VROEMEN DECLARED INNOCENT

His manager was Stefan Matschiner(Intl. Sports Agency), who was also the manager of busted top-cyclists Bernhard Kohl and Mikael Rasmussen and other now banned top endurance athletes.

Matschiner and Kohl(as well as others) already have confessed that they have used blood doping for years.

For years most of the doping happend in a blood lab in Vienna, which according to the police was a doping center for dozens of world class athletes from Europe(xc skiers, cyclists, biathletes, triathletes, runners).

Some insider put out a client list which involved several athletes who had already been caught, have confessed or confessed then as well as Simon Vroemen.

They couldn't put anyone in court cause the lab stopped when a tough law was passed last year(which puts people who organise doping in jail).The police also was not allowed to hand the data to the anti-doping-agencies because of privacy rights or something.

After the lab stopped, Matschiner together with some athletes bought equipment from them(Matschiner was also accused by pro-athletes of selling EPO, HGH and other stuff), the machines are now in the hands of the austrian police and dozens of different DNA profiles have been found as well as data that suggests that the machine has been used by a lot of different athletes lately.Kohl, Rasmussen and xc skiing gold medallist Christian Hoffmann are now getting prosecuted for organising blood doping and might face jail time.

Vroemens coach was Helmut Stechemesser, formerly active for the east germans and a close friend of Matschiner.

Over the last couple of years several of his athletes have been caught for blood doping/epo(800m runner Jolanda Ceplak among them).

According to slovenian newspapers, Bostjan Buc, who was/is coached by Vroemen, was a part of Matschiners network and involved in the whole doping mess.

sc42 wrote:

Dingler wrote:

You wouldn't have made it far as a lawyer. Innocent means you didn't commit the act, not guilty means it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you commited the act. In US criminal law the burden of poof lies on the prosecution, meaning the accused need not prove his innocence, the state must prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

You wouldn't have made it far either! "Innocent means you didn't commit the act". No. It means there is at least a reasonable doubt that you committed the act.

No. That is "not guilty". "Innocent" is a moral state, it is not a verdict. Does a jury ever find a defendent innocent? No, they either find him guilty or not guilty.

I'd like to site Brown v Board of Education if I could your honor.

And then cite it, too.

not guilty = not found guilty by a group of humans

innocent = did not commit or did not participate in the offense

very different

ever heard of ojSIMPSON

SVSTPL wrote:

The positive test for anabolics has not reached a verdict yet, after 1 year of research. That case is far from clear and is now being researched at universities around Europe.

It is far from a clear doping case. And Vroemen did never get convicted for any other banned substance, the (false?) posiitive of last year was his first offence (2004 was only a warning for en expired permission to use an anti-asthma inhalor).

I will keep you informed, case seems to be very unclear and complicated - substance also a non-standard / non-logical dope for a long distance guy I guess...

I appreciate your desire to keep us informed, but I'm still confused about what these "cases" are that you're reporting on. You're using terms like "convicted," "illegal," and "the prosecution," which are typically terms used in criminal matters, not WADA, Court of Sport, or arbitration matters. You have also used the term "verdict," which in the United States refers to determinations by juries, not judges or arbitrators.

As for Vroemen's positive test for methandienon, which was confirmed by a positive test on the "B" sample, I'm not sure what you are saying to be "far from clear," "very unclear," and "complicated." Methandienon, better known in the U.S. by its brand name "Dianabol" or its street name "D-bol," has been a popular anabolic steroid among drug cheats for many years. Until pretty recently, the generally-administered doping test was unable to detect methandienon as long as the athlete discontinued its use a couple of weeks before the test. Last year, however, a newer and much more sensitive test was able to detect methandienon use over a longer time period. The result was a rash of positive tests for methandienon among many Olympic-caliber athletes (including at least eleven members of the Bulgarian weightlifting team) around late spring (May-June) last year, when Vroemen tested positive.

I'm not sure what "verdict" you're awaiting on Vroemen's positive test for methandienon. Are you referring to an ongoing arbitration proceeding?

For the record, newspaper practice is to write "innocent" rather than "not guilty" just in case the "not" happens to get dropped during the editing process, which can be a huge problem as you can imagine. In other words, the media sees "innocent" and "not guilty" as synonymous.

He is clean. Trust me, I saw him running and he had the gait

of a clean athlete.

Vroemens manager was Jops Hermens, not Matcshiner. Only when Vroemen stopped competing after 2006, Matschiner arranged 2 races for Vroemen. Therefore, it is very unlikley that Vroemen has anything to do with the confessions of Matschiner (especially since Matschiner worked only with athletes paying huge amounts of money). Insinuations should in my view be stopped unless there is proof for these.

Vroemens defence has scientific evidence (now from 2 labs) that a corticoid-based asthma inhalor (legal) was responsible for his false-positive test for metandienone. It is suspected that many other "positive" since the new test are false - as it appears that the test has never been validated for specificity. Various experts are now reviewing this proof, thats why I referred to "unclear".

Cheers

"... as it appears that the test has never been validated for specificity."

Now that is news (if true). Where did you see this reported? Do you also know when his hearing with CAS is scheduled?

SVSTPL wrote:

Vroemens defence has scientific evidence (now from 2 labs) that a corticoid-based asthma inhalor (legal) was responsible for his false-positive test for metandienone. It is suspected that many other "positive" since the new test are false - as it appears that the test has never been validated for specificity. Various experts are now reviewing this proof, thats why I referred to "unclear".

I, too, would like to see the source of your information. It's not surprising that Vroemen would hire experts to testify that a relatively new test is invalid -- consider Tyler Hamilton's hiring of an expert to testify about an "invisible twin" theory to explain the existence of someone else's blook mixed in with his blood -- but I'm extremely skeptical about the allegation that an approved doping test (which was actually developed and published quite some time before it was used to catch dopers last year) would identify a corticosteroid as Dianobol (methandienon or metandienone). My skepticism is heightened by the fact that the same purported misreading showed up in the tests of Bulgarian weightlifters (who have a notorious history of doping). If you look at the group of athletes who have tested positive for methandienon under this new test, it's not much different from what you'd expect if you just rounded up some of the usual suspects.

bamaLoveThee wrote:

not guilty = not found guilty by a group of humans

innocent = did not commit or did not participate in the offense

This guy has it. To be declared "not guilty" means the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the offense. To be declared "innocent" you would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not.

Reading the verdict teaches us that actually conclusive evidence was presented that all actions taken were completely accoring to wada rules. No evidence for an illegal was presented.

Hence Vroemen has not only been declared not guilty, but also innocent by standards of international law.

Every American court statas that "suspects are assumed innocent until proven guilty". So there should not be any discussion on his innocence, unless you refuse to underwrite American law.

We are not in a court room, you f***ing mong. So these legal presumptions dont apply.

Vroemen's coach, Stechemesser, also had another athlete, Pumper, test positive for epo only to claim innoncence.

What you're selling, nobody's buying.

yes, but also wrote:

Vroemen's coach, Stechemesser, also had another athlete, Pumper, test positive for epo only to claim innoncence.

What you're selling, nobody's buying.

Hell, Rosa's son had an athlete (Chepchumba) get popped for EPO and no one made a big deal out of it. If officials weren't doing so much covering up for PC reasons (and it isn't about money) you'd see tons of cases like this, with probably a third of them involving athletes who are so clean they " ... won't even take an aspirin."

Vroemen was self-coacing, not coached by Stechemesser.

He had a short stint in 2004 (6 months preparing for Olympics) with Stechemesser but had his worst year ever so quit.

Please don't link Vroemen with people he has not worked with for 5 years.

About the anti-asthme thing: indeed, this one only tests positive in the metandienone test if the urine is kept for a long time at room temperature or higher. In Vroemens case it took Wada 4 dyas to transport it over 200 km!!

He can't pass the smell test.

The drip scenario: stinky poo poo (he happened to carry a drip with him)

his manager Matschiner: stinky poo poo

his coach/doctor Stechemesser: stinky poo poo

his "final" decision to quit sport in 2007, only to return in 2008 in top form: stinky poo poo

his positive drug test in '08: stinky poo poo

Running faster at age 39 (8:12 steeple) than he did at age 29 (8:19 steeple) : stinky poo poo.

What a stinky mess!