew more that he implied to VN he knew.

If I may, there's no need for modesty. Your exchange with JV was quite illuminating.
(Apologies if I'm over stepping here)

@fmk_RoI Nov 6
@Vaughters So did Tommy D call you up? Or did you just give him time off cause you thought he looked like he needed a rest?

@Vaughters
@fmk_RoI yeah, he called me, obviously.

@fmk_RoI
He called you @Vaughters? So has @NealRogers/@VeloNews misquoted you saying all you know abt it from him is a Tweet?


‏@Vaughters
@fmk_RoI @nealrogers @velonews @Pflax1 I said that's the only official notification I've gotten. Crying phone call at 2am is hardly official

@Pflax1
@fmk_RoI @Vaughters @nealrogers @velonews Cmon man, didn't you see all the uses of official/officially?

fmk_RoI
@Pflax1 Yeah but it's always nice to get @Vaughters to confirm he's sprouting bollix meant to mislead, you know?

-----------------------

@fmk_RoI Nov 6
Well well well. Blocked by @Vaughters. Was it something I said?

Hilarious! Vaughters is a tool and a liar too. I lol that people still believe anything he says anymore.

He's like Alexi Grewal, Only says things that fit his agenda and if you to against it, you're blocked. Typical response when folks know the jig is up on what you say.

Yeah but like wtf not everything Alexi says is rubish. But hey man you are in your own GL world and guess what it fits the agenda so roll with that.

@ JV what a freaking tool. We should nic name him the bee-sting.

Never said it was did I? I said Grewal was much like Vaughters in that, when he gets called out on stuff, you get blocked. AG blocked a few on FB when they called him out on some stuff he said about dopers and how he seemed to not have issues with it.

So yeah, he(Like Vaughters) has an agenda. Grewal also claimed to be homeless during a huge exchange on FB(which if true, is sad, but he came off as dic*&ish to folks who didn't seem to worship at the altar)and was downright nasty to some folks who started questioning his reasoning for going off on tangents about things. He even admitted to doping too IIRC. I've always felt Grewal had a bunch of talent, but his ego ruined his career, along with had choices.



What this has anything to do with GL is anyone's guess, explain please?

Looks like it's YOU that have the "agenda".

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

Never said it was did I? I said Grewal was much like Vaughters in that, when he gets called out on stuff, you get blocked. AG blocked a few on FB when they called him out on some stuff he said about dopers and how he seemed to not have issues with it.

So yeah, he(Like Vaughters) has an agenda. Grewal also claimed to be homeless during a huge exchange on FB(which if true, is sad, but he came off as dic*&ish to folks who didn't seem to worship at the altar)and was downright nasty to some folks who started questioning his reasoning for going off on tangents about things. He even admitted to doping too IIRC. I've always felt Grewal had a bunch of talent, but his ego ruined his career, along with had choices.



What this has anything to do with GL is anyone's guess, explain please?

Looks like it's YOU that have the "agenda".

Ah ok So Alexi likes to hit the bannination hammer when someone calls him out. Well in that respect I can see the comparison with JV.
"Agenda" is just a word that everyone here like to use. I used it when I said maybe it is because you are a GL fan and as known I don't think Alexi and Greg are the best of friends. And as well known you are a big fan of GL.

Me I don't mind that Alexi is full of *! sometimes or maybe even most of the time. I enjoyed those years he was cycling. Those years back when GL and 7-eleven Alexi etc. were out in the world learning the ropes of cycling. It was great times.

 

[Anaconda]

Really have to wonder what the policy is on the "clean/transparent team" when an athlete on the team tests positive. You would think it would be in their contract that they need to inform the Team immediately upon a positive A sample, (and given regular updates). The athlete would then be placed under suspension until the case is concluded. Wonder is TD is on paid leave? JV and his word games. I'd like to hear his definition of transparency too.

“The amount of official information that I have is very small,” Vaughters said. “I was never officially informed by USADA that he tested positive. I haven’t been informed by the UCI, either. I have no idea where the B sample is or isn’t. Not a clue. I don’t know if Tom is taking the case to arbitration. From an official standpoint, the only thing I know is that on August 3, Tom Danielson tweeted that he had tested positive for synthetic testosterone. When I called [USADA general counsel] Bill Bock, he confirmed that there had been an adverse A.”
Read more at http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/11/news/the-confusing-case-of-tom-danielson_388807#6ursQC1tAUSkQMwK.99

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Really have to wonder what the policy is on the "clean/transparent team" when an athlete on the team tests positive. You would think it would be in their contract that they need to inform the Team immediately upon a positive A sample, (and given regular updates). The athlete would then be placed under suspension until the case is concluded. Wonder is TD is on paid leave? JV and his word games. I'd like to hear his definition of transparency too.

See JV's Tweets from Friday night for team policy WRT being informed of a positive (IIRC he said that's only required at the ADRV stage) and requesting time off to serve the mandatory suspension triggered by an A AAF.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

Ah ok So Alexi likes to hit the bannination hammer when someone calls him out. Well in that respect I can see the comparison with JV.

Yep. That's what made me laugh. I was on FB once or twice when he was exchanging unpleasantries with a few posters who called him to task on some things, he struck me as sort of ******** to them, and "suddenly" they were banned or blocked. Then he played the sympathy card.

"Agenda" is just a word that everyone here like to use. I used it when I said maybe it is because you are a GL fan and as known I don't think Alexi and Greg are the best of friends. And as well known you are a big fan of GL.

You are correct, and you are correct He actually doesn't like Greg(at least that was the impression I got from those exchanges whenever Greg's name was brought up). He acted as if Greg was a douche, because he didn't follow everyone else's lead and experimented with doping. I think (IIRC), he referred to him as "Saint LeMond", and though he admitted Greg was "a bad ass on the bike and didn't need to dope, nor had he saw him anywhere near it", I just don't think he cared for him for whatever reason. I do recall hearing rumors of Grewal wanting to be a possible teammate of LeMonds on LVC, and both Greg and Hinault putting the kibosh on that. Maybe he has some sort of resentment towards him/them for that reason, not sure. I think there's some truth to that, but maybe someone in the know, would know more.

I also don't think Greg has very high praise or nice things to say for Grewal, but I don't know for sure. I bet it has something to do with what I've mentioned and that Alexi comes off as a spoiled little kid and jealous. That's just MY opinion.

Me I don't mind that Alexi is full of *! sometimes or maybe even most of the time. I enjoyed those years he was cycling. I'm happy he's been able to land on his feet again, and I wish the best for him. But he does seem very bitter after all these years. Cycling was good to him. Those years back when GL and 7-eleven Alexi etc. were out in the world learning the ropes of cycling. It was great times.

Agreed. I actually enjoyed watching AG and LeMond and a host of others back in the day. Sad that many have become so bitter and hateful today.

No worries my friend, It's all good.

 

[HelmutRoole]

Re:

Velonews protecting Danielson with some amazing false logic.

The guy crossed 4:1 and then and only then failed the CIR.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/11/news/the-confusing-case-of-tom-danielson_388807

There are some very strange statements credited to Catlin introducing DHEA, a drug believed to have no meaningful performance enhancing effect, somehow involved in the positive, somehow... It reads to me like Neal Rogers is just confusing the situation to modify public opinion.

If anyone has any insight about a potential link between DHEA and T, I'd be glad to hear it.

It reads like the UCI punched his ticket. I wonder if the federation fundraises like the IAAF.

Here's a NYT graphic that explains CIR testing: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/01/sports/02landis-graphic.html

The CIR test that USADA uses doesn't isolated testosterone from its precursors. They could run a CIR on testosterone and one for each of its precursors, of which DHEA is one, but, "That costs money and USADA doesn't like that," said Catlin in the Zauner piece referenced by Rogers in his VeloNews story.

USADA has only ever run one CIR for DHEA. That was during the LaShawn Merritt case, again cited in Zauner's piece. In that case, Merritt came back positive for DHEA. USADA won't say if they also did a CIR for testosterone. It doesn't take a criminal mastermind to dope with both and demand, which Merritt's lawyer did, a CIR for only DHEA.

I don't think USADA has stated whether Danielson had an elevated t:e ratio. (They don't normally release that information.) The t:e ratio test is defeated within hours after using testosterone gels, according to Catlin. Tom Zirbel, widely reported as testing positive for DHEA -- although he admitted later that wasn't true -- had a normal t:e ratio yet still returned an adverse analytical finding for testosterone and its precursors. (Zauner goes into detail reference Zirbel's case. It's truly baffling.) USADA target tested Zirbel, likely because, in the span of 18 months, he went from North America pack fodder to fifth at the world time trail championships.

The takeaway from Zauner's piece for me is this: When an athlete claims supplement contamination, he shouldn't spend thousands testing his supplements. Instead he should demand USADA run a CIR for testosterone, not the vague CIR currently used that leads to an adverse analytical finding for bla bla bla.

Here's Zauner's piece: https://joezauner.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/the-dope-on-usada/

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Yep. Danielson's T:E was 4.1:1

 

[IzzyStradlin]

Re: Re:

Tom Zirbel, widely reported as testing positive for DHEA -- although he admitted later that wasn't true -- had a normal t:e ratio yet still returned an adverse analytical finding for testosterone and its precursors. (Zauner goes into detail reference Zirbel's case. It's truly baffling.) USADA target tested Zirbel, likely because, in the span of 18 months, he went from North America pack fodder to fifth at the world time trail championships.

Zirbel confessed? Link?

 

[TheMight]

Re:

Really have to wonder what the policy is on the "clean/transparent team" when an athlete on the team tests positive. You would think it would be in their contract that they need to inform the Team immediately upon a positive A sample, (and given regular updates). The athlete would then be placed under suspension until the case is concluded. Wonder is TD is on paid leave? JV and his word games. I'd like to hear his definition of transparency too.

“The amount of official information that I have is very small,” Vaughters said. “I was never officially informed by USADA that he tested positive. I haven’t been informed by the UCI, either. I have no idea where the B sample is or isn’t. Not a clue. I don’t know if Tom is taking the case to arbitration. From an official standpoint, the only thing I know is that on August 3, Tom Danielson tweeted that he had tested positive for synthetic testosterone. When I called [USADA general counsel] Bill Bock, he confirmed that there had been an adverse A.”
Read more at http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/11/news/the-confusing-case-of-tom-danielson_388807#6ursQC1tAUSkQMwK.99

It's unfortunate that it's all come to splitting hairs over fairly mundane details, like who called who when and what's 'official' and what's not. That's what our sport has become though. I think TD did inform the team pretty quickly, that's not a notarized document from a USADA lawyer if we want to split hairs about it.. Sounds like TD was on his way out of contract either way. Sounds like TD hadn't been close to JV for a while, not sure why, just busy with stuff and then there are team coaches and other personnel that probably handle TD more frequently. We know they were/are friends. We know JV has plenty of informal channels to USADA, enough that he got his varsity squad dramatically reduced penalties and let them finish their seasons in exchange for their testimonies a few years back.

What's the controversy here? That Slipstream hasn't rushed to fire him? They had already basically done that. He was going to ride Utah and then hang out in his kit at some smallish cross events and rides, right?

My guess: TD found out his Slipstream time was over, he started charging up to maybe put on some polish in hopes of getting a few more years with someone else. It backfired. Maybe USADA is slow playing it a little, I don't know what the actual official process is supposed to be or how long it's supposed to take, it seems like it's always a little bit customized for the circumstances. I also don't know what TD's finances look like, I've personally been under the impression that he's a bit of an outlier in a sport that's generally not known for having a bunch of intellectuals; I could totally see him getting coached up by USADA's people trying to explain to him that it might be in his best financial interest to simply not spend money defending this case and he might not be the quickest on the uptake there.

 

[DirtyWorks]

It's important to understand that USADA has no authority to do anything. The likely Anti-doping authority was the UCI.

Why the UCI has him on one of the slowest sanctions ever is interesting. Over the years, the UCI has done this to other athletes.

Maybe Tommy missed that it was a cue to engage in bribery? It's hard to know what's real.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

It's important to understand that USADA has no authority to do anything. The likely Anti-doping authority was the UCI.

Can you explain this, with reference to the rules, please? USADA tested him, USADA caught him, yet USADA has no authority over him?

 

[peloton]

Re: Re:

It's important to understand that USADA has no authority to do anything. The likely Anti-doping authority was the UCI.

Can you explain this, with reference to the rules, please? USADA tested him, USADA caught him, yet USADA has no authority over him?

Interested about this, too. Thought it is the national ADA's who sanction their athletes?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Interested about this, too. Thought it is the national ADA's who sanction their athletes?

No, NFs have been taken out of the equation by the new Tribunal, the only role they have is footing the tab at the end of the night.

But...that doesn't relate to NADOs. And where they're concerned, the agency that finds the crime is the agency that prosecutes the crime.

However...there is the new twist of that Tribunal: if everybody agrees to it, the case can be passed to them.

In short, the ball is in USDA's court and the UCI can#t take it away from them unless they want to give it up.

In shorter: DirtyWorks is just expressing his opinion.

8.2 Jurisdiction of the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal

The UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal shall have jurisdiction over all matters in which

 An anti-doping rule violation is asserted by the UCI based on a results management or investigation process under Article 7;

 An anti-doping rule violation is asserted by another Anti-Doping Organization under its rules, and all parties (in particular the Anti-Doping Organization and the Rider or other Person concerned) agree to submit the matter to the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal, with the agreement of the UCI; or

 The UCI decides to assert an anti-doping rule violation against a Rider or other Person subject to these Anti-Doping Rules, based on a failure by another organization to initiate or diligently pursue a hearing process or where the UCI otherwise finds it appropriate for a fair hearing process to be granted.

(text modified on 29.05.2015)

 

[peloton]

Thanks fmk for clearing that up, didn't know about the new Tribunal

 

[HelmutRoole]

Re: Re:

Tom Zirbel, widely reported as testing positive for DHEA -- although he admitted later that wasn't true -- had a normal t:e ratio yet still returned an adverse analytical finding for testosterone and its precursors. (Zauner goes into detail reference Zirbel's case. It's truly baffling.) USADA target tested Zirbel, likely because, in the span of 18 months, he went from North America pack fodder to fifth at the world time trail championships.

Zirbel confessed? Link?

Zirbel admitted that he didn't test positive for DHEA, yes.

Despite the wording of the USADA press releases, the media – ESPN, VeloNews and the N.Y. Times to name a few — almost entirely reported the athletes as positive for DHEA, not testosterone or testosterone precursors. Travis Tygart, USADA CEO, said he couldn’t speculate on what information those media outlets were basing their statements on but it was not released by USADA. He said technically it is not accurate to say or state that, but with the exception of Merritt, any of the athletes in question tested positive for DHEA. He said that DHEA was one drug within a class of drugs that might have triggered a positive test result.

The above is from the Zauner piece. I think if you read that story you'll also find Zirbel saying words to the effect of, I don't know what caused my positive result.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

Interested about this, too. Thought it is the national ADA's who sanction their athletes?

No, NFs have been taken out of the equation by the new Tribunal, the only role they have is footing the tab at the end of the night.

But...that doesn't relate to NADOs. And where they're concerned, the agency that finds the crime is the agency that prosecutes the crime.

However...there is the new twist of that Tribunal: if everybody agrees to it, the case can be passed to them.

In short, the ball is in USDA's court and the UCI can#t take it away from them unless they want to give it up.

In shorter: DirtyWorks is just expressing his opinion.

I know, I know, I'm wrong because you refuse to read the WADA standard.

Here's a nice summary: https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/LEGAL_sanctions_howman.pdf

Under the Code, the results management and hearing process of anti-doping
violations shall be the responsibility of and governed by the procedural rules
of the anti-doping organization which initiated and conducted sample
collections. Therefore, for example, each international federation will remain
responsible for the adjudication process for all the tests it has conducted
both in and out of competition. Each case is to be looked at individually, and
the athlete or athlete support person given the opportunity of establishing a
basis for eliminating or reducing the sanction.

HAVE WE CLEARED THAT UP YET?

If it were the case a NADO had authority to sanction an athlete, then why did USADA send a recommendation to give Armstrong a lifetime ban that was ruminated over by the UCI and then reluctantly agreed?

Again, WADA has no authority to ban anyone. NADOs have no authority to ban anyone. They are directed by anti-doping authorities to initiate a sanction.

As a result, you don't understand the role of the UCI's new tribunal.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Here's more on how fmk_rol is wrong.
http://www.usada.org/resources/faq/

**What is the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)?
USADA is responsible for administering all of the components of the anti-doping program, including the testing and results management processes for all USOC-recognized sport national governing bodies and their athletes, as well as events.

**Whom does USADA having testing and results management authority for?
Is being tested by USADA under authorization from the USOC, an NGB, IF, any NADO, WADA, the International Olympic Committee (IOC), International Paralympic Committee, (IPC), or the organizing committee of any Event or Competition.

That means organizations request tests and a NADO fulfills those requests.

Under the "results management" FAQ
USADA forwards the Anti-Doping Review Board’s recommendation to the athlete, the relevant NGB, the USOC, the relevant IF and WADA.
Why the relevant IF? Because they have the authority to sanction.

Here's another FAQ making my point for me:
**If the adverse analytical finding is the result of a test conducted by the IF, does USADA adjudicate the positive results or other rules violations?

In many cases, if a test conducted by an IF on a U.S. athlete, results in an adverse analytical finding, the IF will forward the case to USADA to handle the results management process and adjudication.

WADA's own public statement on how testing authority works is in this post: viewtopic.php?p=1838775#p1838775

NADOs DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SANCTION ANYONE. They test for others and process sanctions.

Any questions?

Actually, just please read the WADA standards. Please.

 

[chiocciolis_calves]

Re:

Is this a cycling camp with juniors? That's an unsettling thought...

No, it's a bunch of middle-aged yuppies.

 

[HelmutRoole]

Re:

Yep. Danielson's T:E was 4.1:1

Not dubious, but where did you read/hear that?

 

[D-Queued]

Hmmm

Not sure that the Tribunal changed things, and not sure that fmk_rol is wrong.

But, it is complicated. And, we may be confusing things a bit.

Here is one view of the process, and I don't think this has changed:

1. IF signs onto The Code
2. IF is responsible for overall testing
3. IF can also be responsible for penalties (can be harsher than WADA, for example) beyond what WADA has set.

But THE CODE can be pretty specific:

10.3.3 For violations of Article 2.4 (Whereabouts Filing Failures and/or Missed Tests), the period of Ineligibility shall be at a minimum one (1) year and at a maximum two (2) years based on the Athlete’s degree of fault.

Comment to Article 10.3.3: The sanction under Article 10.3.3 shall be two years where all three filing failures or missed tests are inexcusable. Otherwise, the sanction shall be assessed in the range of two years to one year, based on the circumstances of the case.

AND, WADA even provides Model Rules for IF's, NADO's, MEO's, NOC's etc.

AND, WADA is moving beyond 'harmonization' and towards common standards.

From the 2015 Model Rules:

10.2.1 The period of Ineligibility shall be four years where:

10.2.1.1 The anti-doping rule violation does not involve a Specified Substance, unless the Athlete or other Person can establish that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional.

10.2.1.2 The anti-doping rule violation involves a Specified Substance and [NADO] can establish that the anti doping rule violation was intentional.

10.2.2 If Article 10.2.1 does not apply, the period of Ineligibility shall be two years.

The 2015 Model Rules also removed this comment:

Harmonization of sanctions has been one of the most discussed and debated areas of anti-doping.

4. IF typically passes along testing responsibility to NADOs/ADAs, especially for whereabouts testing and/or to Games organizers (e.g. Olympics) as appropriate.

wrt Whereabouts:

"An important part of USADA’s testing program is the ability to test athletes without any advance notice in an out-of-competition setting..."

Please note this important bit:

As outlined in the World Anti-Doping Code, International Standard for Testing & Investigations, and the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) National Anti-Doping Policies, elite athletes who have been identified and notified that they are part of a USADA Registered Testing Pool are responsible for directly keeping USADA informed of their whereabouts. Athletes that have not been notified of their responsibility to submit whereabouts information, are not required to submit any whereabouts information, although they can still be tested out-of-competition by USADA...

AND:

Athletes will receive a missed test if they are unavailable during the specified 60-minute time slot indicated on their whereabouts filing when attempted for testing...

Any combination of three whereabouts failures (filing failures and/or missed tests), declared by USADA, WADA or an IF, within an 12 month period = Anti-Doping Rule Violation

5. As noted in the final para above, the various organizations (USADA, WADA or an IF) are all empowered!!!

6. And, they can do more if they all agree on it.

Comment to Article 15.2: Additional authority to conduct Testing may be authorized by means of bilateral or multilateral agreements among Signatories and governments.

6. Whatever association (IF, ADA) found the evidence can bring forward an action against an athlete (e.g. Armstrong, Leinders, etc.).

7. Any participant can bring an anti-doping case to the CAS, including WADA.

8. In some cases, the IF and NADO/ADA have equivalent authority. One such case is the new rule covering exemptions on the 6 month waiting period for an athlete returning to competition.

Note the use of the "and":

"...an International- or National-Level-Athlete included in a Registered Testing Pool (RTP) who has retired and wishes to return to competition may be granted by WADA, in consultation with the applicable IF and NADO, an exemption to the 6-month written notice..."

9. Sanctions for doping violations in the form of Event disqualification remains the jurisdiction of the Event organizers.

I'm sure that cleared everything up.

Dave.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Ok Dave, most of that passes back to the federation.

Miss a test? WADA notifies the IF.
Whereabouts violation? WADA notifies the IF.

IF approves the sanction, NADO sactions according to the IF's rules.

The bit after #6 is only about testing itself, not the authority to open an AAF.

#7 doesn't mean what you want it to mean. Issuing an AAF always comes before arbitration. Without an AAF issued by the IF, there is nothing to arbitrate.

Separately, IFs write their own rules. The only thing WADA can do, because they have no authority, is state, "that procedure is not WADA compliant." We had that with the Zorzoli TUE fast track theoretically, closed at the UCI.