A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What's the problem ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 31st 06, 11:21 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Mark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default 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  
Old July 31st 06, 11:23 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
RonSonic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,658
Default 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  
Old July 31st 06, 11:26 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 31st 06, 11:28 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
benjo maso
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default 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  
Old July 31st 06, 11:31 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
benjo maso
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default 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  
Old July 31st 06, 11:43 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 31st 06, 11:47 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
jc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default 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  
Old July 31st 06, 11:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 75
Default 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  
Old July 31st 06, 11:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Stu Fleming
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 317
Default 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  
Old July 31st 06, 11:55 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
benjo maso
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.