Manzano: ‘Testosterone effects almost immediate'
- Thread starter whiteboytrash
- Start date
No, everyone who didn't believe Flyer had slanging matches with Flyer. He has now been banned from at least three forums that I know of, mainly for making physical threats and making claims about doping about people who post. As far as Tyler, I simply felt there were too many oddities in the situation to scream "guilty" with no further investigation.Dead Star said:
House said:
Actually the burden of proof has moved to the athlete - when the athlete tests positive.
I suggest that you acquaint yourself with the protocols before trying to **** off other members here.
Well, when a public figure is arrested for child molestation, the press, if it's doing its job, reports the facts and the public makes up its mind. The story usually runs front page. I don't see the press doing any different with Landis. There have been indicting columns to be sure, but columnist aren't journalists. The nature of column writing is to be opinionated. That's part of living in a democracy.wineandkeyz said:
My fear is, Landis' case will go the way of Hamilton's, where it drags on for years and turns into a joke. Talk about something being bad for cycling. It still amazes me that, despite the fact that Hamilton's case ran the entire course of judicial review ref. the sports federations involved, some poor lost souls out there still think of him as a victim. To them I say, tear down the Tugboat posters from the ceiling of your bedroom. It's over.
I'm afraid the same thing will happen with Landis, but I will excuse any Landis fan for not tearing down the posters on their bedroom ceilings of Landis' wife. Maybe, just cut Floyd out and PhotoShop Lance on top. Good luck with that project as I'm sure many will try.
House said:
Athletes have rights.
But if you read the protocols - when an athlete fails a dope test - the burden of proof moves to the athlete to establish his innocence.
It's in the protocols - you need to familiarise yourself with the protocols before trying to **** off other members here.
House said:
The protocols are quite clear : when the athlete fails a test, he is deemed guilty.
Until another sample result contradicts the initial positive result - the athlete continues to be treated as being guilty of a doping offence.
That is why the athlete is suspended from competition.
It's in the protocols - you need to familiarise yourself with the protocols before trying to **** off other members here.
Yes, I prefer say "he is guilty", he has failed the test. This is the fact, now if you prefer you can say "No proof", you can, we must just wait a few hours.House said:
Old times certainly, when they have doubts on tests,and with EPO test which is more difficult... and so, but now, all I have read, heard about from german, suisse, french experts on doping, they are all sure for THIS CASE!House said:
Deli said:
No.
If the athlete's A sample is positive - the athlete is deemed to be guilty and the burden of "proof of innocence" moves from the doping agency, to the athlete.
The athlete is suspended from competition until such time as the athlete can establish his innocence.
The taking of the B sample allows the athlete the opportunity to regain the presumption of innocence if the B sample contradicts the A sample result.
In other words the athlete is given a second chance to try to establish his innocence.
Interesting. On Thursday, Pat McQuaid said:limerickman said:
[size=-1]"At this point in time, Floyd Landis has to be given the presumption of innocence. If he is positive then I'm devastated, angry and annoyed. I will have to deal with the ramifications for the sport immediately.[/size] "
Looks like the UCI needs to decide exactly how they handle things like this.
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10594.0.html
Interestingly I was just perusing the UCI Anti-Doping rules and the closest thing it says to what you claim is that "a rider may accept the A sample analytical results and waive the B sample analysis" Chapter VII of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules. I guess the UCI disagreeing with will make no difference.limerickman said:
Looks like Landis hasn't requested the B-sample counter-analysis...
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10623.0.html
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10623.0.html
To clarify and Lim is right. When an A sample is positive the athlete is deemed guilty. The athlete, the team and the federation is informed and the athlete is suspended from competition. From this point the athlete can request that the B sample is tested or they can admit guilt. If the B sample is tested then the athlete is temporarily suspended until the result of the B sample is returned. If the B sample is also positive then the athlete is suspended for two years from competition and four years from the ProTour. If it’s a second offence then the athlete is suspended for life. The athlete can appeal the decision through his federation and then onto CAS if he/she chooses. If the B sample comes back negative then the test is deemed to be a “false positive” and then athlete can return to competition.
limerickman said:
Deli said:
The protocols are quite clear.
If the athlete's A sample is positive - the athlete is deemed to be guilty and the burden of "proof of innocence" moves from the doping agency, to the athlete.
The athlete is suspended from competition until such time as the athlete can establish his innocence (either through a different result in the B sample or by some other means).
An innocent athlete cannot be suspended.
All athletes guilty of failing their first test - are deemed guilty and are suspended until such time as that guilt can be purged.
