What I find disturbing is the Velonews article about this sanction states:
"The former Mercury rider was able to demonstrate that the 19-norandrosterone positive had resulted
from a contaminated food supplement, something which the panel was allowed to consider as a
mitigating circumstance. "
This is patently untrue. Section 5.6 of the ruling effectively refutes Scott's defense that the
supplements were the cause of his positive test. Again, in Section 5.9 of the arbitration breakdown,
it states: "...the panel is not satisfied that the changed supplement was the cause of the
analytical result..."
Until now I have viewed Velonews as an accurate source of cycling reporting; however their incorrect
reporting of this story brings their independence and veracity into question. While the Velonews
staff might have an affinity with Scott, this does not excuse them from reporting the story
truthfully.
I've long been a fan of Moninger (and continue to be) - but it appears like he was found doping fair
and square. I'm not saying he wasn't screwed by somebody - spiked water bottle? It's always a
possibility, but the food supplements weren't the source.
If somebody can point to any part in the ruling where it shows that the panel accepted Moninger's
assertion that a contaminated food supplement caused his positive test, I'd gladly retract this
diatribe. Otherwise Velonews should issue a clarification immediately.
Thanks, Ronde Chimp