Roberto Heras

[Jan]

So hope this is not true........


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/nov05/nov08news



Jan

 

[bin]

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:51:02 +0000, Jan wrote:

> So hope this is not true........
>
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/nov05/nov08news
>
>
>
> Jan

Oh dear... Here we go again. People are gonna shake their heads and shout
cheat. If Heras' test proves positive it means at worst he got caught.

I remember Cycling Weekly saying Boardman was the best Brit cyclist of all
time. And saying: "why not Simpson? We know _why_ don't we!" Well this
sort of moralising should be left to the tabloid press, not the... erm
Comic.

If you are to dismiss Simpson, Virenque, Pantani, Simoni, Miller, (maybe)
Armstrong and now Heras (and many others who got caught or admitted
doping) then you are gonna have to dismiss a whole lot more.

Calling a rider a cheat for getting caught is bollocks. Total bollocks!
Who are they cheating against? Not the ones that don't get caught for
sure. The ones who are cheating are the ones who break the rules and don't
get caught. The ones that get caught are only trying to cheat.

Bin

 

[Arthur Clune]

Jan wrote:

> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/nov05/nov08news

He rides for Manolo Saiz doesn't he?

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune

 

[soup]

Jan wrote:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/nov05/nov08news

What is the difference between non-negative and positive?


--
This post contains no hidden meanings, no implications and certainly no
hidden agendas so it should be taken at face value. The wrong words
may be used this is due to my limitations with the English language .

 

[soup]

soup wrote:
> Jan wrote:
> > http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/nov05/nov08news
>
> What is the difference between non-negative and positive?


That's a serious question BTW, not just me trying to be a smart ar**.
--
This post contains no hidden meanings, no implications and certainly no
hidden agendas so it should be taken at face value. The wrong words
may be used this is due to my limitations with the English language .

 

[David Martin]

soup wrote:
> Jan wrote:
> > http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/nov05/nov08news
>
> What is the difference between non-negative and positive?

Negative - clearly innocent. Ie the test conclusively shows no trace
(if it was there it would have been found)

Positive - the test clearly shows verifiable traces.

Non-negative - the test was not conclusive for any of a number of
reasons so cannot verify innocence nor assign guilt.

 

[Dan Gregory]

Jan wrote:
> So hope this is not true........
>
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/nov05/nov08news
Did you really beleive that Time Trial? Hardly the ride of a climber was
it? And isn't he an ex postie?
:-((
Dan Gregory

 

[soup]

David Martin wrote:
> soup wrote:
> > Jan wrote:
> > > http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/nov05/nov08news
> >
> > What is the difference between non-negative and positive?
>
> Negative - clearly innocent. Ie the test conclusively shows no trace
> (if it was there it would have been found)
>
> Positive - the test clearly shows verifiable traces.
>
> Non-negative - the test was not conclusive for any of a number of
> reasons so cannot verify innocence nor assign guilt.


So why not inconclusive or non-positive?
(again serious question, not me being an ...)
--
This post contains no hidden meanings, no implications and certainly no
hidden agendas so it should be taken at face value. The wrong words
may be used this is due to my limitations with the English language .

 

[Arthur Clune]

David Martin wrote:
>
> soup wrote:
>> Jan wrote:
>> > http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/nov05/nov08news
>>
>> What is the difference between non-negative and positive?
>
> Negative - clearly innocent. Ie the test conclusively shows no trace
> (if it was there it would have been found)
>
> Positive - the test clearly shows verifiable traces.
>
> Non-negative

- the first sample has tested positive but the second (B) sample has not
yet been tested.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune

 

[Tony Raven]

David Martin wrote:
> soup wrote:
>> Jan wrote:
>>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/nov05/nov08news
>> What is the difference between non-negative and positive?
>
> Negative - clearly innocent. Ie the test conclusively shows no trace
> (if it was there it would have been found)
>
> Positive - the test clearly shows verifiable traces.
>
> Non-negative - the test was not conclusive for any of a number of
> reasons so cannot verify innocence nor assign guilt.
>

No, non-negative means they have ruled out a negative result but have
not yet been able to verify whether the result was due to a positive
test or some other factor.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham