Doping

First puff is free...

Fist poof is free...

That's how they get you

I was finding that interesting, although there was a lot of assertions made that can be challenged, and then he quoted Ross Tucker. I lost interest then.

I think you’ll be weary of reading Shane Stokes’ op-ed on cyclingtips as well then

Life is too short to waste on Shane Stokes.

Ouch, a saddening read I thought. However if there are holes in the testing that don't hold up to legal scrutiny what can you actually do? I mean there are suggestions that Salbutamol go the way of caffeine.

Fist poof is free...

FFS man, have a word with yourself.

have a word with yourself

Can I have a word with my boyfriend first, to see if he thought it was either a: funny or b: brought back fond memories?

If that's what you think, then I'd say you have an unrealistic notion of salbutamol's utility as a doping agent.

You just have no idea what the salbutamolati are up to!

The UCI release more information about the Froome affair;

http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/response-public-comments-the-proceedings-involving-froome/

Dear Shane/Ross, fuck off, love UCI

That's a very comprehensive statement. They should have led with that.

God. Cycling must be the only sport best enjoyed with a Masters in Pharmacology. Bored now...

interesting comparison to Froome's case:

http://www.velonews.com/2018/07/news/cardoso-epo-case-highlights-inequalities-in-anti-doping-process_471394

If Cardoso gets off, it’ll be due to a technicality. He offers up no rational explanation as to how his A sample was positive for EPO.

The fact that he was tested in the evening suggests to me that he was micro dosing, the anti-doping authorities suspected this and purposefully target tested him.

Contaminated lab equipment? Improper procedure? By all accounts the A test wasn't independently witnessed as it should have been, but when the B sample was it's negative?

Apply the same spirit you approach Cardoso with to Froome... what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

What do you mean independently witnessed? The pissing or the testing? The lab techs aren't watched are they and it's anon? And if his pissing wasn't watched then it's only him putting EPO into the vial. I don't get it.

But you can't because rules.

Why would they push so hard to remove him from the sport?

Blood and piss samples. So is there not A and B for both? All four can't be inconclusive can they? That'd be unlikely.

"According to multiple reports from the appeal, the explanation given for this inconsistency is the potential degradation of EPO within the two samples. In simpler terms, Cardoso’s A test showed the presence of EPO, and by the time researchers tested Cardoso’s B sample, the EPO had dissipated."

Worth listening to the lance 'the move'.

Says you can't lawyer up and beat system 'I had more money and more lawyers and I couldn't, so that's not the reason'.

I read it as the sample testing process has to be independently verified to ensure that correct processes have been followed.

The collection of the sample I imagine would have already been verified by Cardoso and the testers.

The point the article made about this is that well, it can't be proven. That's the reason for having both A and B samples, they have to tell you the same thing, and other athletes in similar situations have been let off.

Meh. Like Cardoso said, the testers arrived outside the allotted Whereabouts system window-he didn't even have to submit a test at all, and if he was doping, he wouldn't have answered the door because they couldn't class it as a missed test anyway.

Yeah, it helps if I actually read the article before asking questions.

#igot99problemsbutbeinganoobshouldnotbeone