Ok Folks, I am BEGGING all of you who write into www.bobroll.com to ask about the doping procedure to read this VeloNews article by Bob Mionski. You will find the layman’s guide to the rules. The most interesting part I found was this:
“…when a B Sample has tested positive, the rider has not yet been proven to have violated the anti-doping rules; rather, the Anti-Doping Commission is alleging that the anti-doping rules have been violated. A violation of the Anti-Doping Rules is governed by the Strict Liability Rule, which does not require fault on the part of the rider to be proven; the presence of a prohibited substance is enough to establish a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules.”
EXCUSE ME? Do I have this right? Floyd has not yet been proven to have violated the rules but the ADC say that in theory the anti-doping policies have been broken? Did I read that correctly? Here’s my favorite part. Just because they found the substance the rules are broken? Game over? What? I think I need some DAs to help me decipher this one .. . Bill Harris, where the hell are you?
I am not a stupid girl. I’m actually very smart. Why don’t I understand this? I’ve read the article about 4 times and now I want some replies on this. You can comment to me because I am getting angry now and nobody needs an angry BK on their hands.
I DO understand that all the allegations that I have read about don’t add up. There’s something missing.. . plus I love that all the theories from people in the medical community to your average cyclist are rolling in. It’s killer. I may just have to start blogging the Floyd stuff so y’all can have an open forum on it. Would that be fun? I think it would.
In this entire TdayF I’m the one that was preaching for an All American podium and I want to see US Cycling succeed, but in all fairness, none of the info makes sense .. . kind of reminds me of another American TdayF winner . . .
Are the French just angry we keep winning their race? Is that the real question?
Here’s looking to some great comments. . .
bk
The unfortunate reality of this situation is that, once it’s all over:
1. Floyd will have been found guilty, he loses the yellow jersey, he’s banned from cycling for two years. No matter what evidence
2. Somewhere along the line, he will prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt (well, to everyone who doesn’t speak French, at least) that he’s been telling the truth after all.
3. He’ll most likely be reinstated in professional cycling. However, he will NOT get the 2006 yellow jersey back, and he’ll still go down as the only TdF winner to ever be stripped of his title. Oh yeah, it’ll be mentioned that he was found innocent, but way at the end, in small print.
4. A load of Frenchmen will be very happy. After seven years of slagging Lance, they finally won one! Now if those damned Americans would just go away completely. (see the article in the Saturday Wall Street Journal on the weekend after stage 17, essentially titled, “Why Americans are doing so well in a sport where they’re not particularly wanted.”
Syke
Deranged Few M/C
The unfortunate reality of this situation is that, once it’s all over:
1. Floyd will have been found guilty, will lose the yellow jersey, and be banned from cycling for two years. No matter what evidence he comes up with to the contrary.
2. Somewhere along the line, he will manage to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt (well, to everyone who doesn’t write for l’Equipe, at least) that he’s been telling the truth after all.
3. He’ll most likely be reinstated in professional cycling. However, he will NOT get the 2006 yellow jersey back, and he’ll still go down in history as the only TdF winner to ever be stripped of his title. Oh yeah, it’ll be mentioned that he was found innocent, but way at the end, in small print.
4. A lot of Frenchmen will be very happy. After seven years of slagging Lance, they finally won one! Now if those damned Americans would just go away completely. (see the article in the Saturday Wall Street Journal on the weekend after stage 17, essentially titled, “Why Americans are doing so well in a sport where they’re not particularly wanted.”
Syke
Deranged Few M/C
Well Mr. “Syke”,
Apparently you had a bowl of Negative Soup for dinner with a Bad Attitude sandwich. Wow! Are you a psychic reader? Do you Dionne Warwick? Maybe you work for Dick Pound. . .
Come on. . . where do you get this as the “reality” of the situation?
Lancey Pants couldn’t get nailed for doing nothing, why do you think Floyd is different? I’m just asking. . .honest question. I don’t think that the effects of testoterone vs. the actual test results make any sense. They don’t jive. That’s fact. You can’t screw with that.
Well, keep hating.
bk
Some of my first thoughts.
First, a CIR test showed that non-Landis testosterone was in his samples. That was performed after the first E-to-T ratio test came back positive.
So, how did synthetic testosterone get in his samples.
Options
1. Someone between collection and sending to second lab (Swiss) placed said drug in samples.
2. Both labs are working together to show a positive.
3. He cheated. Three main theories.
a. Used the patch too long
b. Put his on blood back in the night before 17. The blood used had said drug.
c. His lack of food in-take during 16 caused high levels of fat burn-off causing left over drugs to enter the blood stream again.
What I want to know.
1. Did any of the other Landis samples comeback as positive under the CIR test? Even if the E-to-T test comes back normal he could have a positive CIR test.
2. How quickly does the body remove extra testosterone? Is it hours, days, or weeks? If it is days or weeks, shouldn’t the other samples have come back positive?
Not to be down on cycling but if you answer these questions you should have a pretty could case for or against cheating.
Lastly, if the cyclist don’t trust the lab then why don’t they boycott the tour?