VROEMEN DECLARED INNOCENT

Stechemesser was not his coach - he self coached

Matschiner was not his manager - Jos Hermens was

He did NOT carry a drip himslef, a team doctor gave it to him.

many athletes get better when older. Most of the sprinters do, and so do marathon runners.

So stop the lies and face the truth. This guy is a natural who trained very hard, very long (20 years) and very smart (hurdles!) - and is now criticised by some who are lazy, not smart, and quit sports to have kids and an easier life. And most of all: who fail to believe in talent, and who are jealous. Get a life and respect the most talented athletes in the world

Why dont you get a life and start to respect other peoples' opinions.

sprinters do not get better as they get older. Sprinters usually peak in their mid 20s. You don't find many sprinters who have top speed after their late 20s unless they are juiced.

SVSTPL wrote:

Stechemesser was not his coach - he self coached

Matschiner was not his manager - Jos Hermens was

He did NOT carry a drip himslef, a team doctor gave it to him.

Stechemesser was his coach, it was even on his homepage and Matschiner was his manager, he might have been managed by Hermens before or after.

Why would Jos Hermans manage a 8:12 39 year old steeple chaser who is so obviously suspicious...does that not say something about the manager and how he works?

SVSTPL wrote:

Stechemesser was not his coach - he self coached

Matschiner was not his manager - Jos Hermens was

He did NOT carry a drip himslef, a team doctor gave it to him.

many athletes get better when older. Most of the sprinters do, and so do marathon runners.

So stop the lies and face the truth. This guy is a natural who trained very hard, very long (20 years) and very smart (hurdles!) - and is now criticised by some who are lazy, not smart, and quit sports to have kids and an easier life. And most of all: who fail to believe in talent, and who are jealous. Get a life and respect the most talented athletes in the world

Vroemen's own words: ‘I had diarrhea, was constantly vomiting en had a high fever. Around 01:00 at night I called the teamdoctor Peter Vergouwen. He treated me but said there was no medical indication for a drip. The next day I called my own two docters, Berend Nikkels and Helmut Stechemesser. They recommended me to use a drip with natriumchloride. Luckily I carried one with me.’

yes, but also wrote:

'Luckily I carried one with me.’

Yeah, I remember that line. Priceless.

Those words never came out of Vroemens mouth and the journalist writing them down even had to opologize for misquoting. Vroemen never said he carried a drip - how ridiculous to even think that.

Everyone likes to be associated to great tahtlets and hence they put every great name on their webpage that they ever organised 1 race for. So stating that he wa son the webpage does not say anything - why would you need another manager if one of the best managers in the world lives in around the corner of your home town.

Guess I better stop here - I see even Pamela Jelimo is under heavy EPO suspicions after a bad race in rabat, elsewhere in this forum. This seems to be sort of dopers suspicion forum, in which you can't really win.

Enjoy tryingto link every athlete to doping, even the now proven clean Vroemen.

has the CAS cleared him ?

if not, he's NOT proven clean

I just wonder what kind of asthma inhaler Simon used provoking this positive test. Because there are asthma substances that are perfomance enhancing (e.g. salbutamol) and maybe this asthma substance could not be found but it resulted in a positive methandienone test.

SVSTPL wrote:

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).

Just to be clear, IAAF still lists the 2004 incident as a doping sanction, and notes that he was not merely given a public warning, but was also disqualified. You may be correct, however, to the extent that the positive test last year may be treated as a "first offense" for the purpose of deciding an appropriate sanction, resulting in only a two-year ban.

I wonder what your explanation of the following is:

"Although the Dutch athletic federation did not look closely into the incident at that point in time they will report it in the next days to the Dutch doping authorities. (Use of the drip). This has been acknowledged by General Manager Rien van Haperen yesterday. ‘The federation takes a rigorous stance against doping and we think this is a reasonable measure to take.’ The federation regrets that it has not reported this in an earlier stages. ‘We can be blamed for that,’ states van Haperen.

Vroemen now states that he made an agreement with Rien Van Haperen and Peter Verlooy of the federation in Götheborg. ‘They told me not to talk about the incident. But now that they decide to talk, I can do the same.’ Vroemen acknowledges that he performed an illegal action but talks about it as if it were a small negligence. ‘At least I didn’t use any illegal substance,’ says Vroemen who reminds us that during the 2004 Olympics the use of a glucose drip was still allowed.

The reason that the federation has not reported this before is the agreement they had with Simon Vroemen that he would put an end to his carreer after Götheborg. So he did. Until a few months ago Vroemen made a remarkable come-back by qualifying for the Olympics in a race in Cottbus on June 11th. A few days later he announced himself that he had tested positive for metandienon. Earlier this week Simon Vroemen was already suspended for the positive dopingtest from a few weeks ago.

The article above is a result of a close collaboration between journalist Frank Woestenburg of De Telegraaf and Vivian Ruijters, editor of losseveter.nl.

apparently it was a corticosteroid inhaler ( standard treatment )

these steroids are glucocorticoids & are molecularly distinct from anabolic steroids

i find it extremely hard to believe that the metandione test lacks such specificity it gives a false +ve to a different class of steroids !

Ventolin,

I agree it at first sight looks unlikely but scientists proved that thermal breakdown of the corticoid in question results in the exact same peaks when urine is not stored cool (4 days at room temp in V case). These steroids are different in structure but have a very common backbone of ring structures against which some of the Mass Spectrometry tests are targeted. The new Cologne test has never been validated for specificity and has resulted in many more positives, among which quite possible false positives. I have a background in mass spectrometry and think it is very well possible that this could happen but cannot comment on specifics in this case. It would be like Belgium Rutger Beke proving the epo test to eb aspecific in 2006.

the backbone may be the same, but not all the varying numbers of methyl/ethyl/etc groups

these all "magically" disappear on testing ?!

& mass spec is just one aspect of tests - e g the epo test has ~ 50 steps & the definitive one is electrophoresis of the molecule

indeed Ventolin you are right there are differences, but strangely the Cologne test is mostly aimed at the "non-different" ring chains with the exception of one so-called highly specific mass element. This one however also shows up in non-cooled budenoside samples. Scientific publication in preparation which will undermine the test I guess.