'Dale Posted November 10, 2012 Share I really don't know what people expected him to say, did they want him to call George a box and every other name under the sun ?Seems like that has become the South African way.I reckon he dealt with it really well. I think the 'public' wants greater accountability from the PROs.The undercurrent is: > KE, are you a doper too?> Did you know about DG?> Where's your future going?> Did you dope too?> Did you dope too? xak1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cippo Posted November 10, 2012 Share I think the 'public' wants greater accountability from the PROs.The undercurrent is: > KE, are you a doper too?> Did you know about DG?> Where's your future going?> Did you dope too?> Did you dope too? > So Tyler you doped right, you got caught. > Did Lance dope as well?> So Lance never tested positive, so he must have been pedalling the stuff to team.> cmon Tyler we need something to make book juicy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyatt Earp Posted November 10, 2012 Share I think the 'public' wants greater accountability from the PROs.The undercurrent is: > KE, are you a doper too?> Did you know about DG?> Where's your future going?> Did you dope too?> Did you dope too? Really has f-all to do with them.He was not the one who doped.I don't see people having to run a public inquiry just because their colleague embezzled money. The one who needs to answer questions is David George, but I guess all and sundry living in this little country of ours feels the world owes them a favour. jaxtun 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtbvip Posted November 10, 2012 Share > So Tyler you doped right, you got caught. > Did Lance dope as well?> So Lance never tested positive, so he must have been pedalling the stuff to team.> cmon Tyler we need something to make book juicy. Correction - Lance's blood sample tested positive for EPO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesme Posted November 10, 2012 Share hmmm ok here comes a can of worms. I'm not sure it's fair to go back and test peoples blood for a new test-able drug for a past race. At the time of race, there was a list of you're not allowed this, make sure you can test for every item on the list. Otherwise in 20 years they can test for something new, and now, how far do they go back and test peoples blood for the new substance, where do they draw the line. If they wanted to restrospective test Lances blood for EPO they after wards decided is illegal, then go further back, test more people for more test for even older races. G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Dale Posted November 10, 2012 Share Really has f-all to do with them.He was not the one who doped.I don't see people having to run a public inquiry just because their colleague embezzled money. The one who needs to answer questions is David George, but I guess all and sundry living in this little country of ours feels the world owes them a favour. A good question is what responsibility (in disclosing) is due to the fans and what is KE's private business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cippo Posted November 10, 2012 Share Correction - Lance's blood sample tested positive for EPO. No it allegedly tested positive and he paid $25000 + 100k from his sponsors to UCI to shut em up, sorry, to help with anti-doping. Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyatt Earp Posted November 10, 2012 Share A good question is what responsibility (in disclosing) is due to the fans and what is KE's private business. My opinion, and it's my view only, which will be different to the next guy.Your question above, when it comes to DG. everything is due, form Kevin's side, nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy Posted November 10, 2012 Share I'm not sure it's fair to go back and test peoples blood for a new test-able drug for a past race. And it is so wrong to convict rapists and murderers on the basis of DNA tests that did not exist when they committed their crimes. Afterall they wore gloves to hide their fingerints, why should they be tested rerospectivly when they had managed to get away with it at the time ? Where does this end if they can just come and take away the Rolex some thief thought he had got away with. ibruegge 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Luke. Posted November 10, 2012 Share No it allegedly tested positive and he paid $25000 + 100k from his sponsors to UCI to shut em up, sorry, to help with anti-doping. Lol. Nope the '99 samples were positive for EPO, many of them. http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden Regarding the Tour de Suisse sample mentioned in The Secret Race, this was not a new 'juicy' tidbit. It was merely a corroboration of what others had already alleged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesme Posted November 10, 2012 Share I 100% agree, but rape and murder has been rape and murder, and what defines it has not changed. same as cycling, cheating is cheating. but what defines cheating today and what it defined yesterday has changed, and i'm just saying because we realise today that product gives you an advantage over someone else should not allow us to define today it as a drug, now develop tests to proof that mr X used it in last weeks race, thus he was cheating. another analogy, allot of us is using 32GI, what says next week someone end proofing it gives us an advantage over someone not using it, so the USADA in their wisdom decides to define it as a drug, now 2 months from now they find a test to show who was using it, and then go and retrospectively proof that that race you did last year, you used 32GI and as such cheated. G And it is so wrong to convict rapists and murderers on the basis of DNA tests that did not exist when they committed their crimes. Afterall they wore gloves to hide their fingerints, why should they be tested rerospectivly when they had managed to get away with it at the time ? Where does this end if they can just come and take away the Rolex some thief thought he had got away with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Dale Posted November 10, 2012 Share Anyone posted this yet: Robbie interviewed on radio. http://www.bicycling.co.za/video/robbie-hunter-weighs-in-on-the-david-george-epo-scandal/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Luke. Posted November 10, 2012 Share another analogy, allot of us is using 32GI, what says next week someone end proofing it gives us an advantage over someone not using it, so the USADA in their wisdom decides to define it as a drug, now 2 months from now they find a test to show who was using it, and then go and retrospectively proof that that race you did last year, you used 32GI and as such cheated. G Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesme Posted November 10, 2012 Share I don't mind a interesting discussion, but quote the entire posting. I'm just saying, because we change the rules in 5 months from now, does not give us the right then to go back and apply those new rules to actions in the past. G Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted November 10, 2012 Share My opinion, and it's my view only, which will be different to the next guy.Your question above, when it comes to DG. everything is due, form Kevin's side, nothing.Agreed. Guilty by association is all;poor judgement in partner choice, maybe! poor judgement in loyalty to said partner IF KE KNEW, maybe!but otherwise, by association only, just like most of us with aparitionhate! Wyatt Earp 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor Buttox Posted November 10, 2012 Share I don't mind a interesting discussion, but quote the entire posting. I'm just saying, because we change the rules in 5 months from now, does not give us the right then to go back and apply those new rules to actions in the past. GYou just need to differentiate between synthetic chemicals not available in normal nutrition and those that are. EPO is naturally produced by the body but is not available in nutrition... most energy drinks, etc, have basic carbohydrates, vitamins, electrolytes that would be similarly obtained by eating a ton of apples/banana's/salt/water... it would just taste s**t anf make you physically ill during an event. In my view, anyone taking any synthetic drug not freely available in basic nutrition at any time, should be guilty at any future time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now