Komentarze do Newsów


#1331

Pewnie w ramach promocji może pójdzie w ucieczkę. Na PR niekoniecznie musi to oznaczać zjedzenie 100km przed meta i dnf, może się dowieźć do mety w top50 a i w grupce łatwiej przeżyć niż szalonym peletonie w Arenbergu.


#1332

Tylko w tempie ucieczki to przejedzie moze 5 km, po kolejnych 5 minie go peleton


#1333

Bez przesady, sam wypowiadał się, że mimo ukończenia kariery nadal trzyma dyscyplinę i jeździ rocznie rowerem po 15-20 tyś km oraz dba o dietę, także nie sądzę by z takim przebiegiem + doświadczeniem i większymi możliwościami sprzętowymi, dzieliła go aż taka przepaść. Ciekawe jak z tym paszportem biologicznym — jaka jest procedura. Robią badania i z dnia na dzień jest już w systemie ? Sam jednak nie mam pojęcia, na co go tak naprawdę stać, jeśli siły pozwolą, to najrozsądniejsza byłaby ucieczka, trzeba byłoby poszukać gdzie i z jakimi wynikami się ściga,może Leo coś wyszpera na włoskich forach :wink:


#1334

Na włoskich forach tylko skeptycyzm: “trzeba wspierać młodych kolarzy, nie zabrać od nich miejsca startowego”.

Z czego zrozumiałem on trzyma się w formie, ale nie ściga się. Raz ścigał się we Węgrzech w wyścigu amatorskim - jakiś Visegrad V4? Szkoda, że nie w Sobótce :wink: - i wynik był nie najlepszy. Tam właśnie ktoś mu wrzucił pomysł, żeby wystartować w Roubaix. W ostatnich latach on prowadził grupy amatorów na wiosenne klasyki, więc pewnie ciągle trzymał jakiś kontakt z brukiem.

Na pewno będzie dokument na temat jego przygotowań i jego wyścigu: jeśli nie w wyścigu zawodowców, to dzień wcześniej jako amator. On jest przekonany, że gdyby trenował 5 miesięcy ostro i z planem byłby w stanie ukończyć wyścig dobrze, ale oczywiście nie będzie w walce o wysokie lokaty.


#1335

KAZDE ukonczenie Roubaix , jest dobrym ukonczeniem wyscigu :wink:


#1336

Do pierwszych bruków może i dojedzie w peletonie, kto wie.


#1337

Nie no w peletonie do pierwszych bruków to chyba większość amatorów-“zawodowców” by się utrzymała


#1338

Według Gazzetty to Dimension Data jest najbardziej zainteresowaną Tafim drużyną, w celach marketingowych i charytatywnych. A serwis sporza.be ma taką ankietę: https://sporza.be/nl/2018/11/08/ploeg-tafi-parijs-roubaix/


#1339

i o to chyba w tej całej akcji chodziło- nieważne czy on wogóle wystartuje a jeśli nawet wystartuje, to czy dojedzie do mety czy nie.
od paru tygodni media wałkują temat…


#1340

Nie podoba mi się ten pomysł. Pierwszy krok w kierunku freak fightów jak w MMA. Zaraz ktoś wymyśli, żeby Vino pojechał w Astanie w TTT, potem Cipo pościga się w Hammer series a na końcu Eddy wjedzie z peletonem na jakąś znaną górkę w 50 lat po swoim zwycięstwie. Zostawmy takie eventy na płatne kryteria a zawodowy peleton niech pozostanie zawodowym.


#1341

A ja wolę taką akcję - w wyścigu gdzie i tak niektóre drużyny i zawodnicy startują tylko dlatego, że muszą - niż jakieś Hammer Series. To dopiero zło!


#1342

Ciekawe, jak mu pójdzie bez EPO.


#1343

chyba nie jak idzie gaz na początku kiedy są ataki i jedzie sie koło 50/60 km/h peleton jest naciągnięty to myślę ze ciężko było by się lepszemu amatorowi utrzymać mimo wszystko trzeba prezentować wysoki poziom nawet na płaskim terenie


#1344

Mi się to kojarzy z popularnymi w ostatnich latach w F1 tzw. pay driverami :slight_smile:


#1345

“To Gaviria jest jednak gwarancją na to, że będziemy finiszować po zwycięstwa, a nie czwarte, czy piąte lokaty.”

no ładnie mu, za przeproszeniem, przysrał


#1346

Na takim poziomie wypisywanie takich rzeczy, oby ten norweg pokazał na co go stać


#1347

Temat “doping” został zamknięty, więc ja tu jeszcze o A.Cardoso.

Dla przypomnienia artykuł:

Teraz z kolei czytam, że wynik tej próbki B, którą rzekomo tak długo analizowali brzmiał: nietypowy, wątpliwy, ale nierozstrzygający.

Za co więc te 4 lata?
Takie są teraz przepisy co do EPO?


#1348

Skumulowali mu za Froome’a :smiley:


#1349

Dotarłem jeszcze do jego “listu na otwartego” samego Cardoso na jego fejsbuku.
Cyrk z próbką B trwał podobno miesiąc + to też chyba nie do końca tak, że zadecydowała opieszałość wydających werdykt. Wygląda na to, że skoro Cardoso używa określenia “fight” to pewnie sporo się działo w tej sprawie przez te 15 miesięcy, ale z pominięciem opinii publicznej. Przy takim obrocie sprawy, wyrok “4 lata i zwrot kosztów procesu” nabiera innego wymiaru.

Wkleję treść po angielsku:

CytatOpen Letter
André Cardoso

This is how the professional life of an honest, humble, hard-working sportsman and dedicated friend comes to an end. A young man who always walks around with a smile on his face, who can motivate everyone and everything with his vibrant force.

The final decision of the UCI’s “independent” court was issued on 15 November 2018: 4 years and all related costs.

But let’s go back to the beginning of this story …

It is no secret that my biggest dream was a professional rider was to take part in the Tour de France. This opportunity came in 2017, as the result of lots of hard, dedicated work and many sacrifices. This invitation was confirmed a few days after the Dauphine Libere.
A few days before the Tour, I was already living that dream, was immensely happy and there can be no price on that.

On 18 June, I did what we call an active training, “light training” and had lunch at my in-laws where I stayed until the end of the day. When I was already at my own place, the anti-doping control agents rang my doorbell. I could see them on my intercom display, and I knew exactly what it was. As always, I opened the front door of my house, outside my hours, and took the test.

On 27 June, I received an e-mail during my massage session. I had been so thrilled that once the massage was over I completely ignored by cell phone. While driving back home “one day before the trip to the Tour”, i got a call from Switzerland, from a “UCI lawyer”. I was so in shock that I almost stopped my car on the motorway - my pregnant wife and my older son were both travelling with me in the car. I asked if it was a joke, I asked again, and said that it was impossible, impossible! The lawyer insisted that I should read the e-mail and reply as soon as possible. In my innocence, I asked “what substance it was?”, and he replied that it was “EPO”, of course, pure ans simple. I was speechless, and just managed to say, again, that it was impossible.

That afternoon began that which ended on 15 November 2018, a fight against the odds, without any chance of my proving what everyone can see.

Anyway…
I immediately tried to call the most important people in my team and the most important people in my life. I was so stressed that I couldn’t even find anyone’s contacts while I was driving.
When I got home, I spoke with those who I had to speak first and foremost. Within less than 1 hour the UCI had already posted their “Statement”, a name unknown to me to date, but one which I will never forget.

I immediately spoke to a friend of mine, who’s a great human being, and he asked me “I need to know the truth, good or bad, tell me the truth and I will be by your side for better or worse.” I told him “I am innocent, i did not take it.” After that, he handled everything as if it were his own case.

One month later …
I, my agent and my expert travelled to Switzerland to open sample B, on a date scheduled by the UCI.
I do not wish anyone to live through those 3 days like I did. The three of us were in a meeting room at the Lausanne laboratory and in came the laboratory’s expert, who was very thrilled to the point that he almost jumped in excitement while he showed us the graphs to my expert, saying “As you can see, sample B is positive.” You could feel my hope to prove my innocence in the air, in my heart, as if it were a case of life and death. My expert asked why the line was lower than the usual, to which the laboratory’s specialist replied: “This is a test to confirm a positive.” My expert looked at his face and didn’t say anything else. We asked to speak to the head of the laboratory. We made one last request for us to prepare our statement, so as not to be caught by surprise once again by the UCI.
The head of the laboratory said that all the documents would be sent to the UCI the following morning.
The drive and then flight to Porto “alone” was the worse trip ever in my life.

On the following day, we were all ready to post our statement once the UCI made it public. There was nothing on that day, or on the following day, and that’s how I lived my life for a whole month.

One month after the test on sample B, I received an e-mail from the UCI. I was in disbelief and caught in a whirlpool of emotions. I received the sample B package and, for the record, sample B was negative, with no substance. However, the experts reported it as inconclusive as there is a sample A containing a substance. According to the Lausanne experts and to 4 other laboratories, “there is a strong chance that sample B was deteriorated and, therefore, they cannot say it is a clear negative, but that it is rather doubtful/inconclusive”. The laboratory sets the dates for opening sample B. I rest my case.

Anyway…
In the world of sports, I always thought that if sample B rules out sample A, the athlete would have to be cleared, but in my case it was not quite like that. I was not accused as per article 2.1, but was accused as per article 2.2. I do not have the substance in my body, but there was an attempt to use it, or I did use it. Oh, well.

My blood from the same control test was analysed and the result is negative for erythropoietin stimulants, my biological passport is clean, I’ve never missed an anti-doping control and have always been available outside my own hours to undergo the anti-doping control. There is only one sample A with the substance, there is no other. If I had really taken the substance, there would have to be other indicators to prove it, for example, the biological passport, blood from the same blood test.

Having said that, if I were a cheater and thought like one, if I had taken EPO, would I have opened the door to my own home outside my hours knowing who was at the door?

Of course I wouldn’t! I’ve never missed a control and I can be excused from two if they are “justified later”. First, it wouldn’t be an absence because it was outside my hours. Second, they could come the next day “in my hours” and I could be out. This could be my first offence. That would be so easy.
It this was a computer game, I could still use up one more life.

And how would I defend myself saying I had not used EPO? How do I justify a positive A sample?
Complicated…

We asked for all the urine tests reported in my passport to do a study, but the UCI rejected our request.
I cannot prove based on scientific justifications that there has been a lab error. I can make all sorts of arguments, but I don’t have concrete evidence and neither do they.
They argue there is a strong probability, comparable to a strong probability of contamination (the Barcelona laboratory recently lost its accreditation due to a contamination).
Am I to be sentenced for 4 anos based on a strong probability?!

Before undergoing the “SAR-PAGE” test (a test carried out on my urine), there is a immunopurification process, meaning that all impurities of the body are excreted to the urine, and the urine must be clean without any molecular weight (synthetic erythropoietin has a molecular weight, which distinguishes it from the endogenous one). In this process, urine is divided into aliquots, and this can entail contamination. Test A is done using several samples of various types (this is also important to note), these tests are very expensive, so laboratories avoid higher costs. When requested by the athlete, test B is analysed on its own, without any other urine other than the one from the athlete in question, where the athlete is present together with an expert that the athlete can bring along. That’s the main difference between the A and B test. It is the same urine sample, but the procedure is not, which makes all the difference. I’m addressing this technical issue (no, I’m not an expert, but I was forced to read a lot about it, with all those theories out there, from experts or legal sources) because I’ve been seeing a lot of nonsense out there. Doping tests are not mathematics, the test I had done to my urine weighs 80% and the other 20% correspond to the “eyes” of the expert doing the urine analysis (experts looking for doping, who work specifically in this). Until a few years ago, tests that were considered atypical, doubtful, could never be reported as positive. Erythropoietin is a substance that our body needs to survive (athletes do more and more work in high altitude and hypoxia); training in high altitude is done so that they can work on their endogenous erythropoietin. This subject could go on forever, and I know nothing about it. I simply want to stress again that “doping is not 2+2=4”. But as we can see, this is better left within the four walls of a laboratory, and when it does happen, is it easier to exterminate the athlete, this is the easiest road with no consequences. It’s best to continue with the cliché “you tested positive, you take the substance”. All the more so because a false-positive has serious consequences for the laboratory, the AMA could take its accreditation. We’re talking about the Lausanne laboratory, one of the most important ones where the tests for the big competitions are done. Is this the conflict of interest that I was supposed to overthrow?! Who am I to do that?! Was I going to demystify doping?! These are my “intricate webs” of doping.

After this cry from the heart, this great injustice, all I have to say is that I am still strong enough to try to prove my innocence by resorting to the TAS through “Legal Aid”. However, I am aware that this could be an unattainable mirage. After fighting the UCI for 16 months, I am unable to rely on this recourse any further, only through legal support.

The End…
A word of respect and another of support to all those who have always believed and still believe in me, and to those who will never forget and still speak proudly of the rider I once was. My apologies a million times to those who suffered and still suffer with me this great sports injustice. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

This isn’t GOODBYE, but rather SEE YOU SOON.
André Cardoso

Cytat

Ciekawe jest to, że test na próbce krwi z tej samej kontroli nie wykazał stosowania środków dopingujących, tylko mocz (zrozumiałe, gdyby było na odwrót, ale tak?). @KubaWinter ?

Cardoso broni się też argumentem, że przez swojego wizjera doskonale widział kto do niego dzwoni i gdyby świadomie stosował niedozwolone wspomaganie to by ich po prostu nie wpuścił (tego oczywiście nie wiemy, ale jeśli rzeczywiście tak było to jak najbardziej ma to sens), gdyż rzekomo nigdy wcześniej nie opuścił żadnej kontroli.

Nie, że robię za adwokata Cardoso, ale sprawa trwała na tyle długo + w tym “liście otwartym” opisał swoje stanowisko na tyle obszernie, że się po prostu z ciekawości zainteresowałem. Nie wiedziałem dotąd np., że na analizę próbki B kolarz przyjeżdża osobiście z wybranym przez siebie ekspertem.


#1350

Dzięki za post! Bardzo fajny opis sytuacji.

W skrócie mógł się bronić, że spotkanie z teściową było tak wyczerpujące i sìę biedaczek zestresował, odwodnił i nerki przestały normalnie funkcjonować. Ale broń boże nie brał za dużo mielonych, bo u nich w zespole dokładnie liczą kto I kiedy je mielone.

Cały ten system antydopingowy jest tylko po to by łatwiej ustawiać wyniki, I tyle.