So Alberto tested p...
 

[Closed] So Alberto tested positive for clenbuterol bronchodilator drug and blames food?

Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Wonder what will happen next with UCI and his tour win...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/4183845/Alberto-Contador-tests-positive-to-steroid

ā“


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 2:54 am
Posts: 388
Full Member
 

I'm sure it's perfectly innocent.

He was sitting eating a nice chorizo salad when a waiter accidentally discharged an entire clenbuterol inhaler over his lunch. Unfortunately Contador (due to a congenital lack of taste buds) could not taste this in his food and decided to munch his way through his meal regardless. Viola - food contamination!

I mean who in there right mind would ever suspect Contador of cheating?


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 4:15 am
 10
Posts: 1506
Full Member
 

I trust him. He's not guilty till Landis says so!


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 4:33 am
Posts: 5938
Free Member
 

the amount found is 400 times less than what labs are legally obliged to declare. so its a tiny amount. but the test was done on 21st July, in all his previous tests there were no traces of it, and it stays in the system for 24-36 hours, so that means he had an advantage (a tiny one) for the second tormalet stage.....


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 6:50 am
Posts: 31075
Free Member
 

Well, I never...


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 7:32 am
 LHS
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Christ, any of these "professional" athletes not cheating!

[u][b]Sports[/b][/u]men they are not!


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 7:37 am
Posts: 12087
Full Member
 

He was sitting eating a nice chorizo salad when a waiter accidentally discharged an entire clenbuterol inhaler over his lunch. Unfortunately Contador (due to a congenital lack of taste buds) could not taste this in his food and decided to munch his way through his meal regardless. Viola - food contamination!

I mean who in there right mind would ever suspect Contador of cheating?

Except it's also used illegally in cattle farming, contaminated food could be the cause.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 7:39 am
 hora
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

The Ghost of Operación Puerto finally catching up with him?


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 7:43 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Given the fact its such a tiny amount and if it is the Tourmalet stage he didn't exactly have any advantage over Shleck, unless proven otherwise I think it could be a genuine case of contamination of some kind. Would be a real shame if its not.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 7:50 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Tut Tut Tut Mr C.

Armstrong all the way.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 7:52 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Just a tiny amount eh?

His 'doctor' slightly got his timing wrong then?

All of them are at it to some degree


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 7:55 am
Posts: 24436
Full Member
 

was it the inhaler canister he jammed in schlecks chainset?


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 7:57 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Considering clenbuterol is so easy to detect, it would have been a indescribable error by any alleged doping team that may have been treating him.

ie, it would have been an amazing mistake, so unlikley that it probably isn't true. at least thats the 'excuses' i expect to read for the next year or two


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 8:01 am
 hora
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

uplink, cynical but I agree. They'll be bouncing vastly reduced dosages into the rider after checking individual metabolisms, rider weight and how fast it takes to flush out etc...

Always one step of the testers.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 8:02 am
Posts: 9
Free Member
 

{Racist abuse deleted and user banned! - Mod}


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 8:03 am
 SST
Posts: 5
Free Member
 

Is this a drug that can help for a single day, ie provides a spike, or is it something that needs to be taken over a period of time to have any benefit?


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 8:06 am
Posts: 5938
Free Member
 

Steve Austin, I'm thinking there could be some sort of masking substance which hasn't done its job properly?

and if it is the Tourmalet stage he didn't exactly have any advantage over Shleck

But it was maybe enough to enable him to withstand Schlecks attacks?


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 8:13 am
 hora
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Miniscual yes. However why haven't other leading riders had such positive tests '400 times below the level normally tested'?


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 8:17 am
Posts: 12087
Full Member
 

Miniscual yes. However why haven't other leading riders had such positive tests '400 times below the level normally tested'?

Not eaten contaminated food? Different drug lab? New testing protocol? Who knows? Maybe he is guilty, he obviously wouldn't be the first rider, but he always seems like a nice enough guy, so I'm waiting to see what the final result is.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 8:19 am
 hels
Posts: 971
Free Member
 

Not defending the man or anything, but if the sample is (warning - meaningless science from the press)"400 times below the legal reportable limit" then surely the UCI can't do anything ??

And how did this get in the press anyway ? How about some comparisons for example test 50 people who live around his way and see what their level is ?

Before destroying a man's career based on bad science and bad journalism.

(again, not defending cheaters, just saying this is pish)

And liking how the NZ press refers to Cycling as "Other Sports" when what they really mean is "Those Weirdos Who Don't Play Rugby - What Are They ??"


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 8:22 am
Posts: 24436
Full Member
 

[i]400 times below the legal reportable limit[/i]

that's why they have suspended him pending further investigations rather than banned him atm


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 8:24 am
Posts: 1594
Full Member
 

hels.. R4 are reporting that it got into the press because Contador released a statement.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 8:36 am
 hels
Posts: 971
Free Member
 

Ah - so he is going for Own Up before I Get Caught then ?


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 8:38 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Maybe ban loddrik until he reassesses how to converse about 'Jonny foreigner'?

EDIT: seems I was beaten to it...


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 8:38 am
Posts: 12087
Full Member
 

[i]400 times below the legal reportable limit[/i]

that's why they have suspended him pending further investigations rather than banned him atm

It's not the legal reportable limit, but rather the minimum level detectable for a lab to be UCI certified. I [i]think[/i] the limit is 0.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 8:41 am
 br
Posts: 18125
Free Member
 

I'm starting to wonder whether its actually possible to either have a 'clean' sport or that riders are actually able to stay 'clean.

A recent equestrian story has brought this to light:

First story, Sep 09.

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/386/289651.html

Luckily this lady had access to the funds to fight her name, and has been shown to by innocent:

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/article.php?aid=302201

Turns out that the banned substance was actually in some totally legal horse feed/supplement - that had been contaminated at the (reputable) manufacture. It is very very common for horse to be supplied supllements, for a variety of reasons.

And animal feeds are very rigiously tested and controlled, in many cases to a greater level than food for human consumption - do YOU actually know what was in those cakes you ate yesterday?


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 8:42 am
Posts: 25922
Full Member
 

do YOU actually know what was in those cakes you ate yesterday?

šŸ˜‰


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 9:01 am
 hora
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

do YOU actually know what was in those cakes you ate yesterday?

Yes, I was facing a difficult off road mountain bike route so decided to eat specific items that were laced with performance enhancing products?


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 9:02 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I'm starting to wonder whether its actually possible to either have a 'clean' sport or that riders are actually able to stay 'clean.

I think this is a pretty insightful comment. There will come a point where we can no longer define 'clean', or perhaps more accurately 'fair' in a way that everyone can agree with.

If you take the argument to the Nth degree, you start to find that you come back on yourself. The winner in a fair competition is the person who won based on merit and hardwork. However you could argue that the person born with 'better DNA' will have an 'unfair' advantage based on the fact that the advantage was inherited, not developed.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 9:04 am
Posts: 41395
Free Member
 

Yay! A banning!


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 9:07 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Well, it was a pretty damned stupid statement


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 9:11 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

us specialized riders DONT cheat


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 9:12 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Quite a coincidence that his food was contaminated with a drug that is widely used by athletes, particularly top level cyclists, and particularly cyclists wanting to lose weight and increase lean muscle mass. Like a hill climber for example.

It's a drug that is cycled as it becomes tolerated very quickly, so my money is on there having been residual traces left in his body after a pre-tour course. I think that would be more likely than a poor masking agent - there wouldn't be much need to mask a drug that has gone after 36hrs.

I suspect he took a calculated risk that he wouldn't get tested until after a stage win, but someone got their sums wrong.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 9:14 am
Posts: 1594
Full Member
 

cynic-al... I thought you meant that for Contador, and was about to point out he was only suspended... but then realised you meant loddrik up there..

:oD


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 9:14 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

It's a drug that is cycled as it becomes tolerated very quickly, so my money is on there having been [b]residual traces left in his body after a [u]pre-tour course[/u][/b]. I think that would be more likely than a poor masking agent - there wouldn't be much need to mask a [b]drug that has gone after 36hrs.[/b]

These two parts of your argument are contradictory, surely??


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 9:17 am
Posts: 143
Full Member
 

[i]It's a drug that is cycled as it becomes tolerated very quickly, so my money is on there having been residual traces left in his body after a pre-tour course.[/i]

So why did it not show up on any of the previous stage tests?


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 9:18 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I've often wondered in professional sport how easy it would be to 'spike' someone with a banned substance and get them disqualified - not suggesting this is what happened in this case though.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 9:19 am
Posts: 5559
Free Member
 

so my money is on there having been residual traces left in his body after a pre-tour course. I think that would be more likely than a poor masking agent - there wouldn't be much need to mask a drug that has gone after 36hrs.

FFS even your own posts says it is gone after 36 hours so how the hell would it still be there from pre tour use and also not detected before? šŸ™„ .

It is such a small trace it seems possible that it is contamination and I think it is unlikely he would cheat this badly or with such a low level amount. Given the nature and repoutation of the sport it is difficult to not suspect they all cheat hence many will think it was deliberate


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 9:24 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

So why did it not show up on any of the previous stage tests?

I'm not sure how the dates stack up - and I've not got time to trawl through the results etc - but it's not inconceivable that he cycled the drug when he knew he wouldn't be winning a stage for 36 hrs (I think I'm right in thinking stage winners are routinely tested).

He didn't win a single stage this year, even gifting the Tourmalet stage to Schleck - that could have been a strategy to avoid testing.

Just a thought, I'm no expert...


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 9:25 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

FFS even your own posts says it is gone after 36 hours so how the hell would it still be there from pre tour use and also not detected before?

Erm... Because he could have finished cycling the drug before there was any chance of a stage win and the resultant mandatory testing? šŸ™„

As I said, pure conjecture. I know no more about it than you.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 9:27 am
Posts: 20599
Full Member
 

[i]He didn't win a single stage this year, even gifting the Tourmalet stage to Schleck - that could have been a strategy to avoid testing.

Just a thought, I'm no expert... [/i]

Yellow Jersey is always tested regardless of where he finishes.
Usual protocol is Jersey Holders, first three and then 3 randoms.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 9:33 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

as regards to testing.... he like all others are tested the day before the prologue and all top riders (and loads of others) are tested after each stage.
If he had got to that stage without a post stage test it would be unbeleivable!!

But yes, sadly, I feel some sort of cheating might be on the cards here...


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 9:38 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Yellow Jersey is always tested regardless of where he finishes.
Usual protocol is Jersey Holders, first three and then 3 randoms.

Cheers Crazy-Legs. How does that fit in with his performance on the 2 days prior to his test?
Could he have stopped taking the drug before making a bid for the yellow jersey or would he already have been tested under that protocol prior to this?


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 9:38 am
Posts: 5559
Free Member
 

Just a thought, I'm no expert...

I think we all realised that bit with your totally contradictory explanation of the positive test and subsequent ramblings about thinking only the stage winner is tested.

From UCI

?Alberto Contador underwent sport drug testing during many days of the 2010 Tour de France, including July 19, 20, 21, and 22.
?No Clenbuterol was detected in any of the tests prior to July 21.
?An extremely low trace concentration of Clenbuterol was found in the urine sample taken on July 21; the concentration found in the urine sample taken on July 22 was even lower.
?The half-life of Clenbuterol is 25-39 hours.
?These facts show that Clenbuterol was ingested after the urine testing on July 20 in an amount that could have never enhanced his performance.
?There are numerous documented cases of humans ingesting Clenbuterol accidentally by eating meat from animals that have been fed the substance to stimulate growth.

EDIT: No dont change explain how the pre tour use caused the positive for the drug at levels 400 times lower than normal and on only one day despite previous testing? You could just admit you were wrong to suggest pre tour use and we can move on.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 9:39 am
Posts: 2591
Free Member
 

becky_kirk43 - Member

Given the fact its such a tiny amount

Oh that's fine then seeing as it was only a tiny bit......

Easily done too I'm sure - accidentally got some Stanazolol over my Crunchy Nut Cornflakes this morning, as you do.

I suppose they'll give the 2010 TDF win to Andy Schleck who'll become as feted for the win as that guy who came 2nd to Landis and then got awarded it later. Whatever his name was?

Oh, Oscar Peireiro (I had to look it up).


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 9:41 am
Posts: 5559
Free Member
 

The sport's governing body stated that the concentration found by the laboratory was estimated at 50 picograms (or 0,000 000 000 05 grams per ml), which is 400 times less than what the antidoping laboratories accredited by WADA are required to detect.

Hard to say what kind of advantage [if any]he gained with such low levels


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 9:44 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

FFS even your own posts says it is gone after 36 hours so how the hell would it still be there from pre tour use and also not detected before? šŸ™„

I think we all realised that bit with your totally contradictory explanation of the positive test and subsequent ramblings about thinking only the stage winner is tested.

Is there any need for such an aggressive tone? We're simply discussing a situation that none of us are fully informed about in the hope that we can, from our collective input, form more informed opinions.

I really don't think it's the time or the place for you to be trying to start one of your petty arguments.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 9:58 am
 hora
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Yes its a small amount but hes literally a character out of Burtons Nightmare before Christmas so that amount is probably smacking him upto his tits šŸ˜†


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 10:00 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Clenbuterol is one of the most easily detected things out there, as someone has already said it would be a massive error on the part of a doper or their doping-management to have them take it.

It appears as a contaminant in a lot of food supplements, one of the articles on Cylingnews covers this pretty well. There is also past examples of athletes being banned for Clenbuterol use, then finding traces of it in their supplements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Hardy

I'm not a huge Contador fan, but I do think it is a shame what appears to be a possible accident (even by the admission of the UCI press statement) is being aired so publicly.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 10:09 am
Posts: 5559
Free Member
 

Is there any need for such an aggressive tone? I really don't think it's the time or the place for you to be trying to start one of your petty arguments

Sorry I failed to realise you had an epiphany and are no longer a hate filled bile spouting monger of insults- I said nothing personal about you [a standard you fail to adhere to]- still want to defend what you said to FC am I anywhere near that rude? Still prepared to say it face to face? I only pointed out what you said was incoherent pish which it is.
In deference to the new sensitive Adam who is capable of being offended. I offer a fulsome apology for saying your argument was b0ll0cks and promise to treat you with the respect you treat others from now on.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 10:23 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Sorry I failed to realise you had an epiphany

I have a Moment, actually. ;o)


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 10:32 am
Posts: 91157
Free Member
 

Junkyard - leave it.. no need to keep being an arse. Nothing bad's been said on this thread, let's keep it that way.

Quite a coincidence that his food was contaminated with a drug that is widely used by athletes, particularly top level cyclists, and particularly cyclists wanting to lose weight and increase lean muscle mass

Not really a co-incidence, since the performance enhancing drugs are the ones that get tested. Your food could be contaminated with all sorts of things that don't enhance performance, and no-one would ever know.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 10:34 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

either way - not a great day for cycling.

(and, what about all the footballers and tennis pros who have been involved in the big doping cases?? Not much seems to happen in those cases, just 'other sports' like cycling)


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 10:37 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

becky_kirk43 - Member

Given the fact its such a tiny amount

Oh that's fine then seeing as it was only a tiny bit......

Easily done too I'm sure - accidentally got some Stanazolol over my Crunchy Nut Cornflakes this morning, as you do.

"such a tiny amount " is significant in two respects:

a) as per the UCI statement - not performance enhancing (therefore would a cheasting athlete really have bothered with such a low "dose")

b) The substance may be easy to detect, but at very low concentrations the laboratory detection and reporting errors become a statistically significant component. I'd be surprised if such a result was even covered within the laboratory's method accreditation...


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 10:41 am
Posts: 0
 

FFS even your own posts says it is gone after 36 hours so how the hell would it still be there from pre tour use and also not detected before?

Could be the traces from blood bagged before the tour then transfused on the rest day?


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 10:42 am
Posts: 20599
Full Member
 

[i]Could be the traces from blood bagged before the tour then transfused on the rest day? [/i]

You wouldn't put blood in/out on a rest day.
If you're going to blood dope it's done on the morning of a hard stage - any sooner and the body actually starts to break it down to restore the normal balance of blood.

Interesting theory though!


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 10:56 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

The substance may be easy to detect, but at very low concentrations the laboratory detection and reporting errors become a statistically significant component

50 pg/ml isn't a particularly low level, you can routinely detect much lower concentrations than that.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 11:01 am
Posts: 5559
Free Member
 

I have molgrips. I dont understand why you keep wanting to defend him giving his vitrolic posting history. As I said I will treat him the way he treats others. I insulted his argument [ rightly] not the person.
Halington Intersting suggestion but why would he bag contaminated blood? I would at the very least test the stuff for drugs before putting it back in me. Not sure if it would still degrade in bagged blood but other "stuff" does as they are using it to develop a test for transfusions from self to self - no test for this at present IIRC. My knowledge limit is reached. At such small levels, and not performancing enhancing on a rest day, I would give him the benefit of the doubt. I am no great fan and think it was very unsporting to attack the mechanical so not his number one fan boy.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 11:01 am
Posts: 91157
Free Member
 

In this case I am not defending him, I am criticising you for keeping old fights going into new threads when he's not actually said anything bad here.

You want him to be nice, he's being nice, and you continue having a go with what APPEARS to be animosity disguised with fake apologies. That's how I read it anyway, and I really do apologise if I've misconstrued.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 11:07 am
Posts: 3319
Full Member
 

Just heard Millar on the radio saying he didn't believe it, it didn't make sense, it was a rest day etc etc

He knows about doping I suppose.

On the other hand, the landis thing didn't make sense either. Too easy to detect. I didn't believe it at the time.

I'm not bothered either way tbh, it all adds to the drama if you ask me.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 11:10 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I insulted his argument [ rightly] not the person.

But in your eagerness to try and stir trouble, you completely overlooked the fact that I was making suggestions based on what I clearly admitted were not a full uderstanding of the situation in the hope that others could clarify the facts. That's how a discussion works. Stick around, you might learn something.

And repeatedly bringing up a jokey putdown that I delivered to another troll does nothing but make you look desperate. šŸ™„


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 11:14 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I've always suspected contador, even since he beat cancellara in that time trial in the tour in 09. But for cyclings sake, I've always wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. If it comes out that he was cheating, then I will hate him for this. I'm not going to pay much attention to this thread because its probably just going to be a load of roadie hating mtbers telling everyone that all roadies are dopers. I think I will wait until the truth comes out before making a proper judgement. Lets just hope cycling pulls through.

[crazy armstrong fan]ARMSTRONG SO WOULDVE WON IF CONTADOR WASNT CHEATING HE SHOULD BE GIVEN THE YELLOW JERSEY BY DEFAULT[/crazy armstrong fan]


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 11:14 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

before spiking his own meal with ze drugs and zen pulling ze old 'switcheroo'."

šŸ˜†


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 11:25 am
Posts: 3384
Free Member
 

50 pg/ml isn't a particularly low level, you can routinely detect much lower concentrations than that.

I've developed HPLC cleaning methods for API's and the result that they are getting (if my maths is right) is 3 orders of magnitude (2 if we used a larger injection volume) below the range we would be looking at for direct injection.

I presume you want him to piss 30 gallons to be able to concentrate the samples for analysis?

It's a tiny amount and I would suspect without sample manipulation (ie concentrating) that the result is about LOQ if not LOD and as such not worth bothering your arse over.

With a lot of sample manipulation you could get a result into linear range but the result obtained is such a tiny amount it's not worth bothering your arse over.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 11:46 am
 hora
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Any latest news on this?


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 11:47 am
Posts: 646
Full Member
 

He's giving a press conference now. Blames contamination of meat bought in Spain. How he's traced this, ive no idea.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 11:53 am
Posts: 20599
Full Member
 

He's giving a press conference and meanwhile this news breaks...

http://road.cc/content/news/24932-breaking-spanish-press-reports-vuelta-runner-mosquera-has-failed-drugs-test


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 11:54 am
Posts: 5938
Free Member
 

Saccades - you seem to know your stuff, is there any known substances that masks this steroid? I suppose thats a bit of a daft question though? cause if they knew about them they'd test for them....


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 11:55 am
Posts: 20599
Full Member
 

[i]Saccades - you seem to know your stuff, is there any known substances that masks this steroid? I suppose thats a bit of a daft question though? cause if they knew about them they'd test for them.... [/i]

Clenbuterol has such a short half life that it's not worth masking.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 12:02 pm
Posts: 3384
Free Member
 

It's not my field, but the science is the same (if that makes sense).

Most applications involve either "spreading" out the sample through a detector and comparing to a known reference standard (generally comparing retention times) or affecting the sample in some way (giving it a charge/smashing it into it's components).

It's much easier for me because I know I'm looking for X because that's what we just made, X happens to break down to Y and Z and maybe some other bits etc - it's rare that Q will pop up out of no-where.

It's much harder for drug testing labs ('spesh if the dopers know which method is being used to analyse the samples) as just something like the pH of the sample can completely shift the RT's.

With something like a Mass Spec (smashes the molecule and you work out what it is from the ratio of the different smashed bits) you can add something else that would upset the ratio. You would like to think that the added "hider" would be seperated out by the sample prep method but that's why the testing labs are generally 1 step behind.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 12:09 pm
 hora
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Blames contamination of meat bought in Spain

Abit like Jan Ulrich unfortunately falling into that industrial-sized vat of Cocaine? šŸ˜†


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 12:10 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Yes its a small amount but hes literally a character out of Burtons Nightmare before Christmas so that amount is probably smacking him upto his tits

No Hora you're just fat.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 12:16 pm
 hora
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I'm not fat. I'm sturdy like yo mamma šŸ˜†


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 12:17 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

[b]Shibboleth[/b] - Member

Is there any need for such an aggressive tone?

[img] [/img]

Nice one Shib. That's proper tickled me that has.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 12:18 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

You're not 'sturdy' Hora; you're fat. Binners told me.

You push your bike up hills. Need I say more?


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 12:19 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

A wikipedia article says "a lack of knowledge of the source of the substance ingested is not considered to be a defence against a positive result". Surely that means that Andy gets the TdF and Alberto gets a couple of years of training ahead of him irrespective of whether he intentionally doped or got some bad beef from Spain.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 12:21 pm
 hora
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

That would be ridiculous. Guilty even if you were INNOCENT and spiked? **** off!


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 12:23 pm
 aP
Posts: 681
Free Member
 

well done hora - you're about to be the first stw-er sued for libel.


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 12:23 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Nice one Shib. That's proper tickled me that has.

No problem my funny little friend, spreading happiness is my [i]raison d'ĆŖtre[/i].

šŸ™‚


 
Posted : 30/09/2010 12:24 pm
Page 1 / 3