“If he’s a cyclist, he gets two years and is written off from everything”: Former pro cyclist blasts tennis number one Jannik Sinner’s three-month ban as “scandalous” and asks “how can you negotiate a suspension?” + more on the live blog

tigersnapper wrote:

Didn't you say in yesterday's blog that Kwiatkowski broke Ineos's winless streak?

I was about to say that, but not quite: yesterday Kwiato ended their losing streak in all professional racing, but as it says above, Tarling has provided their first win in 18 months "at top level"; Clasica Jaen (1.1) is a second tier one day race whereas the UAE tour (2.UWT) is top tier with compulsory world tour team participation.

AidanR wrote:

Those cyclist death stats are a good reminder to be very vigilant around HGVs and buses if you want to stay alive on London's roads!

Nice bit of victim blaming, do you know in how many of those cases the driver of the motor vehicle was found at fault? Do you have evidence that the victims were not being very vigilant? Just taking the first two victims of HGV/buses on the list, the police investigation into the death of Chiestha is still ongoing, Ada was nine years old she was hit by a bus, just four days ago bus driver was  charged with causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence of drink and/or drugs. Probably her fault for not being very vigilant though?

Get off your high horse Rendel, I'm not blaming the cyclists. I'm saying that large vehicles and their drivers clearly present a significant danger to cyclists.

AidanR wrote:

Get off your high horse Rendel, I'm not blaming the cyclists. I'm saying that large vehicles and their drivers clearly present a significant danger to cyclists.

Then you need to think more carefully about your phrasing, you said you need to be "very vigilant around HGVs and buses if you want to stay alive", which implies that those who have not stayed alive were not being very vigilant.

I think most of us knew what your meaning was. Some people are just pedant twats, try and ignore them. 

Gimpl wrote:

I think most of us knew what your meaning was. Some people are just pedant twats, try and ignore them. 

And some people contribute literally nothing to these forums apart from turning up once every few months to make a personal attack on one particular poster with whom they seem worryingly obsessed. 

Rendel Harris wrote:

Gimpl wrote:

I think most of us knew what your meaning was. Some people are just pedant twats, try and ignore them. 

And some people contribute literally nothing to these forums apart from turning up once every few months to make a personal attack on one particular poster with whom they seem worryingly obsessed. 

Puts pedant hat on.

Where's the evidence I come on here and attack anyone 'every few months'? Where is my 'obsession'? If you think I'm 'obsessed' with you, you think rather a lot of yourself. 

Some of us actually work for a living and have lives so we don't spend significant amounts of time spouting their views on here.

Takes pedant hat off.

Gimpl wrote:

Some of us actually work for a living and have lives so we don't spend significant amounts of time spouting their views on here.

Puts pedant hat on, I think you want to use the first person plural rather than the third in your last clause, "our" not "their". Takes pedant hat off.

Funnily enough I also work for a living but as a freelancer I can take as many breaks as I like and I like to check in here and see what's going on when I do. You have made a considerable number of personal attacks on me in the past, though admittedly they are less frequent now that you don't have the backup of the little coterie of bullies who have all been banned, e.g. Martin73, Nigel in all his incarnations, Leftisforlosers and so forth. It's okay, if that's what lights your candle you carry on, can't say it bothers me too much, I just find it amusing that the majority of the times you choose to comment on here it's to make an attack on me.

Gimpl wrote:

Puts pedant hat on.

Where's the evidence I come on here and attack anyone 'every few months'? Where is my 'obsession'? If you think I'm 'obsessed' with you, you think rather a lot of yourself. 

Some of us actually work for a living and have lives so we don't spend significant amounts of time spouting their views on here.

Takes pedant hat off.

<pedant>I don't think 'pedant' means what you think it means, since there doesn't appear to be any actual pedantry in your post.

</pedant>

AidanR wrote:

Those cyclist death stats are a good reminder to be very vigilant around when driving HGVs and buses if you want to stay to keep everyone alive on London's roads!

Lovely, but we on this forum are not driving the HGVs, we're riding the bikes!

I think I took your meaning ... but also can we have both?

Yes, we're riding the bikes (or walking) ... but people reading here are almost certainly all over their own safety.  But... only to the extent we can be.

Meanwhile the approach of the rest of the world (to us woke folks) seems to be "you better stay out of the way of my vehicle.  I can't even see you half the time (if I only glance, or turn my head a bit ... which is the easiest way)".

And official "safety" campaigns have effectively endorsed this view!   But here's a good analysis of this and how (contrary to the ad) these situations tends to arise in real life.

We know how to make this safer (for cyclists, for children, for ... anyone).  Better driving standards in general, better control over "professional drivers" (the cowboys on coke, with previous...).  Then (longer term) vehicles it's easier to actually properly see out of.  Also - we need some larger vehicles in urban areas - but why are we bringing so many massive vehicles into busy urban areas anyway *?

In the (very) long run some more "protected space" for vulnerable road users is a great way to do it (here's another example of safer "interaction" - e.g none!).

* Another thing we don't see as a "choice" but in fact is - or has evolved with our roads.  In fact some countries tend to use smaller rather than larger vehicles for all manner of things as eg. they are easier to manoeuver and trash roads less.  The same even goes for emergency vehicles.  We can make a choice.

Actually - look at this place where they don't even have roads and yet get deliveries, have fire fighters...

Don't disagree with any of that.

The danger posed to cyclists by HGVs and their drivers is stark: 2% of urban traffic but 25% of urban cyclists' deaths in the UK.

The best solution is elimination - as you say, do we really need so many HGVs?

The next best thing is separation, but as you say this is a solution for the long run.

Increasing driver training and safety standards is important and can be implemented more quickly.

However, I can't influence any of that when I head out on my bike. But awareness of the dangers is helpful, so I know to take extra care around HGVs and buses.

AidanR wrote:

Lovely, but we on this forum are not driving the HGVs, we're riding the bikes!

So the most productive thing we can do with this information is spread the word outside this forum, to those who do actually have significant influence over the danger from them.

Go for it

Lizzie Banks might disagree

stonojnr wrote:

Lizzie Banks might disagree

Well she was cleared in less than a year, terrible for her I know but actually proof that when Pineau says everyone in cycling who tests positive is written off from everything for two years without question he's not really correct.

WADA appealed that clearance decision by UKAD, they still wanted a 2 year ban and her results taken away, last I heard it was going to the Court of Arbitration for sport, that was nearly a year ago.

stonojnr wrote:

WADA appealed that clearance decision by UKAD, they still wanted a 2 year ban and her results taken away, last I heard it was going to the Court of Arbitration for sport, that was nearly a year ago.

According to her Instagram she appeared at the CAS on December 18th and the outcome will be published "at the end of February" so hopefully she'll have some positive news soon. Fingers crossed.

The problem is that Operacion Puerto did find some tennis players associated with Fuentes but it seemed like the Spanish and tennis authorities were not inclined to pursue this line of enquiry. To date they have never been named. On this basis, I think it's quite right to be sceptical about tennis's attitude to doping.

IanMK wrote:

The problem is that Operacion Puerto did find some tennis players associated with Fuentes but it seemed like the Spanish and tennis authorities were not inclined to pursue this line of enquiry. To date they have never been named. On this basis, I think it's quite right to be sceptical about tennis's attitude to doping.

Definitely agree with that, I don't follow it closely but I have met a couple of friends of friends who work as conditioning coaches at Challenger Tour level who have more or less said that if the truth about doping in tennis came out it would create a scandal that would dwarf anything cycling has had, given its higher level of global popularity. Just in this case it seems from the available facts that Sinner does have a reasonable explanation as far as I can see.

mdavidford wrote:

Quote:

it was inadvertently caused by contamination from his physio

I realise it must be a fairly intimate relationship at times, but I didn't think it was normally that intimate...

The assertion was that his physio was using a product that contained the banned substance to treat a finger wound, and that some of it was transferred into Sinner's system in the course of doing massages etc. The banned substance being one that is available in over the counter remedies in Italy, but not lots of other countries, albeit the massages took place I think where the substance isn't available, so it relies on the physio loading up with personal supplies for the journey.

A tennis journalist did go back through the archive photos of the player's box during the relevant period and found that there are images of the physio with a bandaged finger. So there is some evidence to support the explanation. Whether or not you believe the physio would be that stupid or the quantities absorbed make sense is a whole other thing.

I wouldn't believe what a tennis journalists says, they're all in it together. In fact, they're PR people, rather than proper journalists.

You're never going to get any serious investigations into doping in tennis, as they don't think there's a problem. All swept under the carpet......

Velophaart_95 wrote:

I wouldn't believe what a tennis journalists says, they're all in it together. In fact, they're PR people, rather than proper journalists.

You're never going to get any serious investigations into doping in tennis, as they don't think there's a problem. All swept under the carpet......

Like all professions they are a mixed bag, but this particular journalist shared the photos. The thing about top level tennis players is that their entourage is sat on courtside and often on camera. The journalist in question is also frequently at the receiving end of grief from fans of players because he is not a cheerleader, and is frequently critical of individual players and the ATP and other authorities. 

That doesn't mean that the story is true, but it added to the plausibility of his explanation.