November 18, 2024 Login  


Unanswered Active Topics Forums Search
Forums > Road > The Dark Side
Cardoso - 4 yrs on just an "A"?
Last Post 11/23/2018 11:19 PM by 79 pmooney. 7 Replies.
Printer Friendly
Sort:
PrevPrev NextNext
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
79pmooney

Posts:3189

--
11/23/2018 09:27 AM
https://www.velonews.com/2018/11/road/cardoso-to-fight-uci-ban-i-have-nothing-to-lose_481620

This bothers me a lot.  Cardoso may well have doped.  But if the B does't back up the A, you don't give him what basically amounts to a life time ban,  No, UCI should go to the lab and say "next time you need to do better".   (Better handling and storage of the B sample, better care running the tests of both, etc.)

If UCI really does know the A is correct, maybe they slap the rider on the hand and give him time already served.  I believe this is a year and a half at this point.  Plenty.  The rider's union should be pretty upset about this.

Ben
Dale

Posts:1767

--
11/23/2018 10:24 AM
Same puzzlement here. The B wasn't hot, the the ban?
Orange Crush

Posts:4499

--
11/23/2018 12:33 PM
Agree that if A and B produce different results, this should not amount to a ban, with caveat below.

UCI went the "atypical finding" route to pursue the A sample and impose a ban. Per WADA code, the "atypical finding" route requires UCI to pursue additional line(s) of evidence and produce a report (confidential). That evidence/report requirement is likely why this took so long. Whether the ban makes sense depends on what is in that report. Reads like the anti-doping tribunal was convinced; let's see what CAS has to say.

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2016-09-30_-_isti_final_january_2017.pdf
Orange Crush

Posts:4499

--
11/23/2018 03:13 PM
BTW - Ben, don't think the lab is at fault. Apparently the B-sample was deteriorated rendering the lab analysis unreliable. That likely comes down to the sample collector. And yes, (s)he should get a talking to.
79pmooney

Posts:3189

--
11/23/2018 06:25 PM
OC, OK, it's not the lab. Still, if the cops screw up, criminals before the judge go free Should be the same here.

Ben
longslowdistance

Posts:2886

--
11/23/2018 06:54 PM
Ben's smart and provacative post makes me ask:
Are you advocating the same standard of certainty as the US criminal system requires for conviction, "beyond a reasonable doubt"? If so, must all twelve jurors vote for conviction, or just 10 like in Oregon?
Should a technicality be enough to get an obvious doper off the hook? (No Miranda rights? Who cares if he's guilty: He's free!)
Or should it be the "preponderance of evidence' as in civil matters?
Or merely "she said" so he's guilty like in the likely soon to be outgoing Title 9 regs from the prior administration (and portions of the major media)?

Just my opinion, but I'll bet that a lot of doping is still going on, just low level, not 20 year olds dying of cardiac arrest in their sleep. Yes it's better now, but I can still smell that smell. Skybots, etc. etc.

Complicated stuff, this doping surveillance and punishment.
Orange Crush

Posts:4499

--
11/23/2018 09:16 PM
Posted By 79 pmooney on 11/23/2018 06:25 PM
OC, OK, it's not the lab. Still, if the cops screw up, criminals before the judge go free Should be the same here.

Ben


Not if they've been able to identify a separate line of evidence. Which is the route they apparently took. Same as in regular world. One line of evidence may be inadmissible but that doesn't prevent a separate line of evidence to be pursued.
79pmooney

Posts:3189

--
11/23/2018 11:19 PM
lsd, I fully believe you are right about many riders going on small levels of stuff. But ... the requirement for B samples that can be tested at the rider's requested was/is as I understand it, protection for the riders against false positives. Mishandling the evidence, then telling the rider that the B sample test is being tossed is something a good rider's union should get very bent out of shape about.

I still say, let Cardoso go and reprimand severely whoever is at fault on the evidence handling (unless UCI has self-sufficient evidence completely apart from this testing). Yes, I want a more ethical and cleaner ridership. But going to unethical measures to get there, no.
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Forums > Road > The Dark Side
Active Forums 4.1
NOT LICENSED FOR PRODUCTION USE
www.activemodules.com

Latest Forum Posts
2024 Tour de France Femmes posted in Professional Racing
cruuuuuunch posted in Gear Advice
Zwift posted in Road Cycling
TDF 2024 posted in Professional Racing
Flanders (and Roubaix) posted in Professional Racing
Anyone have fun bike projects going? posted in The Coffee Shop
so quiet posted in The Coffee Shop
No articles match criteria.
  Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy  Copyright 2008-2013 by VeloNation LLC