UCI Won't Speed Up Clentador Decision

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
Man, you guys are exhausitng! I keep coming back to the thread, hoping for news or at least something insightful. No such luck...
 
May 26, 2009
377
0
0
python said:
again, you are betraying poor knowledge of the case. you need to read more than misinformed cycling media.

when you know it did not happened you can draw conclusions. until then you are the one jumping the gun.

Python? Is that really you? Same guy?
 
Aug 9, 2009
640
0
0
python said:
i am not afraid, if you read my posts. don't be afraid to do some searching too.

Well, I am in the same situation that Dr. Maserati previously stated - searched but can't find anything. I do not know why it is so difficult to post links. Or perhaps you could just name the publication(s) then we can go to their website(s).
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
5
0
scribe said:
Rating the Biggest Hypocrites in the clinic:
1. Python (I LOL every time I see this moran's avatar in a Contador thread)
2. "This couldn't have happened to a nicer guy." - The Hog on Contadoper
3. Publicus - Someone wake him up when the Armstrong indictment goes down. The Armstrong thread in the main forum has died without him around to bump it up.
4.(tied) El Pistolero/Senor Contador/ and about 10 other direvitive user names that all share one brain.....
I've noticed Publicus even took his contador avatar down. Kinda sad really
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
HoustonHammer said:
OK. I'll make it official: BULLSH*T!!

and i will declare it privately, you're a clueless pretender with the limited ability to follow rather well explained issues.
 
Aug 19, 2010
66
0
0
thehog said:
Cycling will lose "credibility"? Seriously? You think? What now? Since the Tour has been totally clean since 1999.

Fool.

Cycling will lose credibility if they remove Contador.

Think before you write Junior.

I'm a fool? Really? Nah, I don't think so. I'm very comfortable with my take on this topic, Hog. And I thought very well, thank you.

The rules were what the rules were at the start of the race. Changing the rules now, for Contador's benefit, will degrade what credibility the sport retained. If it had zero credibility, none of us would watch. If Contador is cleared despite his adverse finding, cycling will likely fall to the ranks of "pro-wrestling" in the U.S. And, at that point, I probably will not watch any longer. And posts from the likes of you will mean even less than they do now, if that is possible.

I'm not saying Contador's guilty or innocent, as none of us know--despite the confidence displayed with impunity in posts such as yours. It's an unfortunate scenario whether he's guilty or innocent. But the rules were the rules--any trace of the drug, no matter how small, represents a doping offense.

I'd prefer to see Contador start the Tour in 2011 from a sporting perspective--to see if Andy could beat him, or anyone else could. But, I hope he is sanctioned appropriately for this offense--consistent with others who have had the same finding, because if he is not then the sport will be harmed irreparably.

The only choice is to strip his 2010 Tour title and to suspend him at least one year, if not two.

If the rules are/were flawed, then let's change them. But not retroactively to a race which was already performed according to those rules.
 
Oct 3, 2010
75
0
0
HoustonHammer said:
I read the ITTF's rules. Like the UCI's, their rules are basically a carbon copy of the WADA code. Same clauses, same terminology.

Which articles? I've seen a number of quotes from Weikert and from Ovtcharov himself. But nothing that had anywhere the detail you suggest. Can you provide links?

http://www.stuttgarter-zeitung.de/stz/page/2673115_0_3064_-im-zweifel-fuer-den-angeklagten.html "Im Nachgang der positiven Probe ließ der Verband zudem die negativen Tests von vier anderen mit Ovtcharov bei dem Turnier in China aktiven DTTB-Athleten, die bei einer unangemeldeten Kontrolle am 24. August genommen wurden, in Köln und Kreischa mit einer empfindlicheren und in der Praxis nicht angewandten Messmethode überprüfen. Dabei fanden sich ebenfalls niedrige Mengen Clenbuterol - in der Konzentration zwischen 2,5 und 10 Piktogramm pro Milliliter. Da diese Proben nicht die Kriterien des Wada-Codes erfüllen, liegt kein Dopingverdacht vor. Für den DTTB jedenfalls sind diese Proben der Beweis, dass es sich "mit an Sicherheit grenzender Wahrscheinlichkeit" um eine unverschuldete Aufnahme handele."
 
Oct 3, 2010
75
0
0
TeamSkyFans said:
my understanding when this broke was that AC wasnt the only one tested for plasticizers and that AS also came up dodgy. would make sense. Maybe wiggins did win the tour after all :D

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/deportes/estrecha/cerco/Contador/elpepidep/20101015elpepidep_1/Tes "De hecho, en el Tour la orina de Contador no fue la única en la que se buscó y encontró DEHP, aunque sí la única de la que se ha informado." " In fact, in the urine Tour Contador was not the only one that was sought and found DEHP, although the only one we have been informed."
 
Aug 14, 2010
128
0
8,680
We don’t treat him differently than the others, but let’s be honest, the fact that it was Alberto Contador means that we have to be certain we take the right decision,” McQuaid said.

What I find interesting in this quote is, apparently, in McQuaid's mind, certainty is afforded to Contador while others can be banned even if UCI isn't certain of their guilt?
 
May 26, 2009
377
0
0
fasthill said:
What I find interesting in this quote is, apparently, in McQuaid's mind, certainty is afforded to Contador while others can be banned even if UCI isn't certain of their guilt?

Me too. I can accept that it's a simple reality, but I am surprised that he didn't show more diplomatic skill.
 
scribe said:
Rating the Biggest Hypocrites in the clinic:
1. Python (I LOL every time I see this moran's avatar in a Contador thread)
2. "This couldn't have happened to a nicer guy." - The Hog on Contadoper
3. Publicus - Someone wake him up when the Armstrong indictment goes down. The Armstrong thread in the main forum has died without him around to bump it up.
4.(tied) El Pistolero/Senor Contador/ and about 10 other direvitive user names that all share one brain.....

Top 3 without making ANY comments about this subject (or generally participating in the forums for the last few months)? Man that doesn't say much about your rating system.

That's Scribbles for you--who needs facts when you can make sh*t up. Stay classy Scribbles.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,654
2
0
Publicus said:
Top 3 without making ANY comments about this subject (or generally participating in the forums for the last few months)? Man that doesn't say much about your rating system.

That's Scribbles for you--who needs facts when you can make sh*t up. Stay classy Scribbles.

I would not bother responding to that! nice to have you back on!
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Publicus said:
Top 3 without making ANY comments about this subject (or generally participating in the forums for the last few months)? Man that doesn't say much about your rating system.

That's Scribbles for you--who needs facts when you can make sh*t up. Stay classy Scribbles.
he let everyone on his true thoughts recently when he declared he'll drop out of cycling if conta is found not guilty. when asked why did he followe cycling during armstrong years, he said that's speculation and rumour.

on the subject: minessa thanks. a picked up a lot of the details from several papers including sz, spiegel. also from the german ping pong federation themselves. some more details, though not as complete, at the ittf
http://www.ettu.org/news_view.php?id=3183
 
mightymac12 said:
Couldn't disagree more. This is not a matter of substance potency, its about punishing those who break the rules. If you get caught taking a banned substance of any kind you should pay the price. Your attitude of "ahhh forgive him its Contador" is bound to create a monster that cannot be controlled. Look at Mr. Armstrongs beginnings...

All I am saying is set a zero-tolerance protocol. Until a zero-tolerance policy is actually enforced you cannot claim that it won't work as a deterrent.

Zero tolerance doesn't work in any level of law enforcement, and it won't work in cycling.

What you're saying is, let's keep using this same failed template so it will be easier to mete out fines and punishments without having to consider mitigating circumstances or severity of said doping offense.

To put this amount of clenbutarol on par with the same punishment for an EPO positive is ludicrous, regardless of what the rules say and regardless of what YOU say.

For a substance that appeared at levels which have no performance-enhancing capabilities whatsoever, your stance is not sustainable.

If he were to have gotten caught for one of the major drugs of choice in the peloton (testosterone, HgH, EPO) then an argument could be made for a two-year ban.

The rules have to work in conjunction with the severity of the doping offense.
 
Apr 22, 2009
190
0
0
python said:
and i will declare it privately, you're a clueless pretender with the limited ability to follow rather well explained issues.

Arguments require facts, and facts require sources. If you're not willing to give your sources, I can only conclude they don't exist. Hence: BULLSH*T!!!
 
Berzin said:
Zero tolerance doesn't work in any level of law enforcement, and it won't work in cycling.

What you're saying is, let's keep using this same failed template so it will be easier to mete out fines and punishments without having to consider mitigating circumstances or severity of said doping offense.

To put this amount of clenbutarol on par with the same punishment for an EPO positive is ludicrous, regardless of what the rules say and regardless of what YOU say.

For a substance that appeared at levels which have no performance-enhancing capabilities whatsoever, your stance is not sustainable.

If he were to have gotten caught for one of the major drugs of choice in the peloton (testosterone, HgH, EPO) then an argument could be made for a two-year ban.

The rules have to work in conjunction with the severity of the doping offense.
If I may quote myself...
The problem with this, I think, is that we know dopers don't use a single drug or a single method, and we also know dopers are beating the tests. It follows that even if someone only tested positive for one substance, the most likely possibility is that they used other PEDs and banned methods as well, but managed to avoid a positive. If the tests were more effective I would agree with your reasoning.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
HoustonHammer said:
Arguments require facts, and facts require sources. If you're not willing to give your sources, I can only conclude they don't exist. Hence: BULLSH*T!!!
arguments require head. the head is where the brains and the eye are located. if you are not capable of reading and following the leads and several times named sources, i can only conclude you have a thick attitude or reading ability impairment. you fail to to do that even now when it's layed out in front of you. that's what i call b..shyt
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
5
0
Publicus said:
Top 3 without making ANY comments about this subject (or generally participating in the forums for the last few months)? Man that doesn't say much about your rating system.

That's Scribbles for you--who needs facts when you can make sh*t up. Stay classy Scribbles.

Oh good, you're back. Go ahead and get your contador avatar back on. Python needs you. They are thinking about convicting an innocent man over a measly positive on his doping control.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
scribe said:
Oh good, you're back. Go ahead and get your contador avatar back on. Python needs you. They are thinking about convicting an innocent man over a measly positive on his doping control.
so you are still obsessed with avatars instead of what's under them ? i'll have to agree with aus, you don't add much to the content of the forum.
 
Apr 22, 2009
190
0
0
python said:
he let everyone on his true thoughts recently when he declared he'll drop out of cycling if conta is found not guilty. when asked why did he followe cycling during armstrong years, he said that's speculation and rumour.

on the subject: minessa thanks. a picked up a lot of the details from several papers including sz, spiegel. also from the german ping pong federation themselves. some more details, though not as complete, at the ittf
http://www.ettu.org/news_view.php?id=3183

Ugh. This is your source? You asked why the other athletes weren't "charged" even though they tested positive, and this is your source?

Let me quote from your source:

"Additional four athletes of the DTTB, who had also participated at the China Open, were tested, unannounced, on August 24, one day after the dope test of OVTCHAROV. Their results were all negative."

That's why they weren't suspended, knucklehead. The article also goes on:

"On behalf of NADA, supported by DTTB and with the intention to check the credibility of contamination which OVTCHAROV suspected, the respective samples – after the positive result for Dimitrij OVTCHAROV became known - were tested again for Clenbuterol, using a much more sensitive and normally, in practice not applied method of measuring. This additional test should prove if traces of the phenomenon Clenbuterol could possibly be found with the other participants of the China Open. This analysis actually showed such traces of Clenbuterol in a hardly measurable, extremely low area of concentration (2.5 pg/ml, 5 pg/ml, 7.1 pg/ml and 10 pg/ml). These four samples do not fulfil the relevant criteria of the so called “Adverse Analytical Finding” and therefore, due to the minimal quantity, cannot justify the suspicion of doping. NADA confirmed this in their letter to the DTTB dated September 27."


I'm the one who can't follow arguments?

All of this was reported elsewhere in the English press and has been discussed in this forum. None of it supports your claim that other ping pong players were caught with Clen but not sanctioned.

Which brings us back to the point that I and many others have repeatedly made here: the Ovtcharov case is very different from the Clentador case and can't possibly be used as a precedent to help Clentador evade punishment.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
that's why the moment i saw your attitude, i saw the futility of feeding you by the spoon. you are incapable of an open discussion. you are incapable of following sources even after they are put in front of you. you're thick with attitude and thin with reasoning. menessa and myself named at least 6 different sources, yet you're still clueless.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
5
0
python said:
that's why the moment i saw your attitude, i saw the futility of feeding you by the spoon. you are incapable of an open discussion. you are incapable of following sources even after they are put in front of you. you're thick with attitude and thin with reasoning. menessa and myself named at least 6 different sources, yet you're still clueless.

Why can't he just believe in the miracle of sporting achievement? The greatest cycling of our generation would never have risked everything with such an insignificant amount of a banned substance.