Kolobnev positive

Junior

http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/breves2011/20110711_194407_kolobnev-positif.html

Positive for a masking agent.. will go to B Sample analysis..

goldencleric

Fabian slowly making his way up to two gold medals now

Lumen

I wonder what happened to Katusha's "5 times annual salary" doping fine contract clause?

goldencleric

goldencleric wrote: »

Fabian slowly making his way up to two gold medals now

my bad, Kolobnev got bronze

Junior

Just reading here, it's up to the Team to withdraw him not the UCI to suspend him ..

mgmt

Junior wrote: »

Just reading here, it's up to the Team to withdraw him not the UCI to suspend him ..

The ASO run the TDF not the UCI. The ASO will ask for him to leave and he will definitely be gone. The TDF is an invitation race AFAIK. Katusha will not risk it.

goldencleric

mgmt wrote: »

The ASO run the TDF not the UCI. The ASO will ask for him to leave and he will definitely be gone. The TDF is an invitation race AFAIK. Katusha will not risk it.

hmmm not entirely, as a protour team they are automatically invited.

petethedrummer

He was a 5 on the suspicious index:

http://inrng.com/2011/05/lequipe-publishes-uci-suspicion-index/

Junior

UCI Statement http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails.asp?id=NzQ1OQ&MenuId=MTYxNw&LangId=1&BackLink=/templates/UCI/UCI5/layout.asp%3FMenuId%3DMTYxNw%26LangId%3D1

Chips Lovell

He seemed to get away scot free from the Jesus Losa investigation a few years ago. It was hardly written about in the English language press.

NickDrake

Not surprised in the slighest

mahoo

Lumen wrote: »

I wonder what happened to Katusha's "5 times annual salary" doping fine contract clause?

just read this

Team public relations officer Sergei Outschakov told Reuters just hours after the news broke that Kolobnev would be pursued by the team for compensation for the adverse publicity generated.
"He has been sacked and according to internal team regulations he will have to pay Katusha damages for tarnishing the team's image once the case is over," Outschakov said.

petethedrummer

As per the Vino thread I think this is PR Horse5hit of the highest order. The rider and team should be fined by an independent body, not the UCI and not an internal kangaroo court. Kolobnev hung out to dry. Nice one Katusha. I'm sure the others are squeaky clean.

Lumen

petethedrummer wrote: »

As per the Vino thread I think this is PR Horse5hit of the highest order. The rider and team should be fined by an independent body, not the UCI and not an internal kangaroo court. Kolobnev hung out to dry. Nice one Katusha. I'm sure the others are squeaky clean.

The "massive fine as a contract clause" thing seems different though. It means the team cannot have known about the doping, because if they did the contract would be unenforceable and there would be no fine.

I don't know how it's possible to dope effectively under the current testing regime without your team knowing.

petethedrummer

I reckon its PR, they'll fire him (well he is gonna be banned) but they won't take 5 times his wages. The story will disappear and that will be that. It might reappear if he decides to sue for unfair dismissal.

He's young enough to come back in 2 years so he probably won't sue for unfair dismissal. If he goes quietly he'll be allowed back into the peloton quietly. He will probably be contrite and therefore not get painted as too much of a villain when he comes back. If he makes a big scene he won't be back.

Remind me to check this post in 2 years time.

petethedrummer

If riders are deemed responsible if they knowingly or unknowingly took a banned substance, teams should be responsible if they knowingly or unknowingly hired a doper.

Junior

petethedrummer wrote: »

If riders are deemed responsible if they knowingly or unknowingly took a banned substance, teams should be responsible if they knowingly or unknowingly hired a doper.

Gerard Vroomen made the point last night that the 5 Times Salary clause is well nigh unenforceable as it's a change in working terms and conditions enforced by an employer during an existing contract.

Lumen

So, what's the point in using a detectable masking agent?

Hydrochlorothiazide is a diurectic. It increases urine production, so I guess you drink loads of water, take some HCTZ, and you're then pissing like a horse, with the consequences that your watery urine then contains lower concentration of PEDs.

But if the HCTZ is detectable in urine it defeats the whole point, and since AFAIK there is no minimum acceptable amount of PEDs anyway you're counting on reducing your PED concentration below the detection threshold, which given the concentrations of clenbuterol detected in Contador's blood seems completely futile.

Just don't get it.

Khannie

Lumen wrote: »

So, what's the point in using a detectable masking agent?

Was wondering this myself. More than a bit counter-intuitive unless total detectable time of a banned substance is lower.