[Closed] Contador for a 1 year ban...

Rules are rules and UCI should enforce them or change them.
There are riders who don't dope - they don't win GTs, they don't get big contracts.

Don Simon your faith in the Spanish cycling authorities to go after their best asset is touching though I fear missplaced. They been trying as hard as contador to get out of this, and they have previous. They only booked Valverde after they were basically forced to do so.

It seems highly unlikely that Contador ingested clenbuterol from consuming beef as its not licensed to be used on animals for human consumption in Europe, in any case he would be more likely to be contaminated if he ate cattle liver that could cause lung problems anyway, so if he has been using clenbuterol then he is very foolish as it can cause serious health problems never mind the cheating.

Rules are rules and UCI should enforce them or change them.

Did he actually break the rules as he tested at levels significantly lower than UCI test for? And therefore is being found positive through incorrect testing? I may be wrong here though.

don simon, no the tests they previously used would not of found that concentration of the drug, but the UCI and WADA guidelines say that anything over 0% is illegal

Fair enough... 😆

ir12daveor
You've got to be kidding me! How naive are you? Have you read any of "Wiggo's" statements regarding Lance and Landis?

Was it not Wiggins calling for all testing data to be made public? doesn't sound like a doper to me.....

What about Lance going to his grave knowing that he was clean?

You've invented mind bleach?

Was it not Wiggins calling for all testing data to be made public? doesn't sound like a doper to me.....

Surely that can't be evidence of innocence either? Lance is [i]known[/i] to be guilty of doping yet has been able to stay ahead of the testers and not tested positive and here is Wiggins using the same argument. Is it not possible that a doper is so confident that the testing methods are so far behind the doping that the results can be posted. Dopers are not going to dope in the knowledge that they ar going to be caught. I am not accusing Wiggins of doping, just saying innocent until proven guilty. Lance is innocent until proven guilty, Landis has confessed his guilt, Contador is guilty, Wiggins is innocent, etc....

It is fairly pointless working down the peloton trying to decide when the clean riders start but it is a shame that from now on any great performances are more likely to attract suspicion rather than applause. I'd support life time bans as well, it's the only disincentive big enough to stop most younger riders (currently it's almost down to the level of take the risk and get a pro contract or ride clean and it's unlikely they'll get a contract unless they're exceptionally gifted). A talented sub 25-yr old rider can easily get over a 2 year ban and still have a career (it's not like teams aren't picking up past-banned riders).

And given the doping can lead to health issues and even death it's not an acceptable solution to just accept doping and say they're all doing it so it's a level playing field.

did wiggins ride really well in the tour one year, then change teams and ride less really well?

just saying like 😯

Surely that can't be evidence of innocence either?

I believe innocent until proven guilty, if guilty then a tougher punishment. One that will actully make the dopers stop and think.

Wiggins has always spoken against dopers in the past. He now sits on the fence more. Thats more likely to do with his media empire sponsor than anything else.

So you're comparing yourself to the fittest men in the world?

I think that if you took out dopers and shot them it still wouldn't put them all off, except posthumously.

There is a problem with the UCI being in charge of promoting the sport and policing it at the same time (and accepting large bribes, sorry I mean donations, from star riders)

Wiggins media empire sponsor won't be insisting that Kimmage sits on the fence next Sunday

I'd support life time bans as well, it's the only disincentive big enough to stop most younger riders

I agree, but there are numerous issues with this relating to false positives, genuine mistakes, ensuring all riders are tested with the same frequency (if you only test the top riders you leave the lower order open to doping), keeping up with the current doping advances etc. Also it wouldn't surprise me if the riders refused to ride at first.

Good point nostoc. Nothing I can add to your post.

Don Carlos Castaño will have made his decision based on the evidence and not hearsay and will support the rider as being innocent until proven guilty. He will not have risked his reputation as president on the short term gains that one cyclist would give him, even if that cyclist is Contador, there are other Spanish cyclists who could win the Tour

What grounds do you have for making this assertion?
I'll not bite on the sarcastic comments regarding my relationship, or lack thereof, with the RFEC, except to say I don't have one. Do you? You seem to consider yourself to be in a position to make authoritative statements about the conduct and moral fortitude of it's president.

By the way he was quoted as follows when the investigation was referred to the Spanish authorities:

"My hope is that this matter will be favourable to the sportsman,"
"I've known him since he was in the junior teams and I can't help but put myself in his position."

Doesn't sound very impartial to me. Looks like the most favourable outcome he thought he could get away with is a 1 year ban instead of 2.

I'll not bite on the sarcastic comments regarding my relationship, or lack thereof, with the RFEC, except to say I don't have one. [b]Do you?[/b] You seem to consider yourself to be in a position to make authoritative statements about the conduct and moral fortitude of it's president.

Anything to say about his statements to the press stating that he hopes to find in favour of the sportsman?

What else do you expect him to say, at a time before the official results have been released? He's a plolitician. It's also the RFEC that has banned him based on the evidence. I see no wrong doing on the part of the RFEC, but then again I might be a teensy weensy bit biased. 😉

100! In yer face Fred!!! 😉

I expect him to make an statement that they will fully investigate the case impartially and without bias toward an outcome either for or against the sportsman.

And do you think the outcome has been favourable to the sportsman?

Regardless of your fitness and if your one if the fittest (cycling) in the world, you can still have an off day!

Personally I don't think Andy S or Lance have ever doped, but thats my opinion. I didn't think Contador had cheated, but in doing so has tainted last years tour.

There will be debates till the cows come home over certain riders and doping. Personally I say clean until proven guilty. How many people last tour thought contador was doping!

As for Andy C improving alot on TTing. A year working on TTing is plenty to build on it. Contador wasn't built for it but he was still pretty dam fast. Peaople have a niave view on here, but eveyone is entitled to an opinion. Lets hope this years tour doesnt find out anymore doping riders!

And do you think the outcome has been favourable to the sportsman?

Yes. I think they have given him the minimum punishment they thought they could get away with politically.
Contador has presented an excuse that is theoretically possible but with no actual evidence to back it up, by rights he should be getting the standard 2 years.

Contador has presented an excuse that is theoretically possible but with no actual evidence to back it up, by rights he should be getting the standard 2 years.

I'm not sure that's how it works, the ban is given in accordance with the proven, committed crime, no? If there is no actual evidence to doping, he can't be banned for doping. And why not the minimum? Isn't that what most people try to do? Is see quite a lot of threads on here about people wanting to get out of paying parking fines or speeding tickets, of course Contador's lawyer was going to push for the lightest ban possible. Don't forget Alberto still has some time to appeal and CAS still has an opportunity to extend the ban, or are they part of the conspiracy?
You have your opinion and I have mine. 😆

Are you accusing him of consciously using or ingesting by accident? Is he foolish for using a product which could give him health problems? I agree, this would be foolish and probably unlikely. Or did he ingest accidently, which would comply with the story and contradict any deliberate doping allegation?
It is also a little naïve to think that there is no possibility of clem entering the food chain, especially here. Are all the UK farms that sell green top milk authorised? Or can you op down to your local farm and get a couple of pints of raw milk? Same difference between the official line and reality, no?

Not naive just being realistic, seeing as Contador has nutritionists and has a tightly controlled diet is highly unlikely that food (beef) is to blame, perhaps he used a drug that is some form of derivative of Clenbuterol designed to fool the doping control. Yes illegal meat does enter the food chain but I doubt his entourage or team would use a dodgy supplier. Perhap we are bein naive thinking Contador is clean like many other top names.

He [i]has[/i] been banned for doping. Strict liability means he is guilty, no ifs, no buts. His excuse is just mitigation.

I wouldn't expect Contador's lawyer to do anything other than push for a shorter ban. I wouldn't necessarily expect the federation to go along with it.

I'd be surprised if there wasn't an appeal to CAS from both Contador and WADA.

He has been banned for doping.

He's been banned for testing positive for a banned substance being present and not for illegally taking a banned substance to enhance his performance, there's a difference and therefore he's been banned in accordance.

No, there isn't a difference.
The offence is (from WADA):

2.1 The presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample

Strict liability is enforced. Intent is irrelevant in determining the offence committed.

They allow for mitigation:

However, the Athlete then has the possibility to avoid or reduce sanctions if the Athlete can demonstrate that he or she was not at fault or significant fault (Article 10.5 (Elimination or Reduction of Period of Ineligibility Based on Exceptional Circumstances)) or in certain circumstances did not intend to enhance his or her sport performance

So really it hinges on whether you believe Contador's excuse. He hasn't presented any real evidence that there ever was any tainted meat, and the burden of proof is on the athlete. I don't believe it. In my opinion he is bang to rights and should be punished accordingly.

edit: here's the [url= http://www.wada-ama.org/en/World-Anti-Doping-Program/Sports-and-Anti-Doping-Organizations/Model-Rules--Guidelines/Model-Rules/ ]WADA[/url]link for anyone who might want to have a poke around the rules.

Según los documentos aportados por la UCI, existen cuatro posibilidades de que el clembuterol puede hallarse en el organismo humano, pero no demuestra que haya sido debido a una práctica de dopaje, mientras que el corredor tampoco demuestra la procedencia de dicha sustancia.

Clearly not a doping offence. 😆

He has a banned substance in his system. What part of strict liability do people not understand. Contaminated beef FFS !

I do feel that people have been looking hard to find something though, given the amount found and the level of testing carried out by the lab that discovered it.

Agree with stuey..he has been given the minimum ban that the spanish auth's thought they could get away with , and this was after being told by WADA etc that they will not tolerate him avoiding a ban.

Look at the sheer number of spanish cyclists that have been done in the last 3 years. Its ridiculous. The spanish auth's are not bothered. The valverde case was laughable. Mosquera's performance in Vuelta was a joke.... too good to be true.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/garcia-sanctioned-proceedings-opened-for-sevilla

And for you Lance lovers....some bed time reading for you.

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

interesting if nothing else.

Ok folks, all the people pointing the finger at Lance being a doper, prove it, show me, I mean hard evidence, not heresay, hard factual evidence that would prove he has taken drugs.

Seriously, if you have the evidence front up and prove it.

I am not defending any rider but some of you should just subscribe to Hello and Ok magazine and go onto their forums.

Mosquera's performance in Vuelta was a joke.... too good to be true.

But Nibali's was better even up La Bola del Mundo so clearly he was doping too, . 🙄

Taking responsibility is what's happening now, which bit of the sentence fitting the crime do people not understand?

Which part of if there is no evidence don't people understand?

Hopefully I won't need to take an extra dose of ventolin or take an extra dose accidentally, I'd hate thought of having to explain that to some of you people.... Accidents can and do happen.

Tango Man - HIS URINE HAD RECOMBINANT EPO IN IT

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden <

Nibali is class.....mosquera isnt. I expect top performances from riders who are constantly at the top of GC's . Nibali is thought by many this year to have been the cyclist of the year. Finished 3rd in Giro with a weeks notice that he was riding (due to Pelizotti), won Vuelta , up there at Lombary and was super strong at worlds. Mosquera is shit in comparison.

Weren't Sky with their super strict stance on doping after him in the off season. Absolutely no indication at all that Nibali is a doper.

Lance lovers wont read that link ...

His doctor is a doper
His trainer is a doper
His teammates were dopers
The people he beat were dopers
His blood values indicated he doped
and when they analysed his piss it had dope in it.

but sure, innocent until proven guilty

and his performances suggest power outputs which point to oxygen uptakes in the realms of NeverWonderLand

What a waste of web space.
Why not ban everyone who artificially puts things that aren't natural into their bodies?
I can eat Carbos in silly proportions but thats OK
Whatever the whole thing is waste of time. Its not the drug takers that are spoiling the sport, its the f***ing press.

big jump from a loaf of bread to pharmaceutical products not readily available to most doctors let alone athletes

it's about trying to keep the playing field as level [i]as possible[/i]

mattsccm - Member
What a waste of web space.
Why not ban everyone who artificially puts things that aren't natural into their bodies?
I can eat Carbos in silly proportions but thats OK

No need to ban everyone as suggested , just ban the ones that fail in accordance with the extensive and precise list thats already out.

Bet Kolobnev is happy at missing out on standing on the podium at the Olympic RR due to cheating Rebellin.

Cheats ruin sport ....the press just report it.

Perhaps it isn’t the drug takers who are destroying the sport.
Armstrong was just a teenager when he was on the US junior squad and young athletes were being injected with cortisone and told it was vitamins. Ulrich was a product of the DDR doping system. Pantani was doped from the start (I haven’t read the book) Contador was trained by a doper from an early age. Maybe these people should have been protected, but you get abused people who become abusers and we don’t let them off because of it.

edited a bit

Lets say you are competing in a sport. You know everyone around you is doping but you yourself are clean. Then questions start getting raised in the media as to the methods of people that are beating you who you know are on the sauce. If you are truly innocent of doping you can be damn sure that you would want to blow things out of the water and clean up the sport. The only reason to keep your mouth shut is if you are doing the same thing and don't want to get too much attention.

The vast majority of the to 10 of the Tour for the last 15 years or more have all had serious questions raised against them. The testing procedure is a joke. You only need to hear from people like Kohl, Landis etc to know that the system doesn't work. Even today with quite a few positive tests it's quite often police raids that end up ending dopers careers or getting them banned (Basso, Ulrich etc.)

Anyone who thinks that more than a hand full of people in the current peleton are clean are being naive. The majority are juiced up more than the Tropicana factory. The methods with how they avoid tests are well documented. The average speeds haven't dropped from the time when we know the tour was being ridden by dopers like Vino, Lance, Landis, Lance, Pantani etc.

The rot comes from the powers that be in the sport who protect certain riders like Lance and throw the likes of Rassmussen to the wolves. Why can some riders get away scott free with doping, some serve a ban and come back with everything being forgiven (Millar, Basso) and some have their careers effectivly ended (Ulrich, Rassmussen).

In short I think "Wiggo's" silence speaks volumes. Him posting his blood tests doesn't mean anything. Landis posted his (which were indecently very similar to "Wiggo's") and we know he's a doper. So just because he says he's clean he must be? In that case Lance is as pure as the driven snow and I'm father christmas.

Some good points (not sure Ullrich ever got caught or admitted doping other than there was proof that he visted Fuentes an awful lot of times....either way he has been ruined as a result of that anyway).

Serious question then.... how many of the following do you think arent clean:

cavendish , hushovd , millar , evans , dan martin , ben swift , van de velde, farrer

I would like to think all of them but now wondering whether I am naive. Surely the htc / garmin / sky lads must be racing clean.

Didnt like Wiggo's recent comments but is it simply a case where he has hit the upper echelons of teh sport and doesnt want to ostracise himself.

Ir12 no drug would give you the performance playing field that you describe. There would be a lot more heart attacks etc if that was true across the board

Some good points (not sure Ullrich ever got caught or admitted doping other than there was proof that he visted Fuentes an awful lot of times....either way he has been ruined as a result of that anyway).

Serious question then.... how many of the following do you think arent clean:

cavendish , hushovd , millar , evans , dan martin , ben swift , van de velde, farrer

I would like to think all of them but now wondering whether I am naive. Surely the htc / garmin / sky lads must be racing clean.

Didnt like Wiggo's recent comments but is it simply a case where he has hit the upper echelons of teh sport and doesnt want to ostracise himself

As far as the riders who you listed and questioned their cleanliness. I'm not sure about a lot. I think if Hushovd and Cavendish are it's possibly different programmes to the likes of Armstrong/Schleck/Contador. They don't have to power up a mountain at mach 10. They possibly still use GH or anabolics but I'd have an easier time believing they might be clean than some others.

Evans, I'm not sure. There is a lot of talk about Aldo Sassi wanting to have clean athletes and Evans has never really matched the best in the mountains. Again I'd have an easier time believing he's clean but I wouldn't be surprised if there was questions raised either.

Millar... Mr. Poster boy for clean cycling who was happy enough to cheat until he got caught. Maybe he's clean now. But I don't believe his excuse of only having taken EPO the once at the world champs which he lost.

The others who knows?

It's not the doping that gets me. It's the lies and corruption at all levels of the sport. I wouldn't mind if doping was legal and everyone was tanked. What I hate is people like Lance being holier than though and then being so jacked up the ride Alpine passes like their bikes have a motor.

Ir12 no drug would give you the performance playing field that you describe. There would be a lot more heart attacks etc if that was true across the board

Heck in teams like T-Mobile and Postal/Discovery it was a full team mandated doping policy being controlled by team doctors. This stuff was known by people who did a little looking into it for a long time. What Landis said just confirmed what people suspected all along.

The average speeds haven't dropped from the time when we know the tour was being ridden by dopers like Vino, [s]Lance[/s], Landis, [s]Lance[/s], Pantani etc.

Fixed that for you on the grounds that nothing has ever been proved against Lance.

The rot comes from the powers that be in the sport who protect certain riders like Lance and throw the likes of Rassmussen to the wolves.

The problem is though that if LA had been conclusively proven to have doped, say about the time he was heading for his 6th TdF win, it would have brought down cycling. End of the Tour, end of pro-cycling. Rasmussen though is a nobody and can be thrown out without anybody really caring. LA though is bigger than cycling. You ask a non-cyclist to name a famous cyclist, 90% of the time the answer will be Lance Armstrong.

Fixed that for you on the grounds that nothing has ever been proved against Lance.

On top of that there is the whole issue of paying Hein Verbruggen off to make a positive in the 2002 tour to go away.

Mechanic finding doping products in his apartment in Spain.

Being involved in a US Olympic team that it seems has been involved with some sort of systematic doping.

I presume you did read this article.

Nearly all of the stories in this article I have heard from different sources in the past. The one about Caitlin being involved in covering up positive testosterone results makes me sick. He runs the drug testing programme for the supposedly clean Garmin team.

With the level of curroption at the moment maybe it will take "bringing cycling down" and starting fresh with a no tolerance attitude to doping... or totally legal doping. None of this in between rubbish where you scratch my back and we'll let it slide politics.

Tango Man - HIS URINE HAD RECOMBINANT EPO IN IT

These are the '99 samples that they re-tested in 2005, if I am correct, the ones they believe to belong to Lance Armstrong, as there was no way to positively link them to him

Try again

Tango - no =- positivity his and positively with epo in them. He has tried to make out there are irregularities in the testing and they are not his but read the link.

However as a retrospective test it has no liability attached and as there was no test for EPO at teh time then he is in the cleear from this legally.

read the link

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden <

cavendish , hushovd , millar , evans , dan martin , ben swift , van de velde, farrer

Hmm, good question.

I honestly think the young brits bought up by british cycling will be dope free. Cav has always been so anti doping in interviews I'd like he think he's clear, but who knows... The others, you can't say, hushovd, seems to have transitioned very smoothly from a sprinter into classics rider, suspicious? I don't know.

va der velde and farrer come from Garmin and they had a very strict anti doping stance, but you don't know if thats just for the press do you?

tango, you haven't read it have you

warton.....its a tricky question. Evans has always been good but always has a bad day and always looks like he is suffering. I would say he's clean. In fact , all of that list I would like to think are clean. As for Miller, dont like him but he had good season this year. Boonen is going the way of Hushovd .... becoming less of a sprinter and more of a pure classics rider. would expect a lot of french riders to be clean purely on the grounds that they no longer win anything and have a strict national fed.

Tango man - read the 'kin article (typical)

No sportsman trancends the sport to the point that they are untouchable. Sure, TDF enjoyed unprecendented popularity during Lance years(how many other races did lance win/ride since Cancer) and no doubt the UCI benefitted financially. Why kill the cash cow. No doubt payments to the UCI etc helped in their decision making. Lets not forget the French couldnt stand him, even in his pomp, and rumours were circulating as early as his 2nd tour win. I still cant believe people think he was clean.

Tango man ..........read the article.

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2005/sep/20/athletics.sport ]Read the article[/url]

If you are truly innocent of doping you can be damn sure that you would want to blow things out of the water and clean up the sport. The only reason to keep your mouth shut is if you are doing the same thing and don't want to get too much attention

I'd like to think most of the one day riders are clean, Cavendish for one struggles a lot at a times and relies on being dragged to the last 100m using as little energy as possible. Millar I don't really care about - he shouldn't still be cycling IMO (although granted when he was cheating it was knowing only a 2 year ban could be given so he shouldn't retrospectively be banned for life. Cancellara is a bit of a grey area, I really hope he's clean as I'm a big fan in the way he rides, but it's hard to see how he can be so dominant so often. It will be interesting if he's serious about wanting to go for a grand tour overall result and slims down etc.

you admit the samples were Armstrongs then?

(Armstrong himself admits this, I believe)

I honestly think the young brits bought up by british cycling will be dope free.

When they're young, maybe - but when they hit the top? The fact that there haven't been many Brit riders caught doping could be well be because there aren't many top Brit riders - arguing that we Brits are somehow less likely to dope than other nationalities is at best naive.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/search/label/Cycling

Some more reading for Tango Man and everyone else.

Gents, it is all good reading, but, if they were after him and had concrete evidence, then they would charge him, they have been after him for years, so why not charge him? Serious question, if the evidence you all point to is that concrete and proven then why haven't they charged him?

Can you not read?

However as a retrospective test it has no liability attached and as there was no test for EPO at the time then he is in the clear from this legally.

His time will come - I think this american investigation will get him.

TJ, I can read very well, they have the evidence to go after him, no matter what the "no liability attached" and it being a retrospective test, it would do less harm to go after him when they had the evidence than to allow him to carry on competing and tainting the sport even further

So I ask again, they have concrete evidence then they should charge him?

Doh - its concrete evidence that he took epo. Its not a criminal offence to take epo. Its was not against the rules to take it when he did as there was no test for it then. The breach of rules was to have a heamatocrit of higher than 50%

Why do you think the american investigation is going after him? They are looking for the evidence to charger him with criminal offenses

Why do you think the american investigation is going after him? They are looking for the evidence to charger him with criminal offenses

No doubt when that investigation fails it'll be because Nike is too powerful / his lawyers were better / whatever, still guilty. Just like when he was "too important" to be found cheating at the TdF.

The FDA will charge him and the bigger fish later in the year. They will finish putting evidence to grand jury to gain indictments and issue all the charges in one go.

Because the retrospective testing they did isn't permissible under the WADA rules so exactly how do they go about it? No law was broken, apart from the one the federal case hinges on, so apart from that case you can't bring him before a court either. So the on-going federal case is the first opportunity they've had to go after him properly and I personally hope they make it stick.

True, we don't really know what concrete evidence they have but they have investigative power way beyond that of sports governing bodies and drug testing agencies, and a conviction rate over 90%.

Given the vast weight of circumstantial evidence against Armstrong and co, it would be a very brave bet that they have no evidence.

Think Al Capone...

I think that Armstrong will be placed in a very difficult situation; he will either have to admit to naughtiness with PEDs, or argue against all the circumstantial evidence without being seen to lie to a Grand Jury.

Either way, I think his reputation will be examined in the cold light of day.

I think too, that he will always have his believers and they will see this as an unfair attack on a great athlete, but equally it may reveal that his feet, like the feet of so many others are made of clay.

I used to like him. I used to be blind to the use of drugs in cycling, I used to think they were great athletes.

One by one all the cyclists I admired have fallen from grace...

...and perhaps most depressing, Armstrong could have done so much to expose and clean up the sport, and be thought of as a real hero for doing so.

If Armstrong admits to naughtiness with PEDs he will be in trouble for perjury in the SCA trial, spending government money on PEDs etc.

its concrete evidence that he took epo. Its not a criminal offence to take epo. Its was not against the rules to take it when he did as there was no test for it then. The breach of rules was to have a heamatocrit of higher than 50%

So he played the game within the rules at that time?

If Armstrong admits to naughtiness with PEDs he will be in trouble for perjury in the SCA trial, spending government money on PEDs etc.

TBH: I don't think he'll get his just deserts. As someone said it will be like Al Capone, he'll get done for something they can make stick rather than for what he actually did. Probably get some sort of monetary fine and a reduced suspended sentence and be allowed to keep his name at least a little intact.

This is what happened to Ulrich in Germany. The cases were settled out of court with no "official" admission of guilt. He paid a fine and is now getting on with his life out of the spotlight.

The thing is that with legal PED's or with a total ban and no PED's being used at all things may well have played out exactly as they did anyway. It would just have been more transparent. Right now its stupid, everyone claims to be clean and it's a race to find the next product no-one knows about.

I just can't believe the amount of naivety that exists about what is going on in cycling. The UCI is complicit and until they get the doping apologists like McQuaid out of the UCI nothing will change.

Incidentally, this has bigger repercussions for sport in General. The man who apparently took the bribe to cover up Lances positive for EPO in the 2002 Tour of Switzerland is now serving on the IOC Committee. BTW: It's also a matter of public record that Lance and this gentleman are business partners. Conflict of Interests?

gravitysucks - Member

So he played the game within the rules at that time?

The problem is that retrospective testing has only been allowed in the last few years. He still broke the rules but because retrospective testing is not actually allowed for tests taken back then he can't be officially sanctioned for it. Even if it was allowed, the UCI would still find a way of protecting their golden boy cash cow.

Even if it was allowed, the UCI would still find a way of protecting their golden boy cash cow.

Yet, they will allow him to taint the sport retrospectively after he retires, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

If they have the evidence then he should be charged, full stop, they have done it with other athletes, so charge him, as everyone on here believes he is guilty then he should be charged, I mean, come on, there has to be evidence to prove he cheated or sidestepped the system, so if that is the case get him charged and do not allow him to destroy the sport even more....

Give it time tango man, as I said above, the FDA will not release indictments for criminal charges until they are ready to do them all, and they may have quite a list.
The UCI have proved themselves incapable of policing the sport and are an irrelevance.

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/9376630.stm ]Alberto's going to appeal.[/url] Curiouser and curiouser, innocent or LandisII?