FBD Ras all dope tests negative

RobFowl

Quick scoop for boards ! :rolleyes:

FBD INSURANCE RÁS GETS ALL-CLEAR RESULT.

Tests for the use of prohibited substances carried out during the recent FBD Insurance RÁS 8 Day International Cycle Race have all been declared negative. The anti-doping tests carried by the Irish Sports Council involved a number of riders including stage winners, race leaders and riders selected at random.

Announcing the results Race Organiser Dermot Dignam thanked the Irish Sports Council for its support and complimented the riders from the nine countries that competed in the race for a wonderfully competitive event.

The race is sponsored by FBD Insurance and is included on the Union Cycliste Internationale Continental Calendar.

petethedrummer

Nice one. Who does the testing? An Irish lab? Anyone ever been caught in Ireland? don't really wanna know any names, just curious.

RobFowl

petethedrummer wrote: »

Nice one. Who does the testing? An Irish lab? Anyone ever been caught in Ireland? don't really wanna know any names, just curious.

Tests done in London , at least 2 Irish guys done in the last few years won't name names though. One is IMO a genuine contaminated supplement so I consider him clean.

Slideshowbob

RobFowl wrote: »

Tests done in London , at least 2 Irish guys done in the last few years won't name names though. One is IMO a genuine contaminated supplement so I consider him clean.

so anyone can say they genuinely had a contaminated supplement so that makes them clean - get real!!!

dave2pvd

Oh-oh

RobFowl

Slideshowbob wrote: »

so anyone can say they genuinely had a contaminated supplement so that makes them clean - get real!!!

No not anyone , it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and the onus is on the athlete to do this.
It was a particular brand of sports recovery drink which at the time multiple samples from different sources were shown to be contaminated.
Anyway I did say IMO and trust me I'm as cynical as they come.

petethedrummer

Cheers for the info.

Slideshowbob

RobFowl wrote: »

No not anyone , it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and the onus is on the athlete to do this.
It was a particular brand of sports recovery drink which at the time multiple samples from different sources were shown to be contaminated.
Anyway I did say IMO and trust me I'm as cynical as they come.

if the athlete's innocence was beyond reasonable doubt why didnt they appeal?

Lumen

Slideshowbob wrote: »

if the athlete's innocence was beyond reasonable doubt why didnt they appeal?

Presumably ignorance is a mitigation rather than a defence.

RobFowl

Slideshowbob wrote: »

if the athlete's innocence was beyond reasonable doubt why didnt they appeal?

They did and avoided the 2 year ban but got a 6/12 ban (the minimum allowed), their argument was accepted but the ISC.

RobFowl

Lumen wrote: »

Presumably ignorance is a mitigation rather than a defence.

Strict liability is the phrase they use, the athlete is responasble for all products found in their system no matter how they got there !

Slideshowbob

RobFowl wrote: »

Strict liability is the phrase they use, the athlete is responasble for all products found in their system no matter how they got there !

Rob

Are u not contradicting urself by saying you thought they were clean even though they are responsible for all products found in their body?

Chips Lovell

I don't think he is really. There's a difference between deliberately doping and accidentally taking something that's banned.

Quigs Snr

If Robfowl is thinking of the case I am thinking of then I think the ban was harsh, strict liability or not considering that the supplement in question was a very well known and popular one which was even featuring as a sponsor on some riders jerseys in the same race.... We are not talking about some dodgy tubs of no-name powder that you get in these crappy "health" stores.

Slideshowbob

el tonto wrote: »

I don't think he is really. There's a difference between deliberately doping and accidentally taking something that's banned.

the difference there can be whether the rider decides to come clean and admit doping or not. Sure anyone can say they ''accidentally'' took something.

RobFowl

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Rob

Are u not contradicting urself by saying you thought they were clean even though they are responsible for all products found in their body?

Hi Bob
El Tonto and Quigs have basically answered it more clearly than I would.
The product is well known and resulted in a number of positives in a number of diferent sports. A tennis player tested for the same substance and got off completely because the product was supplied by the event he was competing at !
And I'm not naming names or the product so don't ask !

Chips Lovell

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Sure anyone can say they ''accidentally'' took something.

And they frequently do. The issue is whether it's believable or not.

petethedrummer

Slideshowbob wrote: »

the difference there can be whether the rider decides to come clean and admit doping or not. Sure anyone can say they ''accidentally'' took something.

They can and they do. then you have to look at the circumstances of it. Rob might know the guy in question and believe his explanation.

Ultimately some sort of panel will decide whether they accept the story or not and decide whether to sanction. The panel might find him guilty and Rob might know him better and believe him.

RobFowl

petethedrummer wrote: »

They can and they do. then you have to look at the circumstances of it. Rob might know the guy in question and believe his explanation.

Ultimately some sort of panel will decide whether they accept the story or not and decide whether to sanction. The panel might find him guilty and Rob might know him better and believe him.

Even accidental positive will result in some sort of a sanction but some times its a "paperwork" positive if that makes sense. I'm expecting a raft of them with the new WADA regs on Ventolin and th elike