StevieL Posted July 3, 2014 Share "It's now up to the experts and the legal team to explain how this could've happened." ~ D.I. Uuuuh. No.Only one person needs to come clean and do the explaining. Respect. Lost. intern and Jocklaw 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOOK695 Posted July 3, 2014 Share What am I missing here. If Forensics takes a year to get prints matched, DNA done etc. the evidence will still stand - no? Surely the only issue could be storage and handling and I am sure that will be tested. SARS can nail you for years, why not doping agency?I am not questioning the outcome, but why were the results of A not followed up sooner? Let's just speculate for a moment: Daryl races the TdF, wins one or two stages, maybe even wears yellow again and only after the Tour it comes out, but wait, this guy had a positive result in February. More damage to cycling as a whole. If they want to clean up the sport, I really think that a positive result must be dealt with immediately. If he is guilty, he needs to face the consequences Joe! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TALUS Posted July 3, 2014 Share As I understand the athlete has the right to be present with the B sample thus some logistics involved. Also there was minimal delay between A and B here. Contador, Lance and others were stripped in retrospect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rouxtjie Posted July 3, 2014 Share As I understand the athlete has the right to be present with the B sample thus some logistics involved. Also there was minimal delay between A and B here. Contador, Lance and others were stripped in retrospect.yip...so SA's results and anything after is moertoe...maillot jaune will probably stay, but cheap now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TALUS Posted July 3, 2014 Share Nobody or institution is above scrutiny but it is a very typical reaction to focus on the system rather than on the real issue. Is he guilty - will be decided still but currently to the best of the system's knowledge YES. If so what is your feelings and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted July 3, 2014 Share I am not questioning the outcome, but why were the results of A not followed up sooner? Let's just speculate for a moment: Daryl races the TdF, wins one or two stages, maybe even wears yellow again and only after the Tour it comes out, but wait, this guy had a positive result in February. More damage to cycling as a whole. If they want to clean up the sport, I really think that a positive result must be dealt with immediately. If he is guilty, he needs to face the consequences The B sample is only tested if the athlete requested it. The timeframe - between Monday and Friday last week - is fairly quick in terms of of turnover. LOOK695 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbon29er Posted July 3, 2014 Share That's pretty much the avenue he has left. I got bust for drunken driving about 10 years back. The first thing a lawyer will do is look at the lab report to make sure if all the i's at dotted and the t's crossed. Think back to the Judge Motata trial. There were serious concerns raised about the lab's ability - temperatures at which the samples were handled, where they were stored, possibly kinks in chain of evidence, etc. Big difference between this and a criminal case is the onus of proof. In a criminal case the onus of proof rightly rests on the accuser. In a doping case the onus of proof rests on the accused. The protocol, as SwissVan points out at #317, is satisfied that the dope exists in his samples. It's now up to DI to explain. Attacking the lab to create doubt is not going to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted July 3, 2014 Share Big difference between this and a criminal case is the onus of proof. In a criminal case the onus of proof rightly rests on the accuser. In a doping case the onus of proof rests on the accused. The protocol, as SwissVan points out at #317, is satisfied that the dope exists in his samples. It's now up to DI to explain. Attacking the lab to create doubt is not going to help. Not necessarily so. If he could prove contamination, irregular testing and storage protocols, etc, he could possibly get off. Think back top the infamous EPO "positive" samples of LA's. Although they were part of a "research" project and no sanctions could be based on them, many experts dismissed the results of those tests for the above reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JA-Q001 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Didn't the comrades runner get off because of technicalities with testing, think it was last year or something, and I recall the same with some rugby players. (Too lazy to google) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted July 3, 2014 Share Didn't the comrades runner get off because of technicalities with testing, think it was last year or something, and I recall the same with some rugby players. (Too lazy to google) The rugger players got off because their supplements were found to be contaminated. Comrades runner Mamabolo got off because of testing irregularities. Andrew Steer 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Zone Posted July 3, 2014 Share So do we now know the reason why no mens Road team was selected for the Commonwealth games, looks like Sascoc got a heads up a month ago Jocklaw 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JA-Q001 Posted July 3, 2014 Share The rugger players got off because their supplements were found to be contaminated. Comrades runner Mamabolo got off because of testing irregularities. So not a good track record for our doping authorities, maybe setting up a president in court. Tumbleweed 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cippo Posted July 3, 2014 Share Man up and apologize. Vat jou pak soos 'n man. urbanroyal 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotSoBigBen Posted July 3, 2014 Share So not a good track record for our doping authorities, maybe setting up a president in court. Sorry but just as per the anecdotal evidence provided here i.e. 1 * testing irregularities and 1* their supplements contaminated (not a doping authority issue) where would the 'president' be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Li Mu Bai Posted July 3, 2014 Share Let's be fair, it is very plausible.I take medications and stuff at times and have no idea what might be in there that is a banned substance.Personally I will give that statement of his the benefit of the doubt.Um, that is no excuse. there is a long list of medicines on the banned items list, a simple find/search and cross reference of medicine names and you know if its ok or not. Those days of I didn't know are loooong gone... StevieL 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyatt Earp Posted July 3, 2014 Share Um, that is no excuse. there is a long list of medicines on the banned items list, a simple find/search and cross reference of medicine names and you know if its ok or not. Those days of I didn't know are loooong gone...Read what I said after this regarding the drug and it's usages and actions.I still give him he benefit if the doubt . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts