|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
What's the problem ?
"jc" wrote in message ... If I could ask one more question? Are there any other cases in which the winner of the Tour was disqualified afterwards? Not that I know of, but in 1988 Pedro Delgado was found to be using a masking agent (e.g. stuff that would make the real drugs undetectable in a control). It was banned by the IOC(or some other org?), but not by the UCI, so they couldn't do anything. It ended up on the UCI doping list a few weeks after the Tour... |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
What's the problem ?
On 31 Jul 2006 14:20:42 -0700, "gds" wrote:
RonSonic wrote: The rules you just posted said he had a week. So what's this talk about delaying tactic. If he's got a week, then he's got a week. Ron True, but I guess if it were me and I believed I was innocent I'd be demanding the B test ASAP. For me ASAP would be as soon as I could line up the heavyweights of biochemistry to observe and scrutinize. Ron |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
What's the problem ?
"Mark" a écrit dans le message de news: ... "saki" wrote in message ... Montesquiou wrote in : The U.S. business magazine Forbes is reporting that Landis' lawyer did in fact request a test for sample B: http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/...ap2916504.html Yes, but according to this the UCI requested it Sunday night in order to avoid the result getting delayed by vacation: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-23218,00.html OK. If the UCI asked it before, the game is over for Floyd, I am afraid. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
What's the problem ?
"jc" wrote in message ... benjo maso wrote: "jc" wrote in message ... benjo maso wrote: Perhaps 1904, when the Union Vélocipédique de France decided after four month of deliberation to disqualify the first four? Benjo Now, it's hardly fair to post a teaser like that. ;-) Will you tell the story? Please? Of course, in the first years there was hardly a serious supervision of the riders and most of them were immediately accused of fraud. They should covered many miles with the assistance of friendly car drivers, who motorpaced them, allowed them to have been used cars, to motorpace the, to allow them to clung to them or even to hide , which transported them used cars which pulled or motorpaced them, or even allowed them to hide in the cars. The should have taken short cuts, changed numbers with friendly riders to dodge checkpoints, etc., etc. In short: they had done about everthing - legal or not legal - to win. Tour director Desgranges knew quite well what was going on, but tried to hide it as much as possible. Unfortunately the UVF was incensed and investigated it as thouroughly as possible. The results was that the four main culprits were disqualified and suspended for several years (one of them even for life) with the result that the unknown, only 19 year old Henri Cornet was declared winner. Benjo Thanks! :-) If I could ask one more question? Are there any other cases in which the winner of the Tour was disqualified afterwards? No, never. Benjo |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
What's the problem ?
Montesquiou wrote in message ... )snip' Happy days ! The supreme authority was called "Union Vélocipédique de France " LOL ! Yes, I couldn´t resist writing the full name! Benjo |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
What's the problem ?
"benjo maso" a écrit dans le message de news: ... "jc" wrote in message ... benjo maso wrote: "jc" wrote in message ... benjo maso wrote: Perhaps 1904, when the Union Vélocipédique de France decided after four month of deliberation to disqualify the first four? Benjo Now, it's hardly fair to post a teaser like that. ;-) Will you tell the story? Please? Of course, in the first years there was hardly a serious supervision of the riders and most of them were immediately accused of fraud. They should covered many miles with the assistance of friendly car drivers, who motorpaced them, allowed them to have been used cars, to motorpace the, to allow them to clung to them or even to hide , which transported them used cars which pulled or motorpaced them, or even allowed them to hide in the cars. The should have taken short cuts, changed numbers with friendly riders to dodge checkpoints, etc., etc. In short: they had done about everthing - legal or not legal - to win. Tour director Desgranges knew quite well what was going on, but tried to hide it as much as possible. Unfortunately the UVF was incensed and investigated it as thouroughly as possible. The results was that the four main culprits were disqualified and suspended for several years (one of them even for life) with the result that the unknown, only 19 year old Henri Cornet was declared winner. Benjo Thanks! :-) If I could ask one more question? Are there any other cases in which the winner of the Tour was disqualified afterwards? No, never. Benjo Come on Benjo ; ) As I know my fellow citizen nor some Bourgogne, Ricard, Cognac doping case ? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
What's the problem ?
benjo maso wrote:
Montesquiou wrote in message ... )snip' Happy days ! The supreme authority was called "Union Vélocipédique de France " LOL ! Yes, I couldn´t resist writing the full name! Benjo LOL, it's all about the name! Thanks for the stories - I always enjoy reading them. j |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
What's the problem ?
Mark wrote: "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in message ink.net... "benjo maso" wrote in message ... If that's the case don't you think that they'd want to find a lab they trusted? I sure as hell wouldn't trust a lab that leaked the information on the A Sample. It's my guess that the sample was tampered with. If it's tampered, it doesn't matter which lab they use, it'll laways show up positive. But that's my guess, too. I think in 99.9% of all positive doping cases it was a tampered probe. We need to trust the athletes and if they say they are innocent then they are, period. That would save a lot of money on all the dope tests, too. We also need to extend that policy to the criminal system. I agree so completely. And think of the wonderful effect this would have on all the young riders. The idea that a little patch of T could mean eight minutes would forever be blown away from their young impressionable minds my the breeze of truth nNever to be seen or heard again. And the WADA witch will forever be locked away by the rays of sunlite justice. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
What's the problem ?
Mark wrote:
"saki" wrote in message ... Montesquiou wrote in : The U.S. business magazine Forbes is reporting that Landis' lawyer did in fact request a test for sample B: http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/...ap2916504.html Yes, but according to this the UCI requested it Sunday night in order to avoid the result getting delayed by vacation: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-23218,00.html If the lawyer wants to attack the reliability of the test, then stretching out the interval between the A and B samples tests is a good way to go. That's why in the Hamilton case, as it turned out, all the continuances were on Tyler's side. For those testosterone positives, most of the successful appeals have been on technicalities/procedural grounds. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
What's the problem ?
Montesquiou wrote in message ... "benjo maso" a écrit dans le message de news: ... "jc" wrote in message ... benjo maso wrote: "jc" wrote in message ... benjo maso wrote: Perhaps 1904, when the Union Vélocipédique de France decided after four month of deliberation to disqualify the first four? Benjo Now, it's hardly fair to post a teaser like that. ;-) Will you tell the story? Please? Of course, in the first years there was hardly a serious supervision of the riders and most of them were immediately accused of fraud. They should covered many miles with the assistance of friendly car drivers, who motorpaced them, allowed them to have been used cars, to motorpace the, to allow them to clung to them or even to hide , which transported them used cars which pulled or motorpaced them, or even allowed them to hide in the cars. The should have taken short cuts, changed numbers with friendly riders to dodge checkpoints, etc., etc. In short: they had done about everthing - legal or not legal - to win. Tour director Desgranges knew quite well what was going on, but tried to hide it as much as possible. Unfortunately the UVF was incensed and investigated it as thouroughly as possible. The results was that the four main culprits were disqualified and suspended for several years (one of them even for life) with the result that the unknown, only 19 year old Henri Cornet was declared winner. Benjo Thanks! :-) If I could ask one more question? Are there any other cases in which the winner of the Tour was disqualified afterwards? No, never. Benjo Come on Benjo ; ) As I know my fellow citizen nor some Bourgogne, Ricard, Cognac doping case ? ??? Benjo |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Chain Slip Problem cont'd.... | Mark Taylor | UK | 11 | June 20th 06 08:14 PM |
rsu mailing list problem (starting around 12:00 CST Dec 17) | Ken Fuchs | Unicycling | 0 | December 23rd 04 11:36 PM |
Ritchey Zero hub freewheel problem | Sasha | Techniques | 4 | November 29th 04 04:34 AM |
Ankle problem... | darchibald | Unicycling | 3 | May 8th 04 06:44 PM |
Fame at last! [warning: contains 5m*th] | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 308 | March 29th 04 12:00 AM |