Cycling Thread

[Knockout Ned]

I just read a thing that said Froomes only just finished a 6 month ban.

Never served a ban to my knowledge, certainly not since he emerged during last years Vuelta.

Do you have a link?

 

[OldGoldnBlack]

Yahoo Link

I'm seriously not questioning what youre saying, 'Contador later told reporters that he had suffered cramps on the final climb owing to dehydration. The 2008 Vuelta champion said he was not concerned about his form after losing ground to both Rodriguez and Froome on his first major race back since serving a six-month doping ban.'
thats a serious piece of mis reporting.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

It is Contador who is just back after the ban, not Froome - you are reading the sentence wrong.

 

[OldGoldnBlack]

ahh, ok, I have mis read this, its Contador I thikn?>

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Contador was actually banned for 2 years, but it was backdated to the time of his positive despite there being an eighteen-month wrangle over it, so Contador effectively served six months.

 

[Knockout Ned]

Contador was actually banned for 2 years, but it was backdated to the time of his positive despite there being an eighteen-month wrangle over it, so Contador effectively served six months.

Good to have him back though!

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Well, he certainly is an aggressive rider in the mountains so it makes for interesting racing. Personally, I wouldn't have backdated the ban so he served two years like every other positive test, but there you go, nothing I can do about that.

 

[Knockout Ned]

Without wanting to rake over old ground it was all a bit of a shambles.

Strict liability means he should have been prevented from racing full stop, until he could prove accidental ingestion or whatever.

 

[OldGoldnBlack]

In a sport that has always struggled with keeping up with modern advancements in chemicals I wouldve thought that penalties for doping would be strict and draconian

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

They normally are, but Contador was an odd case as the Spanish cycling authorities backed the rider against the UCI and WADA (as he is a massive sporting hero on a level with say Fernando Alonso in Spain). Hence it became a dog's breakfast.

Cycling keeps up with the modern advances pretty well now. Cyclists are tested more than any other sport.

As an aside when Operation Port came to light in 2006, all the cyclists involved were immediately banned and removed from the Tour. Operation Port was also involved with a lot of footballers, and not one was removed from the World Cup that was taking place at the same time.

 

[nimrod]

He's claiming the USADA do not have the jurisdiction to bring the charges, he'll be relying on the UCI to back him up and discredit any sanctions they apply. There will probably be another generous grass roots donation along the way.

The Vuelta is shaping up nicely, 3 very good climbers with plenty of mountains to come.

One thing I don't like - time bonuses for stage wins.

I think LA knew his goose would be cooked if he failed to stop the case and so he fought tooth and nail for that to happen. He used political friends, the UCI and even his charity to bring pressure to bear on USADA while at the same time running the "victim of a personal vendetta" argument through the press. To claim he's grown weary of it all after fighting that hard is absurd, but of course from this point onwards he's fighting for his legacy and public perception.

For him to claim this:
"At every turn, USADA has played the role of a bully, threatening everyone in its way and challenging the good faith of anyone who questions its motives or its methods, all at US taxpayers' expense"
is very ironic.

 

[nimrod]

They normally are, but Contador was an odd case as the Spanish cycling authorities backed the rider against the UCI and WADA (as he is a massive sporting hero on a level with say Fernando Alonso in Spain). Hence it became a dog's breakfast.

Cycling keeps up with the modern advances pretty well now. Cyclists are tested more than any other sport.

As an aside when Operation Port came to light in 2006, all the cyclists involved were immediately banned and removed from the Tour. Operation Port was also involved with a lot of footballers, and not one was removed from the World Cup that was taking place at the same time.

I could be wrong on the numbers but I thought it was something like 200 files of which around 40 were cyclists? I'd understood he had tennis players as clients as well as footballers.

 

[Knockout Ned]

Without knowing the correct hierarchy, as in I always thought UCI (world governing body for cycling) had ultimate power, the Spanish Cycling Federation accepted his reasons and cleared him to race.

UCI and WADA (world anti-doping association) appealed the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport leaving Contador free to compete pending the outcome of the appeal.

Unfortunately drug testing is far under-funded compared to production, they are effectively reactive to constantly evolving doping methods.

e2a, in response to OldGoldnBlack!

 

[OldGoldnBlack]

They normally are, but Contador was an odd case as the Spanish cycling authorities backed the rider against the UCI and WADA (as he is a massive sporting hero on a level with say Fernando Alonso in Spain). Hence it became a dog's breakfast.

Cycling keeps up with the modern advances pretty well now. Cyclists are tested more than any other sport.

As an aside when Operation Port came to light in 2006, all the cyclists involved were immediately banned and removed from the Tour. Operation Port was also involved with a lot of footballers, and not one was removed from the World Cup that was taking place at the same time.

Yeah, I realise that the Cycling Authorities works hard to clamp down on doping, a lot more than other sports. American Athletes have been politely asked to retire or be exposed, but allowed to keep all of their medals and records if they do. Yes, I'm pointing at you Florence.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

The problem is cycling is so tainted by it because drugs were so rife. In fact look at the first page of just about any cycling thread, and someone will pipe up about "why watch a load of drug factories pedal up a mountain".

I hope that the positive perception of British track cycling and indeed Wiggins and Team Sky might help to change perceptions over time, but it is a long road.

 

[victhegreek]

I hope that the positive perception of British track cycling and indeed Wiggins and Team Sky might help to change perceptions over time, but it is a long road.

After years of giving Armstrong the benefit of the doubt - I just feel that USADA have finally got together enough evidence and witnesses to make their charges stick. I think this is an admission by armstrong that his time is up.

I echo the thoughts above - it will take time - a long time to change peoples perceptions. To be fair to cycling no sport has made more effort in recent years to combat the drug problems.

 

[Donegal Wolf]

http://www.independent.ie/sport/oth...-to-help-me-pee-for-dope-control-3208997.html

http://www.independent.ie/sport/oth...-you-know-theres-something-wrong-3208305.html

Nicolas Roche is doing a diary on the tour, some good bits in them, this is last couple of days.

 

[t3ch]

I don't see it as an admission of guilt at all (and I don't even like the guy, I've never heard anyone say anything positive about him). Quite frankly they'd have to go so far down the list to find someone not already found guilty of doping there's no point in removing his medal. He's either clean and won against dopers, or is a doper and won against dopers. The witchunt that has been going on for years and specifically with Armstrong is ridiculous and oozes a sense of politics and bad blood.

What else would he have done, gone to court and defended himself yet again while giving more people the opportunity to openly slander him for months? There will be some truth in the proceedings but most if it would simply be an opportunity for people to take their shots at him, IMO. Why would he bother when he's already retired and can just get on with his life?

 

[Knockout Ned]

Have to agree to a point, stripping riders of titles only to hand them down to the next guy. By the time they've investigated everyone they'll be handed out yellow jerseys posthumously.

Part of me just wishes they'd draw a line under it all, acknowledge everyone was doping (which they were), move on and continue to build a cleaner sport.

And we'd all still be able to argue endlessly over whether he was clean or not.

 

[t3ch]

And we'd all still be able to argue endlessly over whether he was clean or not.

Argue it for the sake of argument? Absolutely.

Argue it to prove any relevant point for any conversation? Not in the least.