Cardoso - 4 yrs on just an "A"? - VeloNation - Cycling Forums, Bicycle Forums, Community Forums

Forums Search

Cardoso - 4 yrs on just an "A"?

Last Post 11/23/2018 11:19 PM by 79 pmooney. 7 Replies.

Author

Messages

Posts:3180

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

Posts:1767

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

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

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.

Posts:3180

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

Posts:2881

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.

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.

Posts:3180

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.

Active Forums 4.1

NOT LICENSED FOR PRODUCTION USE
www.activemodules.com