UCI Still Looking For A Way Out
Brad Anders
Hard to see why the UCI needs more time. Failed A/B samples, no
scientific backing for Contador's "dope steak" excuse, secondary
evidence of transfusions. Exactly what additional "scientific
evaluations" are needed, and what more does WADA need to provide the
UCI?
I'm still sticking to my prediction the UCI will find a way for
Contador to keep his TdF title and avoid a ban. They'll dig up
something.
Brad Anders
Vagina Gorilla
accountants runs the numbers.
Fred Flintstein
> I'm still sticking to my prediction the UCI will find a way for
> Contador to keep his TdF title and avoid a ban. They'll dig up
> something.
They could suspend him for up to 6 months without endangering his
Tour possibilities. Any races he does before May don't count
anyways.
Shame they can't just dock him 10 minutes and be done with it.
Fred Flintstein
Fred Flintstein
After I sent that I remembered that 6 months is what Moninger got
under similar circumstances. He was positive for steroids and his
explanation was way less credible than the dope steak. So there
is even a precedent for it.
Fred Flintstein
Vagina Gorilla
> Fred Flintstein
Dumbass -Scott got a year and most people that know him and know the
story understand it was tainted supplements.
Fred Flintstein
Dumbass,
You did read that judgment, right? I mean, it's kind of
funny that you would use it to make your point.
I'll save you time. The statements in 2.2.1 through 2.2.3,
he's never explained those, has he?
If you know Scott, please ask him and report back.
Thanks,
Fred Flintstein
PS He made you look stupid, you might want to ask him
about that too.
Fred Flintstein
> On Oct 19, 11:17 pm, Fred Flintstein
> <bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 10/19/2010 5:33 PM, Vagina Gorilla wrote:
>>
>>>> Fred Flintstein
>>
>>> Dumbass -Scott got a year and most people that know him and know the
>>> story understand it was tainted supplements.
>>
>>
>> Dumbass,
>>
>> You did read that judgment, right? I mean, it's kind of
>> funny that you would use it to make your point.
>>
>> I'll save you time. The statements in 2.2.1 through 2.2.3,
>> he's never explained those, has he?
>>
>> If you know Scott, please ask him and report back.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Fred Flintstein
>>
>> PS He made you look stupid, you might want to ask him
>> about that too.
>
> bro. Basically said there was nothing in the unopened bottles, and
> the opened bottle had some unknown substances and metabolites. Maybe
> the metabolites came from recycled steroids? Cost saving measure, I'm
> sure.
>
> Maybe it's that time of the month for Vanilla Gorilla...
>
> R
I will admit to being more cynical than average. But I've reached
a state where dishonesty about doping bugs me more than the actual
offense. If 'most people that know him' are still buying into
supplement contamination... if one of my acquaintances was that
comfortable with lying to me I'd really have an issue with it.
Moninger is getting a lot of mileage out of that.
But he did get a year and not 6 months, I was in error about that.
Fred Flintstein
A. Dumas
> But he did get a year and not 6 months, I was in error about that.
It's the minimum possible ban for a doping positive but "no significant
fault."
Athletes who take supplements are dumb as fuck. How many times has it
been in the news that these pills are often tainted? Or sometimes,
whatever, you just don't take that risk.
If supplement pills work, they probably have steroids in them.
Fred Flintstein
> Fred Flintstein wrote:
>> But he did get a year and not 6 months, I was in error about that.
>
> It's the minimum possible ban for a doping positive but "no significant
> fault."
There is a discussion of this towards the end of the document.
The minimum would have been 6 months. They chose one year to
be consistent with judgments in similar cases, none of whom
got the max.
The circumstances that were discussed were, paraphrasing here,
that he was near the end of a long career where he had been
tested many times with no positives. Given that and his age it
was determined that two years would be excessive and out of
proportion with the offense.
In sections 5.5 and 5.6 they discuss his failure to establish
supplement contamination.
Fred Flintstein
raamman
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-puts-the-brakes-on-an-early-concl...
>
> Hard to see why the UCI needs more time. Failed A/B samples, no
> scientific backing for Contador's "dope steak" excuse, secondary
> evidence of transfusions. Exactly what additional "scientific
> evaluations" are needed, and what more does WADA need to provide the
> UCI?
>
> I'm still sticking to my prediction the UCI will find a way for
> Contador to keep his TdF title and avoid a ban. They'll dig up
> something.
>
> Brad Anders
it looks like they are waiting for the legal/"scientific" arguement
that will allow them to let the tour results stand and do nothing; it
only further enhances the injustice to Schleck
Brad Anders
IMO, it's likely Schleck was doing the same stuff as Contador, only
not as clumsily. I doubt there's much of an "injustice" in this case.
Brad Anders
Frederick the Great
<9de0b770-c122-4db4...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
raamman <raa...@gmail.com> wrote:
You mean that doper, Schleck?
--
Old Fritz
RicodJour
> In article raamman <raam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > it looks like they are waiting for the legal/"scientific" arguement
> > that will allow them to let the tour results stand and do nothing; it
> > only further enhances the injustice to Schleck
>
> You mean that doper, Schleck?
Which one - Schleck The Elder or Schleck The Younger?
R
Philip W. Moore, Jr.
"raamman" <raa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9de0b770-c122-4db4...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
____________________
I don't think that Schlepp has been done any injustice. Whining like a
pussy at the TdF is what he'll be remembered for.
Frederick the Great
<5f60d167-2d88-40b5...@x17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
RicodJour <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote:
I _think_ raamman speaks of Schleck The Younger doper
not Schleck The Elder doper; but I could be wrong.
--
Old Fritz
RicodJour
> RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 20, 8:59 pm, Frederick the Great <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > In article raamman <raam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > it looks like they are waiting for the legal/"scientific" arguement
> > > > that will allow them to let the tour results stand and do nothing; it
> > > > only further enhances the injustice to Schleck
>
> > > You mean that doper, Schleck?
>
> > Which one - Schleck The Elder or Schleck The Younger?
>
> I _think_ raamman speaks of Schleck The Younger doper
> not Schleck The Elder doper; but I could be wrong.
Okay, thanks for clarifying.
R