2014 Tour de France will start in Yorkshire and come to Sheffield

[tonkatoy 10]

The unmasking of Lance Armstrong was the best thing to happen to cycling, he is being rightly being taken to pieces, which hopefully with act as a warning to future cheats, so no bite from me there.

 

Oh, who am I fan fanboy towards?

 

So this endless list of cyclists who are getting banned for doping violations are just a figment of our imagination. It seems to me that you watch a race. You see them declare a winner but then a few years later they disqualify the winner over doping irregularities and declare someon else the winner unless they too have had a doping violation in the meantime.

 

OK. I've got that.

 

So who do you think will win the Tour de France next week, and who do you think will be 2014 Tour de France winner in the history books come 2020?

[gimp27 10]

The unmasking of Lance Armstrong was the best thing to happen to cycling, he is being rightly being taken to pieces, which hopefully with act as a warning to future cheats, so no bite from me there.

 

Oh, who am I fan fanboy towards?

 

---------- Post added 19-07-2014 at 12:50 ----------

 

 

Are you asking me to defend an argument that you've put forward yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

You see may well have cheated without resorting to taking drugs, and because of this they've banned him.

 

What?? Ive just explained to you that his prescription would have been eliminated, without any discrepancy. Are you defending him? Im not, he hasnt told the full story....

[tonkatoy 10]

 

Where? I cannot find any reference to failed drugs test.

 

So you claim a doping violation isn't a drugs test?:huh:

 

I suppose you could dress up any drugs violation with fancy words. It doesn't alter the facts that another cyclist has been banned, his results declared void and this image that you want to create of a clean sport in total tatters.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

So this endless list of cyclists who are getting banned for doping violations are just a figment of our imagination. It seems to me that you watch a race. You see them declare a winner but then a few years later they disqualify the winner over doping irregularities and declare someon else the winner unless they too have had a doping violation in the meantime.

 

I don't think you quite understood what I meant when I said that what's happening to Armstrong hopefully will be a warning to future cheats.

 

Look up the definition of 'future'.

 

OK. I've got that.

 

So who do you think will win the Tour de France next week, and who do you think will be 2014 Tour de France winner in the history books come 2020?

 

So I get it now.

 

Now you've realised that you were wrong and that Jonathan Tiernan-Locke didn't actually fail a drugs test this has turned into an attack on cycling per se.

 

My position is, I love cycling, like watching cycling, I hate cheats. So I believe that people like Armstrong has everything coming to him.

 

Is that clear enough for you.

 

---------- Post added 19-07-2014 at 13:00 ----------

 

So you claim a doping violation isn't a drugs test?:huh:

 

I suppose you could dress up any drugs violation with fancy words. It doesn't alter the facts that another cyclist has been banned, his results declared void and this image that you want to create of a clean sport in total tatters.

 

Yes!

 

Cyclists cheat without taking banned drugs you know, and maybe this is what he was banned for!

 

---------- Post added 19-07-2014 at 13:02 ----------

 

What?? Ive just explained to you that his prescription would have been eliminated, without any discrepancy. Are you defending him? Im not, he hasnt told the full story....

 

I'm guessing that he'd been done for blood doping rather then taking any banned drug.

 

As to my position about defending him, nope. If he can't explain any changes to his blood chemistry satisfactory beyond reasonable doubt to the UCI get him banned.

Edited July 19, 2014 by JFKvsNixon

[999tigger 10]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/28354686

 

Perhaps you can clarify it better than the BBC, because it seems the BBC don't understand this flim flam either..

 

 

Team Sky's Jonathan Tiernan-Locke gets two-year doping ban

 

British rider Jonathan Tiernan-Locke has been banned for two years and stripped of his 2012 Tour of Britain title for an anti-doping violation.

 

Because theres a difference between an anti doping violation and actually doping. The details of which JFK pointed out but went over your head. Ive no real interest in whether he was guilty or not, just pointing out you failed to recognise the distinction.

[gimp27 10]

Because theres a difference between an anti doping violation and actually doping. The details of which JFK pointed out but went over your head. Ive no real interest in whether he was guilty or not, just pointing out you failed to recognise the distinction.

 

Surely the word doping is enough.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Surely the word doping is enough.

 

Well no, because the biological passport isn't a black or white, you failed or passed issue. It's more about different shades of grey. I'm sure that innocent cyclists may well be caught up and banned, but it is the only way forward for cycling.

 

For example one way that cyclists used to cheat was to train really hard at altitude over a prolonged period of time so their body produced more oxygen carrying red blood cells. They'd then have that blood taken put of them and put in storage, then during a race they'd have that blood transfused. Giving the cyclist an advantage because they'd have more red blood cells to carry oxygen around their body.

 

No drugs would be given so no drugs would be detected, but the cyclist blood chemistry would change. So each cyclist now has a "passport" of what their blood chemistry norms are, if their blood tests results go outside of this and they cannot explain it beyond reasonable doubt they are banned.

Edited July 19, 2014 by JFKvsNixon

[tonkatoy 10]

Surely the word doping is enough.

 

Not for a pedant it isn't.

 

---------- Post added 19-07-2014 at 13:31 ----------

 

Because theres a difference between an anti doping violation and actually doping. The details of which JFK pointed out but went over your head. Ive no real interest in whether he was guilty or not, just pointing out you failed to recognise the distinction.

 

I don't think anything went over my head. We have a case of someone banned for doping violations. He is banned from his profession for 2 years. His wins have been overturned. The sport have decided to prevent this guy making a living for 2 years. They don't do that for nothing.

Now if you guys want to dress it up and split hairs over the wording that's up to you. The world has seen another cycling doping violation followed by a ban. The perception given is a sport that is far from clean no matter how you would like to dress it up. Perhaps that went over your head.

Edited July 19, 2014 by tonkatoy

[999tigger 10]

Surely the word doping is enough.

 

If you want to be clumsy and inaccurate, then sure. JFK gave more detail, which Tonka appears to be unable to get his head around. As I said an anti doping offence is what it is, but it doesnt necessarily mean he was doping. It's an important distinction, but carry on.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Not for a pedant it isn't.

 

---------- Post added 19-07-2014 at 13:31 ----------

 

 

I don't think anything went over my head. We have a case of someone banned for doping violations. He is banned from his profession for 2 years. His wins have been overturned. The sport have decided to prevent this guy making a living for 2 years. They don't do that for nothing.

Now if you guys want to dress it up and split hairs over the wording that's up to you. The world has seen another cycling doping violation followed by a ban. The perception given is a sport that is far from clean no matter how you would like to dress it up. Perhaps that went over your head.

 

I was trying to point out the ins and outs of the new testing regime in cycling, by highlighting that you were in fact wrong, and the cyclist in question hasn't failed any drugs test and how hopefully it'll lead to more confidence within the sport.

 

You were not interested in what I was said, and took it as a personal attack against you, which is ironic when you consider that you used this latest incident to attack the sport.

[tonkatoy 10]

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/fda-rules-that-your-blood-is-a-drug-and-interstate-commerce-too/

[JFKvsNixon 11]

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/fda-rules-that-your-blood-is-a-drug-and-interstate-commerce-too/

 

Care to comment upon your link?