Bio passport charges for Team Sky's Jonathan Tiernan-Locke

farrell wrote:

Legin wrote:

Joeinpoole wrote:

Legin wrote:

At this stage he is guilty of nothing; nice of you to jump the gun though!

Yes he is. He is guilty of having irregularities in his blood sample. It is now up to him to explain why.

It's funny how often a sudden 'late flowering' of an otherwise journeyman athlete into a champion often seems to precede positive drug tests.

Sloppy use of language; "he has irregularities in his blood sample" is incorrect, he has an irregular blood profile as I've understood the case; something that is very different to a failed blood test/irregularity.

Even so you'll have to explain how that makes him guilty of anything at this stage; he is only guilty, if found so, once the disciplinary process has completed.

I'll explain it for you:

"The analysis of the biological passport of Mr Jonathan Tiernan-Locke by the Experts Panel has demonstrated an anti-doping rule violation (use of prohibited substances and/or methods)."

They've tested his blood, they've got evidence of doping.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the biological passport. It is based on an opinion of a panel of experts and as such can always be questioned. If the result was black or white he would be banned already. It isn't it is a grey area and he has the opportunity to explain himself. The blood tests don't show illegal substances; the series of blood test suggest there is an anomaly.

Joeinpoole wrote:

Legin wrote:

Joeinpoole wrote:

Legin wrote:

At this stage he is guilty of nothing; nice of you to jump the gun though!

Yes he is. He is guilty of having irregularities in his blood sample. It is now up to him to explain why.

It's funny how often a sudden 'late flowering' of an otherwise journeyman athlete into a champion often seems to precede positive drug tests.

Sloppy use of language; "he has irregularities in his blood sample" is incorrect, he has an irregular blood profile as I've understood the case; something that is very different to a failed blood test/irregularity.

Even so you'll have to explain how that makes him guilty of anything at this stage; he is only guilty, if found so, once the disciplinary process has completed.

I hope JTL's defence is more impressive than your desperate clinging to straws in the use of language. Your language is equally invalid. Have you actually read the UCI's statement?

"The analysis of the biological passport of Mr Jonathan Tiernan-Locke by the Experts Panel has demonstrated an anti-doping rule violation (use of prohibited substances and/or methods)."

I don't read that JTL has "an irregular blood profile" at all. According to the UCI he has a blood profile that is entirely 'regular' ... for someone who has been doping.

He's still not guilty until they've listened to him and they tell us he's guilty. I'm tired of people declaring someone's guilt before the judgement has been made. If it turns out that his previous medical conditions have lead to the anomaly what are you on your fellow barrack room lawyers going to say then? The process is not complete; until then he is I not guilty!

Legin wrote:

If it turns out that his previous medical conditions have lead to the anomaly what are you on your fellow barrack room lawyers going to say then? The process is not complete; until then he is I not guilty!

I'd probably say "Why did the UCI not make the connection between the medical conditions that JTL told them about and the anomaly in his blood and how did they not prove or disprove that it was indeed the cause. How come that teams of doping experts, scientists and related staff fail to check for that and what exactly were they checking his blood for in the months of testing they were doing".

Personally, I'm tired of cyclists saying they are clean and then being proved as dopers.

I'm also tired of JTL, the anomaly was found, he was given chance to explain himself, he was then given extra time to prove himself, his bloods went away for testing and they have found evidence of doping and he is still maintaining his innocence.

farrell wrote:

Legin wrote:

Joeinpoole wrote:

Legin wrote:

At this stage he is guilty of nothing; nice of you to jump the gun though!

Yes he is. He is guilty of having irregularities in his blood sample. It is now up to him to explain why.

It's funny how often a sudden 'late flowering' of an otherwise journeyman athlete into a champion often seems to precede positive drug tests.

Sloppy use of language; "he has irregularities in his blood sample" is incorrect, he has an irregular blood profile as I've understood the case; something that is very different to a failed blood test/irregularity.

Even so you'll have to explain how that makes him guilty of anything at this stage; he is only guilty, if found so, once the disciplinary process has completed.

I'll explain it for you:

"The analysis of the biological passport of Mr Jonathan Tiernan-Locke by the Experts Panel has demonstrated an anti-doping rule violation (use of prohibited substances and/or methods)."

They've tested his blood, they've got evidence of doping.

"an anti-doping rule violation (use of prohibited substances and/or methods)"

They may not have conclusive evidence, these biological passports are a new science and I doubt they are infallible against false-positives or false-negatives. I don't really see the point in making assumptions one way or the other until all the evidence is out - in particular, what is actually wrong with his 'biological passport', did they think he doped, or switched blood? I'm guessing they didn't find direct evidence of doping otherwise they would have thrown the book at him sooner.

farrell wrote:

Legin wrote:

If it turns out that his previous medical conditions have lead to the anomaly what are you on your fellow barrack room lawyers going to say then? The process is not complete; until then he is I not guilty!

I'd probably say "Why did the UCI not make the connection between the medical conditions that JTL told them about and the anomaly in his blood and how did they not prove or disprove that it was indeed the cause. How come that teams of doping experts, scientists and related staff fail to check for that and what exactly were they checking his blood for in the months of testing they were doing".

Personally, I'm tired of cyclists saying they are clean and then being proved as dopers.

I'm also tired of JTL, the anomaly was found, he was given chance to explain himself, he was then given extra time to prove himself, his bloods went away for testing and they have found evidence of doping and he is still maintaining his innocence.

Personally I'm sick and tired of people pre-judging the outcome of a process that is not completed. Be as sick to death of JLT as much as you like when he is judged guilty; but at the moment he isn't. If he is found guilty then he just becomes another cheating sportsperson; you can then waste as much of your time as you like moaning about him, I won't, I've got a life to get on with

Legin wrote:

He's still not guilty until they've listened to him and they tell us he's guilty. I'm tired of people declaring someone's guilt before the judgement has been made. If it turns out that his previous medical conditions have lead to the anomaly what are you on your fellow barrack room lawyers going to say then? The process is not complete; until then he is I not guilty!

So if he's still 'not quilty' then surely he should be allowed to compete in races, train with Sky, represent Sky in said races, etc? No? Are the UCI & Sky full of "barrack room lawyers" too?

Joeinpoole wrote:

Legin wrote:

He's still not guilty until they've listened to him and they tell us he's guilty. I'm tired of people declaring someone's guilt before the judgement has been made. If it turns out that his previous medical conditions have lead to the anomaly what are you on your fellow barrack room lawyers going to say then? The process is not complete; until then he is I not guilty!

So if he's still 'not quilty' then surely he should be allowed to compete in races, train with Sky, represent Sky in said races, etc? No? Are the UCI & Sky full of "barrack room lawyers" too?

You really don't have a clue about the process do you?

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

I agree that Sky suspending JTL is absolutely standard process and there is nothing wrong with that.

However, what is a bit poor is the way they have publicly distanced themselves from the guy. I say this because they know, they will know if JTL was doping last year or not... Why?because Jon was working nearly exclusively with BC and Sky from around June on-wards.

To say 'he's done nothing under our care' and 'this dates from before his time with us' is frankly lying... and leaves a foul taste in my mouth.

Also, I am very surprised that the UCI have gone for this case as the amount of data collected is very small to be able to make such bold statements as he definitely doped... actually to be really specific with the nature of the doping, or blood manipulation they believe he is supposed to have done.

Personally, whether guilty or not, I can't see how this will stand up to the due diligence of a full appeal case. They have all of 6 months data, taken during a time when the rider is known to have been in poor health.

It just seems strange to take the risk of pushing for a sanction when they could have gathered more data to make a more robust case either way.

My gut feeling is that Jon has been a pawn in a much bigger game... Poor Jon.

Yes, I think it is a case of the last part. The blood passport is only as good as the data. Look at how Armstrong was able to circumvent the process (I know this is conjecture, but you'd have to prove to me why a 38 year old rider out of the game for two years was able to get back on it against known dopers, when he is a known doper, without doping). He basically got a pass on the first passport report and then resumed his fiddling.

I suspect that they were interested to get a pre-Sky and Sky blood test to see how the process is being circumvented. Who knows if it was a specifically targeted attempt on Sky.....but it is shabby how he has been dropped. As I understand it the pre-Sky blood test came about while he was with Endura, but training with Sky, and so the claims about it not being Sky are not entirely accurate - though there was a fair amount of mud slinging from both Sky and Endura. No one wants to be associated with JTL it seems.

People seem to be arguing about him being innocent/guilty. I think the fact that it has gone so far without JTL being able to put this to bed is a fairly damning indictment on him. There have been a few cases of 'false' positives following poor collection techniques, but they usually relate to in competition tests, which are usually negative (you'd be incredibly thick to turn up to a competition 'glowing').

I think that professional sportsmen/women have pretty much abdicated the right to the innocent until proven guilty stance, because most of the time the tests don't prove anything even when they are guilty. All one can say is 'isn't it unfair that the others haven't been caught too'.

ragtag wrote:

So JTL was training with Sky most of the time before he signed for them, so what have they done to show that he was clean? Nothing it seems.

Isn't it hard to prove a negative? Unless it is a situational crime of being in one place or another, it has to be fairly hard to show that you did nothing. Whatever could be put forward would only be an excuse for an odd reading. Not saying he is innocent or guilty, just think it is not an easy position to defend.

Was it at the end of the Tour of Britain he said something like he didn't even use supplements such as vitamins? Not that means a great deal.

It's very hard to prove a positive in a drugs test, which is why this is news. Armstrong's standard 'go to' response was "I've never failed a drugs test". It's the first rule of doping: deny, deny, deny. Even Di Luca keeps denying any wrong doing....he just mentions how unfair it all is.

daddyELVIS wrote:

Have we got any investigative sports journalists who might get to the truth - Walsh has turned into a Sky fan and Kimmage has been marginalized - looks like they will get through this with carefully managed PR, just as they did when it turned out a certain dodgy doctor was working for them!

..perhaps we could get someone as well informed, open-minded and impartial as yourself ?

Guyz2010 wrote:

What a pity for the sport whatever the outcome. However doping is not limited to cycling remember, I read some (dunno where so don't ask) that half the pro-tour golfers have been identified with doping.
Keyboard warriors are on form tonight I see.

Don't know if you saw the recent documentary with (dare I say it) Jody Marsh talking about steroid use? She interviewed a steroid dealer and he said he was dealing to everyone. Sportsmen, actors etc. But specifically named golfers….a surprise in some senses, but not in others.

daddyELVIS wrote:

If found guilty then Sky may finally have to explain a few things, but I'm sure they'll have an explanation sorted. If JTL's previous team are to be believed, for the period in question Sky were over-seeing his training program. Have we got any investigative sports journalists who might get to the truth - Walsh has turned into a Sky fan and Kimmage has been marginalized - looks like they will get through this with carefully managed PR, just as they did when it turned out a certain dodgy doctor was working for them!

I quite agree. Walsh seems to have offered whatever olive branch he can to the cycling fraternity and it seems he does not want to stare controversy in the face. Makes me wonder about his particular beef with Armstrong.

philtregear wrote:

IMO this is all very good news. possible doping has been detected early in the career of a top flight cyclist. BY THE UCI .( shurely shome mishtake!!). A full investigation will ensue. The truth, we hope, will come out. As to SKYs treatment of their rider, that is their call. Damned if they back him, damned if they sack him. But that is the price we will all have to pay if we want to see doping eliminated.

Of course there is some damage along the way. But to spring to JTLs defence at this time stinks of the discredited methods of LA and his entourage. Let us not forget that ruined proper competition and destroyed many careers whilst it was allowed to hold sway.

As for Walsh and Kimmage: surely it is better that the UCI itself is taking the lead on these matters. There are other journalists ( eg L'equipe staff) that are no friends of SKY and are as adept and stubborn as Walsh and Kimmage in pursuing these stories.

I don't say JTL is guilty, but I am glad for the sport that the bio passport system appears to be working to highlight possible doping.

I get the feeling that JTL is more of a sacrificial lamb if anything. And, I also think that the blood passport has well and truly been side-stepped for a good while. Catching riders when they turn pro (take a step up) is about the best chance the WADA affiliates have of catching the pro (dopers). If you consistently dope then you bloods won't change, if you take 'that step' then the bloods do.

fukawitribe wrote:

..perhaps we could get someone as well informed, open-minded and impartial as yourself ?

hehe - if I ever had the opportunity, I'd start with some difficult follow-up questions after the initial question had been swerved with a typically rehearsed and sound-bite riddled answer! But then that's Kimmage's style and he's been painted as a lunatic with a grudge lately - whenever that happens to someone, I tend to think they're getting somewhere near to the truth.