Wednesday, December 19, 2007

E-sample positive, as expected

As expected, the Chatenay-Malabry lab in Paris today found Iban's E-sample positive again. Not that they had much choice, though... Anyway, the RFEC will still not do anything to suspend Iban, so that's good news. Further good news is that the lab in Gent, which found Iban's sample negative, has in fact closed the case, meaning the UCI had no right (again!) to re-test it. The case will probably now go to CAS, where Iban can be pretty sure he'll end up on the winning side. Though, this is going to drag on for a a while, so no decision is expected in the foreseeable future. Aupa Iban!

8 comments:

Bolsen3 said...

I'm 99% sure Iban was doped in the Tour 2007. I'm sad to say that, but one would have to be blind not to see that. An innocent rider would fight for the truth from day one, Iban has not done that AT ALL. And the fact that Iban probably has been doped for most of his career can not come as a surprise for anyone, just look at the guys he rode with back in the Tour 2003:

1. Armstrong (probably doped)
2. Ulle (doped)
3. Vino (doped)
4. Hamilton (doped)

6. Mayo

7. Basso (doped)

Cycling is changing, doping is no longer acceptable, and you WILL be busted at some point if you cheat!

Whether the UCI have the right to suspend Iban or not is an other question. They're as sure as I am that Iban was cheating, but they still have to follow the rules, for sure! They can be 99,999999% sure that he was doped, but that doesn't help, you have to be 100%. And as long as there is confusion about the B-sample, I guess Iban has the law on his side.

But the ASO and others will probably do everything they can to keep Iban out, and who can blame them, really? But I hope Iban will get out of this, and ride the big races in 2008! Why? I don't know, I guess everybody deserves a second chance, huh? Especially my favorite rider :-D But Iban, if you don't stop doing dope now, and realize the sport is changing, I will never ever forgive you again!

Arnout said...

Bolsen, 2003 was years ago. That's the first thing I say. And as I say with every cyclist, he is negative till its proven that he is positive. Nowadays its the other way around, and that is destroying this beautiful sport right now, and thats because of the media.

I think it is not to us to say if someone doped or not. It is to the laboratories, and if one says he's positive, and two say he isn't, what do I have to believe? The Paris one (a lab with a bad reputation), or the Ghent and Sydney one? I don't know, and thats why I go back to the "Someone is not doped till proven".

And what you say about Mayo and not fighting, I consider that as not true. From the first day he said he was innocent, also to his teamleader, and he asked for a B (but not for C,D and E) - sample, which is some fighting. In the media he was quiet at the beginning, but that's logical, because noone would believe him.

He and his laywer are saying for months already that they won't accept any result from the Paris lab. He is at war with the UCI, a big organisation. He boycotted them when they wanted to test again, because he was not there. I can go on and on with this facts.

And the UCI and ASO can do nothing when CAS says Mayo is innocent. Remember Valverde in Stuttgart, same case. They don't want him, but they can't forbid him to ride in the Tour!

Aupa Iban, keep fighting, I (and I suppose many others) are behind you!

Bolsen3 said...

Well you don't get an positive A-sample out of nothing, and when the Paris laboratory concludes that the B-sample is also positive, I have no problem accepting that! Don't forget that the sample was NOT negative in Ghent and Sidney, but it was inconclusive! Not the same thing. I have yet to find anywhere else, other than here and other Mayo-fansites, that the B-sample was negative in Ghent or Sidney. They got a result in Paris, and we will just have to wait and see if that is enough to judge Iban. I, of course, hope NOT, but I have no problem if the CAS goes against Iban, I don't believe in silly conspiracy theories...

But you all have to know thatIF Iban is cleared, it's because of a technicality not because anyone can prove that he didn't use EPO in Tour de France 2007.

I'm pretty sure Iban was in fact doped, and that's my opinion. Believe me, Iban will never be totally cleared, the evidences against him is too strong. He may be able to ride again, but everybody, except fans, will mistrust him for the rest of his career, sadly...

People will always close their eyes when it comes to their favorite riders. I just can't do that. My gut feeling tells my Iban was doped, it also tells me Armstrong was doped. That doesn't change the fact that you need good enough evidence to judge someone by the law... We'll have to see if the UCI has enough on Iban...

Anonymous said...

"Well you don't get an positive A-sample out of nothing"

If it were that simple, they would never have to test a b sample. False positives are a very real possibility in any analytic testing.

"Don't forget that the sample was NOT negative in Ghent and Sidney, but it was inconclusive!"

That begs the question: why was it inconclusive at these other two labs? Is the french lab the only one that knows how to do these tests? If so, why bother with the other labs, clearly the French lab is the only one the UCI trusts. Or is it that one lab's inconclusive is another lab's blatant positive? I think that this illustrates that there is a lot of subjectivity in interpreting tests.

lucybears said...

"Para la UCI sería quedar con el culo al aire que yo diese negativo"
http://click.cyclingfever.com/?jump=3/4780/1167822726-86

Magnus said...

"Not conclusive" or "not positive" is, in fact, the same as "negative". And the fact that the lab in Gent shelved the case tells a lot...

Bolsen3 said...

"If it were that simple, they would never have to test a b sample. False positives are a very real possibility in any analytic testing".

Not very often that happens. And WHEN it happens it's almost always possible to conclude WHY they got a wrong result. I don't believe that is the case here.

As I see it, the Paris lab found trace of EPO in both the A-sample and B-sample, witch (for most people) will lead till the conclusion that Iban Mayo had doping in his blood in the Tour. The big question now is: did the UCI have the right to test the B-sample 3 times? If not, well then they shouldn't have enough proof to suspend him. This is up to lawyers now, and I hope for the best...

"Not conclusive" or "not positive" is, in fact, the same as "negative".

Yeah, I know that, legally it's the same. In real life it means that they can't use the sample to proof anything. So to say that "the B-sample was negative" would be misleading because it's not really negative, it's useless. But in court it's the same as negative, yeah sure, but when we talk outside court "inconclusive" is more correct...

Now I said it before, and I'll say it again: I don't believe in childish conspiracy theories. I don't believe the UCI is out to get Iban more than any other riders. They've probably seen suspicious variation in Ibans bloop-samples, and therefor tested him more often, nothing wrong in that I think. It may be that their incompetent, at least in this case, but I don't believe that they have an agenda to get rid of Iban...

Well, I don't want to discuss this more now! I think Iban probably was doped, but as I said earlier on; if you're not 100% sure, you can't judge anyone. Let's hope for the best...

Bolsen3 said...

One more thing: I don't really care if he was doped or not, I just want to se him ride again in 2008 :-D

 

web site counter
ISP Internet Providers