|
News in July
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 17-07-2009 14:42
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Rin wrote:
Wasn´t Landaluze "caught" for doping in the Dauphine 2005 (which he won) and then was "innocent" for that?
Yes, Euskaltel won the Tour de Suisse and the Dauphiné in 2005, and both riders immediately tested positive. Landaluze got off on a technicality. |
| |
|
|
| schleck93 |
Posted on 17-07-2009 14:42
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3715
Joined: 04-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
schleck93 wrote:
Will this ruin my unexixsting illusion of Euskaltel being clean?
If it's inexistant, you can't ruin something that doesn't exist  . So, no.
Anyway, Aitor González, Iñigo Landaluze, Aketza Peña, Iñigo Landaluze again....it's not like it's the first positive from a Euskaltel rider.
Landaluze taken twice? didn't know. Besides their doctor used to work with Manolo Saiz, so isn't exactly surprising
BenBarnes wrote:
Thor wears a live rattlesnake as a condom.
|
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 17-07-2009 14:49
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
schleck93 wrote:
issoisso wrote:
schleck93 wrote:
Will this ruin my unexixsting illusion of Euskaltel being clean?
If it's inexistant, you can't ruin something that doesn't exist . So, no.
Anyway, Aitor González, Iñigo Landaluze, Aketza Peña, Iñigo Landaluze again....it's not like it's the first positive from a Euskaltel rider.
Landaluze taken twice? didn't know. Besides their doctor used to work with Manolo Saiz, so isn't exactly surprising
 |
| |
|
|
| schleck93 |
Posted on 17-07-2009 14:50
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3715
Joined: 04-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Isn't that? That is from the advent calender of fail!
BenBarnes wrote:
Thor wears a live rattlesnake as a condom.
|
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 17-07-2009 14:54
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
schleck93 wrote:
Isn't that? That is from the advent calender of fail!
Yep, thats the only reason I posted it, to remind Waghlon why he sucks so much |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 24-11-2024 08:05
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Waghlon |
Posted on 17-07-2009 14:55
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7694
Joined: 18-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Hey! Its Doddy's and CrueTrue's fault!
THE THOMAS VOECKLER PROPHET OF PCM DAILY
 |
| |
|
|
| doddy13 |
Posted on 17-07-2009 15:03
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7891
Joined: 04-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Waghlon wrote:
Hey! Its Doddy's and CrueTrue's fault!
wait.. why mine?
There's no point slapping a schleck - Sean Kelly on "Who needs a slap"
|
| |
|
|
| schleck93 |
Posted on 17-07-2009 15:04
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3715
Joined: 04-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
He says he was to lazy to open photoshop so you made the picture.
BenBarnes wrote:
Thor wears a live rattlesnake as a condom.
|
| |
|
|
| Waghlon |
Posted on 17-07-2009 15:09
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7694
Joined: 18-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Doddy enabled me in my failure
THE THOMAS VOECKLER PROPHET OF PCM DAILY
|
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 17-07-2009 15:11
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Waghlon wrote:
Doddy enabled me in my failure
So he's the Eichmann to your Hitler?
Damn, Godwin's Law again...... |
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 17-07-2009 15:34
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Back to topic. |
| |
|
|
| Arnout |
Posted on 17-07-2009 21:23
|
Under 23
Posts: 82
Joined: 03-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
schleck93 wrote:
Will this ruin my unexixsting illusion of Euskaltel being clean?
If it's inexistant, you can't ruin something that doesn't exist . So, no.
Anyway, Aitor González, Iñigo Landaluze, Aketza Peña, Iñigo Landaluze again....it's not like it's the first positive from a Euskaltel rider.
Aketza Pena got cleared of all doping accusions by the way, but I guess that was not picked up (obviously I guess...) by the media.
Anyway, Landaluze stated that his doping usage was individual and that the team or the Fundacion is not involved in any of his doping things. |
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 17-07-2009 21:26
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
He got cleared on a technicality - meaning that he did dope, but due to bad handling of his tests, he was let go. |
| |
|
|
| Arnout |
Posted on 17-07-2009 21:55
|
Under 23
Posts: 82
Joined: 03-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Yeah well, if you're gonna reason like that I've nothing to say. But if the CAS says there were "irregularities and defects" in the testing, what are the chances he was positive at all...? |
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 17-07-2009 21:57
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
What are the chances that nandrolone show up in your tests if you didn't take it? None. |
| |
|
|
| Arnout |
Posted on 17-07-2009 22:06
|
Under 23
Posts: 82
Joined: 03-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Depends on the testing. Nandrolone can be natural.
If the tests were defected and irregular, yes, than there is a chance that you didn't take it (anyway, nandrolone is as effective for a cyclist as let's say a piece of bread.
Besides, many sporters who tested positive on Nandrolone were later cleared (I name Rudsedski, Guardiola and there are more) and other cases were not very straightforward.
Finally, when we don't trust the court anymore, will there be a future for cycling? |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 17-07-2009 22:07
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Yup. It's the typical rider defense. That because the procedure wasn't followed to the letter, the drug appeared in the sample out of thin air.
If the sample was mishandled, the rider should be allowed to race, no doubt about it. But that doesn't change the fact he was guilty and got off on a technicality.
As for Landaluze saying he did it all alone, that's the only way he'll get a contract when/if he returns. |
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 17-07-2009 22:12
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
I do trust the court. I'm just saying that he did test positive, and that he only managed to avoid getting banned due to a technicality (like Landis tried), not because he didn't dope.
How do you expalin that nandrolone would show up in your tests if you didn't take it? Yes, there's the natural production, but it's so little that there's no chance in hell that you'll get a false positive based on the body's production. Handling a test bad won't make that nandrolone production higher.
Edit: And saying that the rider doesn't benefit from the drug is just plain wrong. An increased red cell production - how does that NOT benefit the rider?
Edited by CrueTrue on 17-07-2009 22:13
|
| |
|
|
| Arnout |
Posted on 17-07-2009 22:14
|
Under 23
Posts: 82
Joined: 03-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
Yup. It's the typical rider defense. That because the procedure wasn't followed to the letter, the drug appeared in the sample out of thin air.
If the sample was mishandled, the rider should be allowed to race, no doubt about it. But that doesn't change the fact he was guilty and got off on a technicality.
As for Landaluze saying he did it all alone, that's the only way he'll get a contract when/if he returns.
Oh yeah, lets accuse everyone when one rider takes doping (its already very special by the way that he confesses this quickly). Can't believe your behavior towards the riders, why do you watch cycling at all? Cannot believe you can enjoy a good attack because it is doping. You must be loving the current week of the Tour...
So when the court says the rider is positive the court is right, but when the court says the rider is not positive the court is wrong. Obvious I have to say.
You know, dopingtests are actually very basic. They just test if some substances are beyond a value. This can already happen with an illness or something. It is not that dopingtests are always right, especially not when the CAS says they are defective. |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 17-07-2009 22:23
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Arnout wrote:
Oh yeah, lets accuse everyone when one rider takes doping
That's not what I did, but if you want me to, sure. Let's. And let's eat churros too, while we're into saying we'll do random things that have nothing to do with the point 
Arnout wrote:
(its already very special by the way that he confesses this quickly).
"Very speacial"? Really? Are you going to argue that it's rare?
Arnout wrote:
Can't believe your behavior towards the riders
What behaviour would that be, exactly?
Arnout wrote:
, why do you watch cycling at all?
Because I love the sport. The season planning, the tactics, the racing. Remind me again what this has to do with the point.
Arnout wrote:
Cannot believe you can enjoy a good attack because it is doping. You must be loving the current week of the Tour...
Way to make wildly insane pseudo-deductions.
You fail logic forever.
Arnout wrote:
So when the court says the rider is positive the court is right, but when the court says the rider is not positive the court is wrong. Obvious I have to say.
You also fail understanding my post.
Arnout wrote:
You know, dopingtests are actually very basic. They just test if some substances are beyond a value.
Not at all. For most substances, they test the presence of it. In these cases, for example, the two riders tested positive for exogenous EPO, whose presence is indicated by the spectral analysis of urine samples having completely different bands from urine without exogenous EPO.
Arnout wrote:
This can already happen with an illness or something. It is not that dopingtests are always right, especially not when the CAS says they are defective.
And this goes against what I said, how exactly? |
| |
|
