Newsgroup: it.sport.ciclismo
Titolo: Jeanson doit patienter dans son affaire de dopage

http://www.geocities.com/velonouvelle/art/6/8aout/P6.html
Toujours désireuse de laver son nom, Geneviève Jeanson, convaincue de 
dopage à l'érythropoïétine (EPO), devra patienter encore plusieurs mois 
avant de livrer sa version des faits devant un panel d'arbitres 
indépendants.
Prévue pour le début du mois d'août, l'audience de l'American 
Arbitration Association (AAA) sur le cas de Jeanson a été repoussée à la 
mi-décembre. Elle se tiendra à Montréal.
« Le processus suit son cours normal. Les parties sont à s'échanger les 
expertises scientifiques et les rapports sont en préparation », a 
déclaré à La Presse Me Jean-Pierre Bertrand, l'avocat de Jeanson, il y a 
quelques jours.
En janvier, Jeanson a annoncé elle-même son contrôle positif à l'EPO, 
une substance dopante interdite, tout en plaidant son innocence. Du même 
souffle, la cycliste de 24 ans a fait part de sa décision de prendre sa 
retraite, se disant fatiguée de se défendre des accusations de dopage 
pesant sur elle.
Jeanson, qui s'expose à une suspension à vie, veut néanmoins blanchir sa 
réputation. Avec l'aide d'experts, elle entend contester la validité 
scientifique du test urinaire de détection de l'EPO devant l'AAA, 
l'instance arbitrale désignée par l'Agence américaine antidopage 
(USADA), qui a procédé au test positif de Jeanson.
Le clan Jeanson soutient être en mesure de prouver que le test urinaire 
n'est pas fiable à 100 % et peut mener à de fausses accusations.
Dans certaines conditions, à température du corps élevée et après un 
effort anaérobique intense, certaines personnes produiraient une 
protéine se retrouvant dans l'urine. La présence de cette protéine 
interférerait sur l'interprétation des résultats du test d'EPO. Jeanson 
prétend être du nombre.
La cycliste originaire de Lachine a subi son test positif dans l'heure 
suivant un contre-la-montre d'une course par étapes disputée en 
Pennsylvanie, le 25 juillet 2005.
Pour le moment, les experts embauchés par Jeanson et les responsables du 
laboratoire antidopage de UCLA, qui a procédé à l'analyse des deux tests 
positifs (échantillons A et B), préparent leurs argumentaires respectifs 
en échangeant des données, a mentionné Me Bertrand.
Les trois parties - Jeanson, l'USADA et la fédération américaine de 
cyclisme (USA Cycling), de qui Jeanson relève - exposeront leurs points 
de vue devant un panel formé de trois arbitres indépendants, déjà 
désignés. L'Agence mondiale antidopage n'exercera pas son droit d'être 
partie devant l'AAA, selon Me Bertrand.
Comme le veulent les règles de fonctionnement de l'AAA, le clan Jeanson 
et l'USADA ont chacun choisi un arbitre, lesquels se sont ensuite 
entendus pour nommer un président. Une décision sera rendue à la majorité.
L'USADA et USA Cycling sont déjà occupés par les cas autrement plus 
chauds du sprinter Justin Gatlin et du cycliste Floyd Landis, qui ont 
récemment été déclarés positifs à la testostérone.
Si elle perd sa cause, Jeanson s'expose à une suspension à vie, 
sanctionn recommandée par le Code mondial antidopage (article 10.2) pour 
une seconde violation.
Jeanson traînait déjà une tache à son dossier à la suite de son omission 
de se présenter à un contrôle antidopage après une course en Belgique, 
en avril 2004. Elle avait évité une première suspension de deux ans en 
faisant la preuve de sa bonne foi devant un panel de l'AAA. Elle n'avait 
écopé que d'une amende et d'un avertissement. Or cet avertissement a 
valeur de première violation dans le cas d'une récidive.
La décision de l'AAA, qui ne devrait pas être rendue avant janvier 2007, 
peut être contestée par les trois parties impliquées devant le Tribunal 
arbitral du sport, sorte de Cour suprême des différends sportifs 
internationaux.
-- 
http://modesta.biciticino.ch
Il sito dedicato alla giovane ciclista lituana Modesta Vzesniauskaite

 indépendants.
Big snip...
If I read that correctly, I don't see anything much new in this. If she
innocent, then doping agencies have ruined her career, and probably the
greatest climber even in history, just after Luperini. But if she have been
using EPO all these years, she is a good example of the safe and careful
usage of EPO. She seems to be healthly and doing just fine, add to that, she
doesn't look like Godzilla, which are the noticiable side effects of
steroids!
http://www.procyclingwomen.com/Genevieve-Jeanson.html
B-

 steroids!
Please, stop saying these things about EPO. A medicine used (abused, 
misused...) outside its original scope is never a good thing for our 
body. And EPO modifies something inside you, not outside...


 body. And EPO modifies something inside you, not outside...
If it pleases you.
But you keep missing the point.
Performance enhancement drugs are here to stay. EPO, supplements, and a
number of enhancements will continued to be refined and reworked until they
are not only safer to use, but the medical experts will continue to find
ways to hide their use in the human body. This isn't about EPO per say, it's
about the (BIGGER QUESTION) of bringing all this out into the open, and put
a stop to the horror chambers! Let these things be all done in full view
allowing the riders to have a safe and fair playing field. We live in a
world of cutting edge pharmacutial advancements, and riders will continue to
use and hide the most cutting edge advancements, legal or not. Big drug
companies will continue to profit from these advances. Riders should be able
to use some of these things if they are safe to do so, and controlled and
administed by medical experts.
That is all I am saying, so chill just a bit! :-)
You overlook the bigger problem overall with the relationship between the
tour, its riders and the doping agencies. You can't speak for the riders
themselves, they are the professional cyclists who are doing all the work
out on the road. I think the riders should have more say within the rules of
a re-formed organization. My point with EPO is, that it is worst to allow
the horror chambers to continue, then to allow medical experts to moniter
and control the use of drugs in a open, controlled and legal enviornment.
Harmful drugs should be banned, but these drugs will clearly fall by the
wayside anyway. Newer safer substances will take their place. It's
hypocritical to deny riders any outside substances because even the most
basic of substances like caffeine is  ingested by riders all the time within
legal limits. (Coffee) During the long history of the tour, riders took all
kinds of drugs to compete and win. You can't expert riders to be totally
clean, it will never happen, ever.
I think the rules should be changed, before the next generation of EPO and
horror chambers start. You need to think outside of the box, objectively,
and instead of this black and white, monolistic approach to a (extremely)
complicated problem that has its roots deeply ingrained in the past with its
history and tradition.
It's not cut and dry! :-(
B-

 body. And EPO modifies something inside you, not outside...
Forget about EPO now for a minute, because you have dragged me way off the
heart of all I have written about the rich tradition of the tour. Talking
about doping in sports is really an obsession in the American forums and not
somthing I take a big interest in, never have really. Its just a black eye
for the sport, and its keeps getting blacker, but what about some of these
ladies?
Do you hate Jeanson? Do you hate Zinaida Stahurskaia? She has been riding in
the grand boucle even back in the late 80's. Can you believe that!?! She has
been around a very long time and I haven't had a chance to research what
level of supplements she had or has been accused of? I did gawk at her legs
once, but I can't say for sure that was from streroids. Did you know Amber
Neben positive was so incredibly low that no one thinks that could of been
anything  but a natural occurence? Did you know Luperini postive was also
proven to been a natural occuring substance, although I don't know what her
levels were.
I don't like the fact that they banned Ulrich, Basso and Vinny from the
tour. This guys should of been allowed to race. I think there is the rush to
judgement, gulity until proven innocent. In America, you are innocent until
proven guilty, not the other way around. They thought back in the days of
Festina, that all this was going to be cleaned up, but it wasn't. It has
only proven that the system has to be re-formed. Remember this isn't an
American sports institution, the Tour is a European tradition and a religon
of France. Same can be said for many of the European Classics.
B-

 But you keep missing the point.
No, è che la pensiamo chiaramente in maniera differente...
Una (parziale) liberalizzazione del doping rappresenterebbe una evidente 
sconfitta in questo contesto...si potrebbe dire che bisogna essere 
realisti, che il doping c'è e sempre ci sarà, ma liberalizzarlo prima 
cosa non impedirebbe a chi vuole imbrogliare ancora di più di farlo...se 
(cosa comunque discutibile) grazie ad un doping libero tutti potrebbero 
trarre i medesimi vantaggi, ci sarà comunque sempre chi vorrà fare 
ancora di più...
Seconda cosa, chi crede veramente in un ciclismo senza doping (e ti 
assicuro che c'è gente che pratica a livello professionistico questo 
sport senza aiuti illeciti) sarebbe il più grande sconfitto da questa 
liberalizzazione.
Terza cosa...vedremmo prevalere chi regge o reagisce meglio al doping, o 
chi a migliori medici...o chi rischia di più...i valori verrebbero (come 
già vengono) completamente mischiati...un campione autentico per 
rimanere tale, suo malgrado, sarebbe probabilmente costretto a ricorrere 
al doping, visto che buoni ciclisti potrebbero raggiungere il suo 
livello e magari discreti ciclisti potrebbero avvicinare le sue 
prestazioni...beh, un campione del genere, mi dispiace ma perderebbe la 
mia stima...preferisco applaudire un McGee, un Moncoutié (questi due 
pare siano veramente puliti, così si dice...e pochi giorni fa apprezzavo 
un intervento invece di Pinotti riguardo l'argomento "sono tutti dopati 
i ciclisti?"...) che non ottengono risultati eccellenti ma li ottengono 
con le proprie forze piuttosto che un vincente che ottiene certi 
risultati barando...sarà che io sono idealista, ma realisticamente 
smettere di lottare contro il doping, contro l'infrazione di regole, 
contro la distruzione dell'essenza di ciò che dovrebbe essere lo sport, 
proprio non mi va...pur sapendo che purtroppo il business è business e 
che la disonestà ci sarà sempre...e che quindi non sarà facile fare 
apprezzabili progressi contro il doping, ma alzare bandiera bianca 
mai...io ho deciso di non assistere più a nessuna gara come forma di 
protesta...sperando un giorno di poter cambiare idea...quanto vorrei 
vedere un gruppo di ciclisti (che vogliono o vorrebbero correre puliti) 
che manifesta contro il doping e contro ciò che succede in un certo 
ambiente...
come è possibile che spessissimo si sente dire: "già dalle categorie 
inferiori il doping dilaga, è necessario per emergere, i ds ci fanno 
capire che bisogna adeguarsi al programma medico della squadra per poter 
fare strada...", cazzo, fate i nomi di certi ds criminali, esiliateli 
per sempre dal ciclismo visto che sono tra i principali responsabili 
della feccia che c'è in giro...invece magari qualcuno veramente dotato 
emergerà comunque senza doping, altri invece magari si adegueranno al 
sistema pur di realizzare un sogno e altri ammirevoli diranno no e 
diranno per sempre basta al loro sogno...reagite porca put...., per non 
essere vittime e colpevoli di questo putrido sistema...alla fine la 
salute è vostra, non dei DS che vi dirigono o dei medici che vi curano.


 wrote in message
news:eb9i2v$82i$1...@newsreader.mailgate.org...

I understand somewhat what your typed, but I don't understand it well enough
to respond to reply. Perhaps, later if I come back to this post, I can give
a parital reply.
B-