What if...
Iban's B-sample has been messed up and leaves the laboratory with no clear answer on whether Iban has doped or not? I don't know what I would do then; if Iban "got away" on a technicality. That would not be a likeable situation for any of us I think. Though, as the days go by, I'm getting more and more worried that that might indeed be the case. Why else would this be taking so long? I can't see another reason to be frank, except for the possibility that it was negative and they decided to re-test it of course. But how many times have that happened? I've never heard of it, but I guess it's an imaginable scenario. A word or two from Iban would be nice though, that might just clear things up a little. But I assume he's got his reasons for not speaking to the public, so we've just got to respect that. But, as ever, I think a Monday would be a likely day to unveil the result, so tune in tomorrow for more news, or not, on the case...
9 comments:
I too think that is the reason for why it's taking so long. To be honest, I wouldn't really care, if it means that I can see Iban riding in the mountains again. If they can't prove that Iban was doped in the Tour, then fine by me! But I don't know if you can judge someone with only a positive A-sample. Do they really need a positive B-sample? Anyone who knows?
If the rider has requested a re-testing, as is the case with Iban, then a positive A-sample is not enough. They cannot suspend a rider without the B-sample, unless he admits it of course.
what Bolsen3 is trying to explain is that how could A-sample turn out positive? SOMETHING must be wrong if it turned out positive. Iban must have done something, taken something. Even if B-Sample is negative, why should we trust this and not b-sample? Damn
Ok, that is good to know, Magnus!
And anonymous, that wasn't really what I was trying to say, but you're right, I also think something is wrong, he probably was doped. But as long as nobody can prove his guilt (if that is the case), I don't have any problem with it. It would be a little the same thing as with Armstrong. So many things points towards the fact that Armstrong cheated, but yet no one has proven it. And as long as there's not good enough proofs to suspend a rider, there's not enough proof for me to judge them (same thing with Rasmussen, Valverde, Contador and so on)
Yeah, i think they have somehow contaminated up the sample, or possibly lost it, and now they are wondering what to do.
To anonymous:
I would like to make a comment. NO analysis method is 100% secure, that is why there is a B-sample possibility, to prove that the first analysis was good.
And yes, a sample can become positive even if the cyclist haven't take anything. The analysis can go wrong. An analysis is chemistry not mathematics.
It have been before positive test in the A-sample that turn out to be negative in the B-sample.
When Tyler Hamilton won the Olympic gold in the time trial, his A sample was postive, but they made a mistake in handling the B sample. I think they froze it when they shouldn't have. That invalidated the test and he was allowed to keep the gold medal.
Even though he also tested positive in the Vuelta, for which he was suspended, he is still considered Olympic champ.
Everybody knows Tyler doped, though. Also, he's an ass.
As far as Iban's test...time will tell. Aupa! Animo!
Keep hope alive!
Every monday the same :D
You can't do anything about it though Magnus. Its the UCI or the ASO or whatever organisation which is fucking us up.
This is getting a bit ridiculous and is well beyond what one would consider a reasonable turn-around time. Time, of course, breeds conspiratorial thoughts, and I can't help but think that the B sample came back negative or ruined and that they are just holding up the announcement to prevent him from appearing at the Worlds as punishment.
Post a Comment