Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Simon Yates fails dope test

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Inquitus
    Registered Users Posts: 13,761 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    Brian? wrote: »
    The same way an administrative error over a TUE for a cortical steroid cream for saddle sores shouldn't have been a black mark?

    That was back dated TUE, designed to cover up a failed positive test for a known performance enhancing drug.....you are comparing apples and pomegranates.


  • Options
    #63
    Lusk_Doyle
    Registered Users Posts: 4,338 ✭✭✭Lusk_Doyle


    Lumen wrote: »
    I love the comment on that thread which suggests that Dr McGrane is a UCI stooge. :pac:

    Well, he was a staunch supporter of PMcQ.


  • Options
    #64
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,408 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Inquitus wrote: »
    Brian? wrote: »
    The same way an administrative error over a TUE for a cortical steroid cream for saddle sores shouldn't have been a black mark?

    That was back dated TUE, designed to cover up a failed positive test for a known performance enhancing drug.....you are comparing apples and pomegranates.

    Neither rider had a TUE, both failed tests for substances they didn't have a TUE for. I am comparing rotten apples with rotten apples.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #65
    Inquitus
    Registered Users Posts: 13,761 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    Brian? wrote: »
    Neither rider had a TUE, both failed tests for substances they didn't have a TUE for. I am comparing rotten apples with rotten apples.

    Yate's even declared his inhaler on the drug test form, clearly not the actions of someone with something to hide.....


  • Options
    #66
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,085 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Lusk_Doyle wrote: »
    Well, he was a staunch supporter of PMcQ.
    It's not clear whether you're being serious.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Lusk_Doyle
    Registered Users Posts: 4,338 ✭✭✭Lusk_Doyle


    Lumen wrote: »
    It's not clear whether you're being serious.

    It's cool, I got a TUE for it from Conor!

    Not serious. C McG would never be classed as a UCI stooge in my book. Or anyone else's, that knows him.


  • Options
    #68
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,477 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Lusk_Doyle wrote: »
    Not serious. C McG would never be classed as a UCI stooge in my book.
    It's probably one of his "colleagues" that everyone's thinking about (I believe one of them spends a lot of time "chatting" to people at Cookson's former haunt in Manchester)


    :pac:


  • Options
    #69
    Lusk_Doyle
    Registered Users Posts: 4,338 ✭✭✭Lusk_Doyle


    Beasty wrote: »
    It's probably one of his "colleagues" that everyone's thinking about (I believe one of them spends a lot of time "chatting" to people at Cookson's former haunt in Manchester)


    :pac:

    I think the correct term you are searching for is "co-conspirators". Very subversive group.


  • Options
    #70
    happytramp
    Registered Users Posts: 2,622 ✭✭✭happytramp


    I fully agree with McGrane's assessment but I can see why it doesn't exactly have sceptics nodding in agreement.... It reads a bit like Shane Stokes is a defense attorney carefully leading a witness through cross examination in order to help the jury reach a very specific conclusion.


  • Options
    #71
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,408 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Inquitus wrote: »
    Brian? wrote: »
    Neither rider had a TUE, both failed tests for substances they didn't have a TUE for. I am comparing rotten apples with rotten apples.

    Yate's even declared his inhaler on the drug test form, clearly not the actions of someone with something to hide.....

    You're splitting hairs to give him an out, because he seem like a nice chap.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,951 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    happytramp wrote: »
    I fully agree with McGrane's assessment but I can see why it doesn't exactly have sceptics nodding in agreement.... It reads a bit like Shane Stokes is a defense attorney carefully leading a witness through cross examination in order to help the jury reach a very specific conclusion.

    Same here. Dr. McGrane was clear and impartial but I felt if David Walsh done that article rather than Shane Stokes, people would have accused him of being Sky's whipping boy. It felt very biased towards excusing Simon rather than just impartially getting the facts and presenting the possibilities. I don't think that was his aim, more to counter the other side but that's what it read like.


  • Options
    #73
    Inquitus
    Registered Users Posts: 13,761 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    Brian? wrote: »
    You're splitting hairs to give him an out, because he seem like a nice chap.

    Not at all, you have to give him the benefit of some doubt here, he's a known asthmatic, he declared the drug he was taking on the test form, clearly the behaviour you'd expect from someone who thinks they have a TUE, not how someone who's trying to hide use of a banned drug would behave, not to mention the fact that there's no evidence this drug is performance enhancing. It's a very far cry from someone getting a backdated TUE for a drug that's known to be performance enhancing and recovery improving with no real day to day legitimate usage as in the case of Mr Armstrong. I suffer from exercise enduced Asthma myself, cold, dry, air generally being the trigger for me. As per Conor McGrane's article it's fairly common place amongst cyclists and obviously I am far from an "Elite" level.


  • Options
    #74
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,408 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Inquitus wrote: »
    Brian? wrote: »
    You're splitting hairs to give him an out, because he seem like a nice chap.

    Not at all, you have to give him the benefit of some doubt here, he's a known asthmatic, he declared the drug he was taking on the test form, clearly the behaviour you'd expect from someone who thinks they have a TUE, not how someone who's trying to hide use of a banned drug would behave, not to mention the fact that there's no evidence this drug is performance enhancing. It's a very far cry from someone getting a backdated TUE for a drug that's known to be performance enhancing and recovery improving with no real day to day legitimate usage as in the case of Mr Armstrong. I suffer from exercise enduced Asthma myself, cold, dry, air generally being the trigger for me. As per Conor McGrane's article it's fairly common place amongst cyclists and obviously I am far from an "Elite" level.

    As I stated earlier, I have no doubt he genuinely needs the inhaler and should indeed have had a TUE in place. However, he didn't have a TUE and he failed a test. Why should he get wiggle room? It was 100% up to Simon Yates to ensure he had a TUE before using the inhaler. If he's given a pass, the door is ajar for people who will exploit the system.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #75
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,660 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    I still don't see what the 'defence' is. This is a banned drug, the least you need is a TUE (which is by it's nature designed to give the athlete an out such medical reasons dictate that they have no choice) and he didn't have one.

    Why is not really relevant, except in the level of the ban he should receive. The apparent lack of performance enhancing qualities (although we all know that many drugs are taken to mask others) and the story about the doctor should lead to the minimum ban but a ban nonetheless.

    The rules really are pretty straightforward and everyone working in the elite level should know them back to front. Claiming 'a mistake' was made is not good enough.

    I'm sure he's a great lad altogether, I'm sure the team feel terrible and I'm sure the Doctor feels terrible but as the rules stand he took part in a cycling event with a banned substance in his system. QED.


  • Options
    #76
    Inquitus
    Registered Users Posts: 13,761 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    Brian? wrote: »
    As I stated earlier, I have no doubt he genuinely needs the inhaler and should indeed have had a TUE in place. However, he didn't have a TUE and he failed a test. Why should he get wiggle room? It was 100% up to Simon Yates to ensure he had a TUE before using the inhaler. If he's given a pass, the door is ajar for people who will exploit the system.

    What do you feel is an appropriate punishment here? 3 month ban? 12 month ban? 2 year ban?


  • Options
    #77
    dragratchet
    Registered Users Posts: 690 ✭✭✭dragratchet


    Leroy42 wrote: »

    I'm sure he's a great lad altogether, I'm sure the team feel terrible and I'm sure the Doctor feels terrible but as the rules stand he took part in a cycling event with a banned substance in his system. QED.

    this, lesson learned for simon and orica and it sends a clear message to all teams and riders to be on top of their respective games..


  • Options
    #78
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,408 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Inquitus wrote: »
    Brian? wrote: »
    As I stated earlier, I have no doubt he genuinely needs the inhaler and should indeed have had a TUE in place. However, he didn't have a TUE and he failed a test. Why should he get wiggle room? It was 100% up to Simon Yates to ensure he had a TUE before using the inhaler. If he's given a pass, the door is ajar for people who will exploit the system.

    What do you feel is an appropriate punishment here? 3 month ban? 12 month ban? 2 year ban?
    3 months is probably about right. Misses the Giro, Tour and Olympics. Severe enough lesson.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #79
    Inquitus
    Registered Users Posts: 13,761 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    Brian? wrote: »
    3 months is probably about right. Misses the Giro, Tour and Olympics. Severe enough lesson.

    They can probably delay it so he's misses the Olympics and the Vuelta and a portion of the off season, that's probably a fair balance, rather than destroy his entire season.


  • Options
    #80
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,660 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Inquitus wrote: »
    They can probably delay it so he's misses the Olympics and the Vuelta and a portion of the off season, that's probably a fair balance, rather than destroy his entire season.

    I don't understand this thinking. I get it from a personal perspective but drugs has almost destroyed our sport, its has cast doubt over its very existence and many sponsors have pulled out because of it.

    Most non cyclists think that every cyclist is on drugs, how often have each of us been met with that type of smart comment when people ask us what sport we do "sure it's such a drug race", "they are all at it anyhow" etc etc.

    Through the like of LA and that whole era the sport has become a laughing stock, and best at the margins. The UCI need to work hard, and slowly, to rebuild the standing of the sport.

    Here is a clear breach of the rules, but apparently the pro rider and his team didn't realise that drugs in cycling was a bit of a hot topic for the last few years and so took a bit of a flyer on this one.

    And some of you think the rider should be cut come slack? It is precisely this type of 'slack', and you can dress it with whatever convincing arguement you want to justify it to yourself, that leads to ever increasing disregard for the rules.

    Fairness doesn't come into it. Cycling has a massive problem. The time to take measured approach was thrown away years ago by the UCI, the teams and the riders and we are now in a fight for the very future of the sport. But sure, this time it was just a mistake. Same as Contador and the beef, same as Landis and the whiskey, same as Michelle Smith. There is always an excuse for making this type of mistake. It needs to be zero tolerance. It is no longer enough just to be clean, they must be seen to be clean as well. There time for understanding is well gone.

    Funnily enough, the team didn't think to withdraw the rider based on the fact that the previous drug he was using for years suddenly, and apparently without any prior warning, failed to work and they were forced in an emergency to resort to a drug he had never used before just before a grade 1 race!


  • Options
    #81
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,951 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    There is potentially a benefit enhancement, my understanding is this benefit is only a reality at high doses. It would appear that the rider has not denied it, even admitted it before the test. These should be taken into account but a professional, independent qualified person or panel should be assigned to determine the punishment. It was either accidental and stupid, or intentional and stupid. The amount if a qualitative test has been carried out should be indicative.

    He has to be punished within the rules but the punishment should be based upon the above. Full length ban if it is shown it was intentional (whether it is agreed a benefit exists or not) or a short slap on the wrist if it's below the concentration found in an atypical asthmatics blood stream after a puff.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    RobFowl
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 11,667 Mod ✭✭✭✭RobFowl


    CramCycle wrote: »
    There is potentially a benefit enhancement, my understanding is this benefit is only a reality at high doses. It would appear that the rider has not denied it, even admitted it before the test. These should be taken into account but a professional, independent qualified person or panel should be assigned to determine the punishment. It was either accidental and stupid, or intentional and stupid. The amount if a qualitative test has been carried out should be indicative.

    He has to be punished within the rules but the punishment should be based upon the above. Full length ban if it is shown it was intentional (whether it is agreed a benefit exists or not) or a short slap on the wrist if it's below the concentration found in an atypical asthmatics blood stream after a puff.

    Pretty much agree with this.
    Human study on benefit was using 3-6 times the recommended dose and had the massive number of 9 participants (was a blind trial too so only 4-5 got the terbutaline)
    Other studies were using massive doses in animals..


  • Options
    #83
    C3PO
    Registered Users Posts: 3,763 ✭✭✭C3PO


    CramCycle wrote: »
    There is potentially a benefit enhancement, my understanding is this benefit is only a reality at high doses. It would appear that the rider has not denied it, even admitted it before the test. These should be taken into account but a professional, independent qualified person or panel should be assigned to determine the punishment. It was either accidental and stupid, or intentional and stupid. The amount if a qualitative test has been carried out should be indicative.

    He has to be punished within the rules but the punishment should be based upon the above. Full length ban if it is shown it was intentional (whether it is agreed a benefit exists or not) or a short slap on the wrist if it's below the concentration found in an atypical asthmatics blood stream after a puff.

    Reasonable assessment!


  • Options
    #84
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,660 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    If no performance enhancement why is it banned? We must assume, since he failed the test, that he had more than the accepted levels in his body. These things aren't just added for sh1ts and giggles. And even if it now better known that it has no enhancement properties it is still banned until such time as a proper case is made to remove it. Or do you guys thing the Yates is singlehandedly fighting the good fight against the evil regime of WADA?

    So, the facts as we know them, are that he took a drug without following correct procedures, he took enough of it for it show up past the accepted levels.

    But now you guys want to rewrite the rules as it shouldn't be on the banned list?

    This is the scenario the team expect us to believe

    SY : Hey doc the asthma has really been playing up the last few days, I'm really struggling
    Doc: Have you not been taken your sambutanol?
    SY : Oh yeah, same as ever, but just doesn't seem to be doing the trick
    Doc : Well, ordinarily I would be worried that the drug you have been using successfully for the past number of years has suddenly stopped working right as we get to the main point of the season, but I suppose we can leave that and should just try out this other drug
    SY : Now, I know that all sorts of drugs are banned, I even heard of a guy who got a bee-sting who couldn't get an injection as it was banned, so you're sure this is fine and we don't need to do anything new?
    Doc : Well, if you're worried I suppose we could contact the UCI to get preclearence, fill out whatever forms they have just to be sure.
    SY : Nah, seems a bit too much hassle. I'll just assume the drug you are giving me is totally fine and that you'll send in the paperwork
    Doc : Now, just in case something goes amiss, not saying it will, but just in case, why not mention it on the prerace form
    SY : But that is not any part of the process, the TUE is the defined way to go about it.
    Doc : But in case they pull you up on anything, you can say that you wrote it on the top of the entry form and sure what sort of person writes down what they are going to do before they do it unless they aren't really going to do it.
    SY : That what good will that do?
    Doc : It will make it look like you're just some simple honest guy trying to make his way in the sport and you were let down by the system.
    SY : Doc, you're a genius. {puff} feck I fell better already.


  • Options
    #85
    Hager
    Registered Users Posts: 58 ✭✭Hager


    Simon Yates has been banned for four months for "a non intentional anti-doping rule violation". The ban is to run from 12th March, which means that he will not be elegible for selection for the Tour de France


  • Options
    #86
    RobFowl
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 11,667 Mod ✭✭✭✭RobFowl


    Great, riders souped up with "fat burners", diabetic and hypertension meds, HGH, blood products etc and WADA chase asthmatics using an inhaler with no performance enhancing effect other than treating illness........


  • Options
    #87
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,408 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    RobFowl wrote: »
    Great, riders souped up with "fat burners", diabetic and hypertension meds, HGH, blood products etc and WADA chase asthmatics using an inhaler with no performance enhancing effect other than treating illness........

    That's unfair. WADA are chasing them all. Look at all the retrospective testing going on.

    Yates tested positive for a banned substance and had no TUE, he's received a short ban and he's not appealing as far as I can see. It's a fair ban IMO.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #88
    RobFowl
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 11,667 Mod ✭✭✭✭RobFowl


    Brian? wrote: »
    That's unfair. WADA are chasing them all. Look at all the retrospective testing going on.

    Yates tested positive for a banned substance and had no TUE, he's received a short ban and he's not appealing as far as I can see. It's a fair ban IMO.

    Its a little unfair but we're back watching races where riders are zooming up hills with their mouths closed, blowing out all the climbers with no explanations while a rider who was demonstrably unwell is getting all the adverse publicity.


  • Options
    #89
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,660 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    RobFowl wrote: »
    Its a little unfair but we're back watching races where riders are zooming up hills with their mouths closed, blowing out all the climbers with no explanations while a rider who was demonstrably unwell is getting all the adverse publicity.

    You missed the bit about him taking a banned substance.

    Good to see the rules being implemented, despite all the claims of how great a guy he is. He knew the rules, he broke them.


  • Options
    #90
    RobFowl
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 11,667 Mod ✭✭✭✭RobFowl


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    You missed the bit about him taking a banned substance.

    Good to see the rules being implemented, despite all the claims of how great a guy he is. He knew the rules, he broke them.

    He took an inhaler given to him by a team doctor who fecked up by not doing the paperwork.
    It's a permitted substance if the correct paperwork is done and treating all failed tests as equally heinous is simplistic.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,660 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    If all the paperwork is done...thats the key point. And he is been given a sentence to reflect the fact that it is accepted that it was a mistake but he raced while breaking the rules and so needs to pay a price. Cycling has been ripped apart because everyone thought that what they were doing was only a small matter.

    It is high time we have zero tolerance, the teams, riders doctors etc have been given plenty or chances and warning.

    So I have little sympathy. I fully agree that there may well be cases were those well below the top levels of cheating are caught out but if that is the price of getting some level of credibility back into the sport then so be it.

    He certainly won't make the same mistake again


Advertisement