domestic rider banned for steroid abuse

NeedMoreGears

I'm too slow to race anyone except myself so maybe I just don't get it - but doping to win a local race? WTF? And then an easily disproven cover story - I presume he panicked?

The whole thing is a sorry mess and well done to those who investigated it all and to the panel who produced very clearly stated findings.

I hope the butcher and supplier are ok and their business hasn't suffered. As for the cyclist, maybe he should stay away from the bike from now on.

OleRodrigo

Although its sad to see this type of thing in amateur cycling, I don't think its anyone's business but those directly involved.

derealbadger

12 sprocket wrote: »

An all Ireland medal opens doors to good jobs, increased status in the community to name a few benefits for GAA players.. Whats the Gorey? Club level racing! and I agree with the testing of all different standards / categories. I think it should be a level playing pitch for every sportsperson in the country..

So i take it the Cork hurlers and footballers will get an exemption this year

QueensGael

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Although its sad to see this type of thing in amateur cycling, I don't think its anyone's business but those directly involved.

I wish that were so, but this kind of behaviour brings the sport into disrepute, and is damaging to it. In the narrowest sense, it affects the other competitors who were done out of placings in that particular race. In the wider sense, it's another reason to steer kids towards a different sport.

I'm glad he got the max suspension, and that it wasn't backdated. If you read the full report, it details dead-end allegations, delays, lack of evidence to back up claims, as well as contravening a temporary ban.

Daylight being the best disinfectant, it's well worth reading (35 pages), and seeing how this all panned out (and fair play to the ISC for publishing it in plain English, not legalese)
http://www.irishsportscouncil.ie/Anti-Doping/Resources1/Sanctions/ISADDP-Decision-Ciaran-Kelly-2014.pdf

buffalo

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Although its sad to see this type of thing in amateur cycling, I don't think its anyone's business but those directly involved.

Yep, cover it up and don't talk about it, that's the solution. Sure didn't it work out well for procycling?

C-Shore

Dawn Rider wrote: »

Is tramadol banned? Thought I read last year that Sky were using it.

No it's a prescription drug, and that's how he was caught, because he tried to buy it online.

Inquitus

<snip>

C-Shore

<snip>

eeeee

Mod Voice:Just deleted a couple of posts there for speculation. You know the rules.

OleRodrigo

buffalo wrote: »

Yep, cover it up and don't talk about it, that's the solution. Sure didn't it work out well for procycling?

All well and good if its only talking about it.

Quigs Snr

<snip>

Mod note - did you not see the mod warning two posts above?

comete

The whole case stinks.

I find it quite disgusting that he knowingly jeopardised the butchers livelihood by accusing him of importing and selling meat that could be contaminated.

He also jeopardised the career of the analyst who, although inexperienced in the analysis of meat for clenbuterol appears in the report as a bit haphazard with his analysis and handling of data. It's put his company at the centre of a controversial case and made them look unprofessional to say the least.

And then you have lads logging on here and claiming they will still shop there, "ah because sure the lads are sound their business shouldn't suffer".

Cost the state money, and potentially ruin a few careers, whats the harm....

Doc07

Eamonnator wrote: »

In a criminal case, if a barrister, puts forward a defence for his client, does it mean, that he is complicit in the matter?
I think not. McQuaid was representing Kelly, nothing more.

I respect but disagree with your point. Was McQuid hired as a barrister/solicitor? It's one thing for a legal rep to present a defence to ensure a defendant gets a fair and proper trial for example public defenders in criminal cases. It's entirely different to volunteer to represent a cyclist and defend a 'cock and bull ' story that was comprehensively rejected.

The cyclist was represented by someone well connected with both Irish cycling and the UCI. Should they not take any responsibility for the nonsense that went on? I do accept that perhaps the agent was only consulted in desperation near the end of the affair but he's a grown man and new what he was representing/defending. If the cyclist had asked me to represent him and I accepted I would expect my reputation to be scrutinised.

My concern is not so much with an individual cyclist doping but more that if they are caught, there are reputable figures in the cycling world who are prepared to represent and present their cover up stories. Then the athlete takes the (fully deserved )rap and no one bats an eyelid that Mr McQuaid helped him with his defence. This is not speculation but unfortunately fact and plain for anyone to read if they care to view the 35 page PDF.

Eamonnator

Doc07 wrote: »

I respect but disagree with your point. Was McQuid hired as a barrister/solicitor? It's one thing for a legal rep to present a defence to ensure a defendant gets a fair and proper trial for example public defenders in criminal cases. It's entirely different to volunteer to represent a cyclist and defend a 'cock and bull ' story that was comprehensively rejected.

The cyclist was represented by someone well connected with both Irish cycling and the UCI. Should they not take any responsibility for the nonsense that went on? I do accept that perhaps the agent was only consulted in desperation near the end of the affair but he's a grown man and new what he was representing/defending. If the cyclist had asked me to represent him and I accepted I would expect my reputation to be scrutinised.

My concern is not so much with an individual cyclist doping but more that if they are caught, there are reputable figures in the cycling world who are prepared to represent and present their cover up stories. Then the athlete takes the (fully deserved )rap and no one bats an eyelid that Mr McQuaid helped him with his defence. This is not speculation but unfortunately fact and plain for anyone to read if they care to view the 35 page PDF.

Kelly, I'm sure, was entitled to hire whomever he wanted to represent him at the hearing. He chose to have McQuaid speak for him. This does not make McQ complicit(as was said in previous post) in any wrongdoing. He was merely putting forward Kelly's defence. No blame for any of this can be attached to anybody, except Kelly.
You're shooting the messenger.

Doc07

Eamonnator wrote: »

Kelly, I'm sure, was entitled to hire whomever he wanted to represent him at the hearing. He chose to have McQuaid speak for him. This does not make McQ complicit(as was said in previous post) in any wrongdoing. He was merely putting forward Kelly's defence. No blame for any of this can be attached to anybody, except Kelly.
You're shooting the messenger.

I agree that Kelly is responsible. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that anyone advised him to make up the 'butcher meat' story. It's just that McQuaid has no duty of care to Kelly unless he wants to as a favour/friend etc and as difficult as it might seem if the story stinks and you represent it then perhaps you open yourself to scrutiny.

Not quite the same but I have had to turn someone down for a character reference as I couldn't honesty vouch for them.

Eamonnator

Doc07 wrote: »

I agree that Kelly is responsible. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that anyone advised him to make up the 'butcher meat' story. It's just that McQuaid has no duty of care to Kelly unless he wants to as a favour/friend etc and as difficult as it might seem if the story stinks and you represent it then perhaps you open yourself to scrutiny.

Not quite the same but I have had to turn someone down for a character reference as I couldn't honesty vouch for them.

But McQuaid wasn't vouching for Kelly. He was speaking for him. Two completely different things.

comete

A lot of recognisable names defending him on facebook, delusional, I hope the testers are building up a nice hit list based on comments.

kumate_champ07

Eamonnator wrote: »

Kelly, I'm sure, was entitled to hire whomever he wanted to represent him at the hearing. He chose to have McQuaid speak for him. This does not make McQ complicit(as was said in previous post) in any wrongdoing. He was merely putting forward Kelly's defence. No blame for any of this can be attached to anybody, except Kelly.
You're shooting the messenger.

I wonder will they both remain friends

Eamonnator

comete wrote: »

A lot of recognisable names defending him on facebook, delusional, I hope the testers are building up a nice hit list based on comments.

I don't do facebook. Can you put up a link, that I could read.

comete

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Sticky-Bottle/115231578576910?fref=ts

Scroll down to the link to the article and expand the comments underneath.

ROK ON

I have read the decision. There are parts of it that I do not comprehend. The initial test undertaken by the lab stated that there was evidence of clenbuterol.
The Analytics behind the first test seem to be undermined by the second test. It reads to me that there was traces of clen in the meat - but less than originally assessed in the first test.

My question: was there evidence of the drug on the meat?
If so how did it get there?

On a general level, I can accept that rebadged meat is on sale in Ireland- does anyone remember the Beef Tribunal/horse meat scandal. FSAI had to investigate, but if I was told that a defence of contaminated meat was being used in a trial I would not dismiss it out of hand.

kumate_champ07

ROK ON wrote: »

I have read the decision. There are parts of it that I do not comprehend. The initial test undertaken by the lab stated that there was evidence of clenbuterol.
The Analytics behind the first test seem to be undermined by the second test. It reads to me that there was traces of clen in the meat - but less than originally assessed in the first test.

My question: was there evidence of the drug on the meat?
If so how did it get there?

On a general level, I can accept that rebadged meat is on sale in Ireland- does anyone remember the Beef Tribunal/horse meat scandal. FSAI had to investigate, but if I was told that a defence of contaminated meat was being used in a trial I would not dismiss it out of hand.

yes

vacum packing can be done at home ,the machines can be bought cheap, the butcher testified that his machine double seals but the meat evidence had a single seal.

not having a receipt is just silly, why go to all the trouble if you dont have any evidence where you purchased it from, theres too many holes in the story

kumate_champ07

the horse meat scandal has made the food/meat industry in the EU much stricter now

velo.2010

Disappointed to read some of the names that have 'liked' the ill informed Kelly supporter's comments on the Stickybottle FB page. People really do need to read that judgement.

ROK ON

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

the horse meat scandal has made the food/meat industry in the EU much stricter now

Maybe. Given Ireland's food export industry we as a nation have to take this seriously - ie the potential libelling of a butcher.

My point is that on a general level I don't feel it's conceivable. Some of the biggest changers ever born in this isle work in the meat industry.

I am aware of a food factory selling an irish product domestically and internationally where they import the product in question from a nonEU state. This stuff does happen.

Obviously if it was to stick in this case the evidence needs to be trust worthy and obviously was not in this case judging by answers.
Thanks for clearing that up.

godtabh

I missed the analyst part. What did he do?

Inquitus

godtabh wrote: »

I missed the analyst part. What did he do?

Did a favour for a friend and analysed the meat in his employers lab, was working outside of his area of expertise in doing so and made something of a bollox of it according to the report.

kumate_champ07

ROK ON wrote: »

Maybe. Given Ireland's food export industry we as a nation have to take this seriously - ie the potential libelling of a butcher.

My point is that on a general level I don't feel it's conceivable. Some of the biggest changers ever born in this isle work in the meat industry.

I am aware of a food factory selling an irish product domestically and internationally where they import the product in question from a nonEU state. This stuff does happen.

Obviously if it was to stick in this case the evidence needs to be trust worthy and obviously was not in this case judging by answers.
Thanks for clearing that up.

does the packaging state that the produce comes from a non EU country?

Barrys Tea is an Irish company/product but the tea isnt grown in Ireland

Eamonnator

I don't reckon much on Facebook, but one comment intrigued me:
Were there really 40 riders, who did not finish the stage, at the Gorey 3 Day, the day Kelly was tested?

Inquitus

Eamonnator wrote: »

I don't reckon much on Facebook, but one comment intrigued me:
Were there really 40 riders, who did not finish the stage, at the Gorey 3 Day, the day Kelly was tested?

This intrigued me too, and I went in search of full results for each stage in 2014 and couldn't find them.

nilhg

ROK ON wrote: »

I have read the decision. There are parts of it that I do not comprehend. The initial test undertaken by the lab stated that there was evidence of clenbuterol.
The Analytics behind the first test seem to be undermined by the second test. It reads to me that there was traces of clen in the meat - but less than originally assessed in the first test.

My question: was there evidence of the drug on the meat?
If so how did it get there?

On a general level, I can accept that rebadged meat is on sale in Ireland- does anyone remember the Beef Tribunal/horse meat scandal. FSAI had to investigate, but if I was told that a defence of contaminated meat was being used in a trial I would not dismiss it out of hand.

The beef tribunal was back in the early nineties, enquiring into stuff that happened years earlier, the horse meat scandal involved meat (and "meat products") going into manufacturing, ie frozen burgers, pies and the like, definitely not anything to do with meat sold through reputable butchers here.

I'm a farmer, only indirectly involved in the beef side of things but I can tell you that the world of hurt that arrives on anyone thought to be messing has to be seen to be believed, the powers that the special investigations unit of the Dept of Ag have (or had, there's been some controversy about them) are more onerous than even the Gardai.

ROK ON wrote: »

Maybe. Given Ireland's food export industry we as a nation have to take this seriously - ie the potential libelling of a butcher.

My point is that on a general level I don't feel it's conceivable. Some of the biggest changers ever born in this isle work in the meat industry.

I am aware of a food factory selling an irish product domestically and internationally where they import the product in question from a nonEU state. This stuff does happen.

Obviously if it was to stick in this case the evidence needs to be trust worthy and obviously was not in this case judging by answers.
Thanks for clearing that up.

The whole food labelling situation here is a joke, import asian chicken, put some bread crumbs on it and you can label it as Irish produce (but not as produced in Ireland). As a very general rule, any chicken you eat from a deli or fast food outlet is likely to have been imported, whole chickens from the supermarket or butcher are most probably Irish, again a very general rule of thumb.

equivariant

A lot of posters are wondering why someone would bother doping in amateur racing. I think that its obvious really - the level really has nothing to do with it. Its all down to the personality of the rider. I came across this old article recently and I think that it gives a good insight into the mindset involved.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/08/news/in-search-of-relevance-a-cat-3-turns-to-epo-and-hgh_232611

Chips Lovell

Eamonnator wrote: »

I don't reckon much on Facebook, but one comment intrigued me:
Were there really 40 riders, who did not finish the stage, at the Gorey 3 Day, the day Kelly was tested?

No. The most that could have packed that stage was 29. There were 157 finishers of the TT that morning. And 128 finished the fourth stage the next day. There was horrific weather for stage 3. A lot of crashes and some lads abandoned because they got so cold their hands went numb.

apexpro

<snip>

a148pro

Eamonnator wrote: »

In a criminal case, if a barrister, puts forward a defence for his client, does it mean, that he is complicit in the matter?
I think not. McQuaid was representing Kelly, nothing more.

Nonetheless isn't it great to see a McQuaid at the centre of another doping scandal, attempting to explain it all away? Does this sound familiar?

As Doc has pointed out he is not (so far as we know) a lawyer, so its not quite the same. He is someone who's job is to represent the interests of cyclists, and yet is happy to appear in this context. That, combined with the supportive posts mentioned above is indicative of something very wrong at the heart of Irish cycling.

To the people all saying they'll still patronise your man's shop, that's fine, that's your choice. This lad absolutely shat all over another man's business, completely falsely accusing him, and led to two organisations funded by tax payers money spending a large amount of it to disprove his allegations, all in order to protect him having cheated in an amateur irrelevant race down in Gorey.

It's like the saying that people get the government they deserve, if you want to buy a bike off someone with those values, let alone do any business where you are reliant on trust with him at all, off you go.

marchino

C3PO wrote: »

In an A2/A3 race ..... what a gobsh*te!

But he's not a gob****e if it's s bigger race. !

apexpro

At the end of the day, he will be welcomed back with open arms just like the rest of the convicted Irish dopers of days gone by. Pathetic and shameful really.

Eamonnator

apexpro wrote: »

At the end of the day, he will be welcomed back with open arms just like the rest of the convicted Irish dopers of days gone by. Pathetic and shameful really.

What do you suggest as an alternative?

OleRodrigo

a148pro wrote: »

Nonetheless isn't it great to see a McQuaid at the centre of another doping scandal, attempting to explain it all away? Does this sound familiar?

As Doc has pointed out he is not (so far as we know) a lawyer, so its not quite the same. He is someone who's job is to represent the interests of cyclists, and yet is happy to appear in this context. That, combined with the supportive posts mentioned above is indicative of something very wrong at the heart of Irish cycling.

To the people all saying they'll still patronise your man's shop, that's fine, that's your choice. This lad absolutely shat all over another man's business, completely falsely accusing him, and led to two organisations funded by tax payers money spending a large amount of it to disprove his allegations, all in order to protect him having cheated in an amateur irrelevant race down in Gorey.

It's like the saying that people get the government they deserve, if you want to buy a bike off someone with those values, let alone do any business where you are reliant on trust with him at all, off you go.

Is that you Katie Hopkins ?

Those civil servants would have been paid anyway, but don't let that get in the way of a good ole internet lynching.

Leroy42

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Is that you Katie Hopkins ?

Those civil servants would have been paid anyway, but don't let that get in the way of a good ole internet lynching.

Well thats alright then. Sure I'll give them a ring and get them over to repaint my gaff, sure they are being paid anyways.

niceonetom

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Is that you Katie Hopkins ?

Those civil servants would have been paid anyway, but don't let that get in the way of a good ole internet lynching.

Whatever about doping etc. this is just a terrible argument. It's exactly the kind of nonsense that a fly-tippers uses to justify leaving scrap in the mountains - "sure, I'm creating jobs as people have to come and clean up after me".

Yes, those people probably would have been paid anyway, but they would have been paid to do _something productive_ for all of us, not just clean up after some eejit. The same applies to civil servants who have had to be paid to clean up the mess Kelly has made here. He wasted their time and our money. To point that out is not any kind of "lynching" and the comparison is risible.

shansey

equivariant wrote: »

A lot of posters are wondering why someone would bother doping in amateur racing. I think that its obvious really - the level really has nothing to do with it. Its all down to the personality of the rider. I came across this old article recently and I think that it gives a good insight into the mindset involved.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/08/news/in-search-of-relevance-a-cat-3-turns-to-epo-and-hgh_232611

interesting article

laraghrider

Russman wrote: »

I can see that argument, but I don't think I agree fully with it. Say some fella was genuinely innocent of something, and it might take a lot of legwork to prove, he might decide not to because of a potential future bill that he can't afford.

Yeah I hear what you are saying but I think they are two different cases.

Say rider a is clean and tested positive through a complete mishap with something or other. He lays out exactly what he did and what he thinks might happen. Surely that would come across and ok, have a 6 month ban or something like that.

Where as rider b is the case before us who knowingly misled the investigation, tried to blame his butcher which could do professional harm and called into question the beef industry in Ireland which led to wasting resources on something he knew he was lying about. Surly this demands the bill to be paid where as the case above was a genuine mistake.

Russman

laraghrider wrote: »

Yeah I hear what you are saying but I think they are two different cases.

Say rider a is clean and tested positive through a complete mishap with something or other. He lays out exactly what he did and what he thinks might happen. Surely that would come across and ok, have a 6 month ban or something like that.

Where as rider b is the case before us who knowingly misled the investigation, tried to blame his butcher which could do professional harm and called into question the beef industry in Ireland which led to wasting resources on something he knew he was lying about. Surly this demands the bill to be paid where as the case above was a genuine mistake.

True enough. But I'd suspect most cases aren't as clear cut as this one.

To be honest I've no real sympathy for the guy, especially with deliberate nature of the deceit, but I wouldn't be calling for a lynching either. 4 year ban is harsh but fair IMO, but I'd leave it at that, in terms of cycling.
I'd have no issue with the butcher going for redress though, bringing him into it was a big no, no.

OleRodrigo

niceonetom wrote: »

. To point that out is not any kind of "lynching" and the comparison is risible.

Since the guy has already been reprimanded by the relevant authorities, the only ' risible ' thing here is dorkish sanctimony and extrajudicial internet justice.

Lumen

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Since the guy has already been reprimanded by the relevant authorities, the only ' risible ' thing here is dorkish sanctimony and extrajudicial internet justice.

There is no "justice", it's commentary.

Good luck creating a cycling internet forum without dorkishness.:pac:

Doc07

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Since the guy has already been reprimanded by the relevant authorities, the only ' risible ' thing here is dorkish sanctimony and extrajudicial internet justice.

Sure what else is the interweb for apart from online banking and porn:) You're correct though, we're all keyboard/smartphone warriors these days.

I've no interest in further 'lynching' the cyclist who has been reprimanded appropriately already. I only posted in this thread when I saw who represented him and wanted to hear others opinion's about a reputable person, well connected in the cycling world, standing up and representing a nonsense doping cover up story at the inquiry/judgement hearing. Apologies for my poor grammar.

Lusk_Doyle

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Since the guy has already been reprimanded by the relevant authorities, the only ' risible ' thing here is dorkish sanctimony and extrajudicial internet justice.

What's the definition of dorkish sanctimony exactly?

Wishbone Ash

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

why would a farmer give his cattle weight loss drugs anyway, isnt beef sold by weight?...

Beef is graded into 5 categories according to it quality. The grade determines the price. The weight would just determine the pro-rata price within the grade.

Finnrocco

Quigs Snr wrote: »

Interesting the way "the lads" initially closed ranks around him, essentially collaborating in building a cock and bull story... and then vanished when it became clear that his defence (led by someone who should know a thing or two about dealing with dopers) wasn't going to cut it in an effort to damage control.

.

I don't think anyone closed ranks around the rider.
My understanding is that CI will assist any member in a doping case whatever way it can. Remember, innocent till proven guilty.

All it basically did here was advise him of how to go about testing the meat when it was clear he wanted to go down that route.

In my view he should have just pleaded guilty + didn't know how it got in to his system. Would have probably got 6 months for first offence.
Would be well over by now, <snip>