When is this guy going to be knighted? Ashenden

[thehog]

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5...n-test-for-autologous-blood-transfusions.aspx

Dances with truth.

I'm surprised the UCI allow him to be so outspoken?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Before the Sydney Olympics I was running a team at a race that Ashended et al wanted to run some 'new' testing protocols at. They made it explicitly clear that 'this is not a drug test', but only for scientific reasons...

I agreed to enlist the team in the testing protocols, contingent on Ashenden telling me who WAS NOT willing to be part of the sample. He agreed, but the info was based on federations rather than riders. Fair enough. He has to keep his sample groups viable...

I only bring this up as to my high level of regard and respect that Ashenden deserves. These are the guys trying to force the fu*kers to do it right. Regardless of where that influence is coming from, he's one of the good guys trying to save the better elements of the sport.

 

[acoggan]

Before the Sydney Olympics I was running a team at a race that Ashended et al wanted to run some 'new' testing protocols at. They made it explicitly clear that 'this is not a drug test', but only for scientific reasons...

I agreed to enlist the team in the testing protocols, contingent on Ashenden telling me who WAS NOT willing to be part of the sample. He agreed, but the info was based on federations rather than riders. Fair enough. He has to keep his sample groups viable...

It would have been unethical of him to disclose the names of other participants in a research study. Indeed, even disclosing the names of the federations willing/not willing to take part seems questionable, as that already narrows the list of other participants.

 

[ricara]

Thanks for the link. One very interesting excerpt (out of many!):

"Ashenden recently participated in the New Pathways for Pro Cycling conference. It was held immediately prior to the world road race championships in Geelong, Australia. At the conference, he spoke on the topic of anti-doping and also had a chance to both hear Floyd Landis’s contributions to the conference and also to talk to him directly.

"He was quoted afterwards in media reports as saying that he learned more talking to Landis for two days than he did after many years in the job. Ashenden clarifies those words, saying that there is a degree of inaccuracy in the phrasing of the quote, but that the general sentiment is correct."

Strongly recommend reading the entire article.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

It would have been unethical of him to disclose the names of other participants in a research study. Indeed, even disclosing the names of the federations willing/not willing to take part seems questionable, as that already narrows the list of other participants.

Agreed.

I'm only pointing out this guy's tenacity at the very early days of EPO testing, and how he was motivated to 'get it done'.

He should be knighted.

 

[Anonymous]

chapeau!

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.

 

[hrotha]

Just yesterday Vaughters was crucified here for saying pretty much the same thing about the test.

 

[Wallace]

My favorite part of the interview is the end:

He is clear on one thing – it may be time to look at having truly independent bodies testing, assessing and ultimately judging the anti-doping area of sport.

“One of the most confronting, but widely agreed upon proposals, was the need to separate UCI's role as both 'police' and 'promoters' of the sport,” he stated. “It makes common sense to me - for example we don't let the IOC police and promote its sport - so it will be interesting to see how that seed evolves.”

That pretty much says it all.

 

[Anonymous]

For those who villify Landis, please see this;

"At the conference, he spoke on the topic of anti-doping and also had a chance to both hear Floyd Landis’s contributions to the conference and also to talk to him directly.

He was quoted afterwards in media reports as saying that he learned more talking to Landis for two days than he did after many years in the job. Ashenden clarifies those words, saying that there is a degree of inaccuracy in the phrasing of the quote, but that the general sentiment is correct. "



It's OK to be wrong, and that's as nice as I'll put it.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Just yesterday Vaughters was crucified here for saying pretty much the same thing about the test.

Pardon me? Fill me in...

 

[JRTinMA]

For those who villify Landis, please see this;

"At the conference, he spoke on the topic of anti-doping and also had a chance to both hear Floyd Landis’s contributions to the conference and also to talk to him directly.

He was quoted afterwards in media reports as saying that he learned more talking to Landis for two days than he did after many years in the job. Ashenden clarifies those words, saying that there is a degree of inaccuracy in the phrasing of the quote, but that the general sentiment is correct. "

It's OK to be wrong, and that's as nice as I'll put it.

You probably should of hung in for one more sentence or the next paragraph. He never said what you highlighted, in fact he said the following:

“First, before it takes on a life of its own, I'll correct the record to say that I never used those words..."

He certainly claims he gained valuable insight into the doping culture and learned a lot about the toll it took on Landis himself. I totally disagree with the Ben Johnson reference or maybe I don't get the meaning. He is still looked at today as the poster child for the most villainous doper. I don't wish that on Floyd, I hope he doesn't end up a depressed loaner like Ben Johnson. Ben is trying to get a book published, a promised tell-all I heard. I hope it see the light of day.

Yes, its ok to be wrong btw.

 

[Hugh Januss]

For those who villify Landis, please see this;

"At the conference, he spoke on the topic of anti-doping and also had a chance to both hear Floyd Landis’s contributions to the conference and also to talk to him directly.

He was quoted afterwards in media reports as saying that he learned more talking to Landis for two days than he did after many years in the job. Ashenden clarifies those words, saying that there is a degree of inaccuracy in the phrasing of the quote, but that the general sentiment is correct. "



It's OK to be wrong, and that's as nice as I'll put it.

You probably should of hung in for one more sentence or the next paragraph. He never said what you highlighted, in fact he said the following:

“First, before it takes on a life of its own, I'll correct the record to say that I never used those words..."

He certainly claims he gained valuable insight into the doping culture and learned a lot about the toll it took on Landis himself. I totally disagree with the Ben Johnson reference or maybe I don't get the meaning. He is still looked at today as the poster child for the most villainous doper. I don't wish that on Floyd, I hope he doesn't end up a depressed loaner like Ben Johnson. Ben is trying to get a book published, a promised tell-all I heard. I hope it see the light of day.

Yes, its ok to be wrong btw.

You probably should have hung in there for one more sentence yourself bucky.
But that's alright, it is OK to be wrong.

 

[scribe]

Just yesterday Vaughters was crucified here for saying pretty much the same thing about the test.

Vaughters should be commended for (probably) not running a sophisticated team programme, not for looking forward to pockets of his own squad that gotta dope to keep up, possibly having reason to move toward clean.

 

[Spare Tyre]

As Australia has abandoned the practice of awarding knighthoods, he won't be knighted any time soon unless he has dual citizenship with the UK.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

My favorite part of the interview is the end:

He is clear on one thing – it may be time to look at having truly independent bodies testing, assessing and ultimately judging the anti-doping area of sport.

“One of the most confronting, but widely agreed upon proposals, was the need to separate UCI's role as both 'police' and 'promoters' of the sport,” he stated. “It makes common sense to me - for example we don't let the IOC police and promote its sport - so it will be interesting to see how that seed evolves.”

That pretty much says it all.

Hear, hear!

It's obvious that the UCI can't ethically do both. They're going to have to do some serious heavy lifting to figure out whether they want to be involved in promotion or policing.

It's obvious to everyone outside of the UCI that you can't do both.

With the stinky cheese of the UCI sitting on the WADA executive, how can we win? The UCI is not only perportedly doing policing (and in charge of it), but also raking in millions of euros to help people put on races...

Is this not inherently wrong? I know I'm preaching to the choir, but ya gotta vent somehow...

 

[JRTinMA]

You probably should have hung in there for one more sentence yourself bucky.
But that's alright, it is OK to be wrong.

Don't play stupid you are far smarter. When you bold something and attribute this highlighted text to Ashenden it makes a difference if he in fact never said the statement. He didn't bold part two but he did foolishly make a statement about being wrong.

 

[Anonymous]

Don't play stupid you are far smarter. When you bold something and attribute this highlighted text to Ashenden it makes a difference if he in fact never said the statement. He didn't bold part two but he did foolishly make a statement about being wrong.

Nothing foolish about it. I bolded what I wanted people like you to read. I included the clairifying sentence so that people like you would know that people like me are not trying to decieve.

People who villify Floyd for trying to make things right, people who argue that he should just STFU, are wrong.

As proof, I offered a passage in the story. If you read the story, what I bolded had been attributed to Ashenden. Even after the clarification, the sentiment (Ashenden's words) was correct.

Floyd the villian may do much to root out dopers and doping. Yet, there are so many that crucify him for naming names.

I stand by what I wrote.

 

[scribe]

Bull****. Floyd aint trying to make things right. He got ripped by the system he exploited for his own purposes. When he felt scape-goated, he went nuclear for his own personal gain, as he had ran out of options. He is a self centered freak, nothing more.

 

[hrotha]

Pardon me? Fill me in...

I think the relevant posts have been edited, but some people didn't appreciate that Vaughters was all sugar and candy and unicorns about this test.

 

[Anonymous]

Bull****. Floyd aint trying to make things right. He got ripped by the system he exploited for his own purposes. When he felt scape-goated, he went nuclear for his own personal gain, as he had ran out of options. He is a self centered freak, nothing more.

You don't have a clue what motivates Floyd.

Even if what you say is entirely true, he's still one of the few naming names. Unless you are in favor of the omerta this is a good thing.

 

[JRTinMA]

Nothing foolish about it. I bolded what I wanted people like you to read. I included the clairifying sentence so that people like you would know that people like me are not trying to decieve.

People who villify Floyd for trying to make things right, people who argue that he should just STFU, are wrong.

As proof, I offered a passage in the story. If you read the story, what I bolded had been attributed to Ashenden. Even after the clarification, the sentiment (Ashenden's words) was correct.

Floyd the villian may do much to root out dopers and doping. Yet, there are so many that crucify him for naming names.

I stand by what I wrote.

I didn't think you tried to deceive anybody. I just assumed you were and a little dull for attributing something to a man that he never said. This proves my
point.

 

[scribe]

You don't have a clue what motivates Floyd.

Even if what you say is entirely true, he's still one of the few naming names. Unless you are in favor of the omerta this is a good thing.

You don't have a clue either, obviously, what Landis is actually contributing to cycling by going nuclear. How about his days at Mercury? You believe Bruyneel popped his dopey cherry?? Naming names, please.

These developments involving the Contador's and Mosq's of cycling is not a Landis development. It's all about the tests, and always has been.

 

[Anonymous]

You don't have a clue either, obviously, what Landis is actually contributing to cycling by going nuclear. How about his days at Mercury? You believe Bruyneel popped his dopey cherry?? Naming names, please.

These developments involving the Contador's and Mosq's of cycling is not a Landis development. It's all about the tests, and always has been.

Well, we disagree. It's about corruption and always has been.

 

[Nick777]

Bull****. Floyd aint trying to make things right. He got ripped by the system he exploited for his own purposes. When he felt scape-goated, he went nuclear for his own personal gain, as he had ran out of options. He is a self centered freak, nothing more.

You talkin bout lance or Floyd?