Alberto Contador suspended until August 2012 (loses all results July 2010 - Jan 2012)

[LaFlorecita]

That's correct, the body language never lies.

In this case, you didn't have to.

What's with the body language?

 

[LaFlorecita]

So if he appeals, what does that do to his suspension, hopefully he stays suspended until a new verdict is reached, that might take a long time and make him think twice about continuing with the waste of time and money.

It's bad enough that he was allowed to race last year...

He might get back his wins if the decision is overturned. He won't get back this year, but that's a price he has to pay. It's either both his wins and this year or this year and money. I know what I would choose.

 

[LaFlorecita]

You both are Flemish right?

Oh my, I hope this isn't serious...

 

[RownhamHill]

See paragraph 467. . .

So Contador's team presented evidence/testimony that (A) he didn't take supplements on those days, (B) list of all supplements provide by team, (C) testified that he only took supplements provided by the team to avoid ingesting contaminated supplements, and (D) that manufacturers were taking reasonable precautions to ensure that there were no prohibited substances in any of the substances. As such I don't think it is accurate to say that he didn't present any evidence to establish that the contaminated supplement was not likely. All that is presented on the other side is conjecture (not even circumstantial evidence): (1) Hardy's supplement had CB, so it is possible that supplements may be contaminated and (2) despite testimony to the contrary, it is possible that AC took some unknown supplement that was contaminated. How CAS reaches this conclusion based on the evidence presented is beyond me (there is NO evidence that WADA impeached AC or any of the other teammates direct testimony on what supplements they used during the TdF). I think it is particularly galling that they impose the 2 year sanction without reduction because (1) "the exact contaminated supplement is unknown" and (2) the "circumstances of its ingestion are equally unknown". Simply unbelievable.

Thank you for this post, based as it is on the judgement in hand.

Is there any reason (either legally, morally, or otherwise) why testing positive after 'more than likely' taking a contaminated supplement (especially given the precautions enumerated in the case) is deserving of a two-year ban, while falling victim to a contaminated steak (as Contador argued) satisfies no fault or negligence. From where I'm sitting both seem like the same thing - very unfortunate circumstances that the rider could do little more to control. Any insight on possible reasoning would be welcomed.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Contador press conference live on Eurosport International and British Eurosport at 18.20 GMT

spokesmen david harmon
Correction...at the moment Contador presser ONLY on Eurosport International and Eurosport HD, any change @EurosportUKTV will inform.

 

[Paco_P]

Pretty sad that people think that Contador is not a doper.

He rode for Sainz

He rode for Bruyneel

He rode for Martinelli

He rode for Riis.

Now how did he manage to win races and GTs with these DSs and not dope?

Most of this is actually said in the ruling against Contador.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Most of this is actually said in the ruling against Contador.

I don't think so. That'd be prejudiced.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Thanks, I just checked his twitter account there. Thats the job, i just added Eurosport HD a couple of months ago to British Eurosport and Eurosport 2.

Prego!.
Here he goes again
spokesmen david harmon
soooo Valverde commenting...good choice!

 

[Forunculo]

Jalabert was a Manolo Saiz favourite with Bruyneel as domestique. He must be careful about ethics lessons, I really don't think Scarponi feels he deserved the win when he was 6 minutes behind.

The presence of Contador because the delays were at the end stupid, 19 months, high technology and UCI and WADA only brings two theorys to the court like Contador and none of them could be proven.

Kolovneb was possitive for a masking agent but he only received a fine and CAS is expected today to give a verdict because UCI appeal. Why Kolovneb case is so much faster than Contador's case?

And the folk Eric Boyer plays the role to stay in the business. He is irrelevant and an idiot given the CAS 98 pages that he didn't read.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Contador press conference live on Eurosport International and British Eurosport at 18.20 GMT

spokesmen david harmon
Correction...at the moment Contador presser ONLY on Eurosport International and Eurosport HD, any change @EurosportUKTV will inform.

What's the difference between Eurosport international and regular Eurosport??

 

[hrotha]

I don't think so. That'd be prejudiced.

You haven't read it? It's right there. UCI (or WADA?) put it forward to show the odds of Contador being involved in doping are reasonably high, and also to highlight the blatant lies in Contador's statements about "always surrounding himself with people who oppose doping." The Panel dismissed it as pretty irrelevant, agreeing with Contador on that point, but also pointed out Contador himself was doing the guilty by association thing in regards to the cattle farmers.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

I think it is particularly galling that they impose the 2 year sanction without reduction because (1) "the exact contaminated supplement is unknown" and (2) the "circumstances of its ingestion are equally unknown". Simply unbelievable.

Thank you for this post, based as it is on the judgement in hand.

Is there any reason (either legally, morally, or otherwise) why testing positive after 'more than likely' taking a contaminated supplement (especially given the precautions enumerated in the case) is deserving of a two-year ban, while falling victim to a contaminated steak (as Contador argued) satisfies no fault or negligence. From where I'm sitting both seem like the same thing - very unfortunate circumstances that the rider could do little more to control. Any insight on possible reasoning would be welcomed.

Here is how I want to answer your question; that doesn't mean it is the right answer, and I would appreciate if anyone can make meaningful corrections...

The decided likely scenario is that Alberto took a contaminated supplement. But, Alberto's side could not prove that it was accidentally ingested (Alberto's side tried to demonstrate a deliberately clean process through accurate reporting, as well as the cleanliness of supplements' manufacturing).

Because it could not be proven that it was accidental, Alberto violated the strict liability standard, and faced the ban.

The implication then, is that taking a contaminated supplement was deliberate (if it is not a proven accident, then it was on purpose; strict liability).




They (steak and supplement) are the same thing in a way. The absolute result is that neither situation (accidental ingestion) could be proven. But, the supplementing is more likely of the two. So, because accidental ingestion (from a supplament) could not be proven, he faces a ban (strict liability).

 

[LaFlorecita]

Here is how I want to answer your question; that doesn't mean it is the right answer, and I would appreciate if anyone can make meaningful corrections...

The decided likely scenario is that Alberto took a contaminated supplement. But, Alberto's side could not prove that it was accidentally ingested (Alberto's side tried to demonstrate a deliberately clean process through accurate reporting, as well as the cleanliness of supplements' manufacturing).

Because it could not be proven that it was accidental, Alberto violated the strict liability standard, and faced the ban.

The implication then, is that taking a contaminated supplement was deliberate (if it is not a proven accident, then it was on purpose; strict liability).




They (steak and supplement) are the same thing in a way. The absolute result is that neither situation (accidental ingestion) could be proven. But, the supplementing is more likely of the two. So, because accidental ingestion (from a supplament) could not be proven, he faces a ban (strict liability).

But seriously, why would he intentionally take a contaminated supplement..?

 

[Mellow Velo]

Plus, why take the Giro or all the other races he won from him if he rode clean? I understand many of you are happy cause now there's a chance for your favourite cyclists to win with CONTADOR out of the way.

He'll be back with a vengeance. Enjoy it while you can. Losers.

Clearly, the price he had to pay for CAS to issue the statutory 2-year ban, but effectively hand out a 6-month ban.
The other option was no results annulment for 2011, but suspension until August 2013.
This way, commercial interests were served in 2011, and will be again come August. Contador involved races/associated media/certain sponsors are the winners with this decision.
Cycling and everyone else, are the losers.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

But seriously, why would he intentionally take a contaminated supplement..?

Your going to disagree with my answer.

Intentionally taking a contaminated substance is also called doping in some circles.

The CAS decision never balls up an says, "Contador knowingly doped" (becuase no one can prove that). Instead, they can only imply that because he failed strict liability, he is in the same pool of people that also fail drug tests (those who take PEDs)

 

[BYOP88]

Anyone else shocked/surprised that Contador wasn't offered the Kloden option?

 

[RownhamHill]

Your going to disagree with my answer.

Intentionally taking a contaminated substance is also called doping in some circles.

The CAS decision never balls up an says, "Contador knowingly doped" (becuase no one can prove that). Instead, they can only imply that because he failed strict liability, he is in the same pool of people that also fail drug tests (those who take PEDs)

Thanks for the answer, I can see some logic in that reasoning. However, when you take in the facts of the case, I'm kind of with La Florecita here, in asking why, on the final rest day of a three week tour, would he intentionally take a supplement contaminated with a weight-loss drug in a concentration that, at best, is unlikely to have very much performance enhancing effect? Why wouldn't he just take the drug itself if he wanted to cheat? (Unless he, as a twisted doper, wanted to disguise the doping and plead a contaminated supplement as an excuse if he got caught? ((except that makes no sense either, as when he did caught he explicitly denied taking any supplements in that timeframe))

 

[LaFlorecita]

Your going to disagree with my answer.

Intentionally taking a contaminated substance is also called doping in some circles.

The CAS decision never balls up an says, "Contador knowingly doped" (becuase no one can prove that). Instead, they can only imply that because he failed strict liability, he is in the same pool of people that also fail drug tests (those who take PEDs)

You didn't answer my question. Why would someone intentionally take a contaminated food supplement.

 

[hrotha]

You didn't answer my question. Why would someone intentionally take a contaminated food supplement.

You get the banned substance in your system.
If you're caught: "It wasn't me, honest, it was a contaminated supplement!"

At best, taking these supplements is reckless.

 

[SiAp1984]

You didn't answer my question. Why would someone intentionally take a contaminated food supplement.

What CAS thought: "This dude doped. He used blood transfusion as proven by the platizisers. Explains the small amount of clen as well. But the test is not certified yet for anti doping measures. However, there is no need for us to rule on the exact way how the clen came into the body of this boy. The rules allow us to let this point open. So we won't mess arround and just state that there are several possibilities. Including food supplements. We should mention this to show that we considered absolutely everything."

What CAS wrote: "We do not know how this Clen came into his system for sure. Might have been blood, might have been steak. Might have been supplement."

They could have left out this very sentence as it is of no importance for the verdict at all (lawyers call this an obiter dictum). They choose to include it just to show that they saw the possibility and that a food supplement was a likely concept to explain the clen WITHOUT relying on the plastiziser-results which would not have been proper evidence. Lawyers call that an obiter dictum. It is an irrelevant comment.

It is none of the judges' business why a dude like AC would take a food supplement two weeks into a three-weeks-race. Another example: Had the case come to CAS, it would have been none of the judges' business why a guy like Vino would use easily detectable foreign blood instead of his own for blood doping. That is not the way judges think. They had a strict rule (no clen threshold, undisputed double positive). The facts were clear in a way that AC had no valid excuse for the presence of the substance in his system. That was all they needed.

For the record: AC doped. He is and will always be a cheat. Period. In Addition, unlike Armstrong, Basso, Ullrich, Scarponi, Valverde et al he got busted by an in-contention control. This is not about him being a nice or a ruthless guy, not about him being cyclings greatest talent ever or being only well protected by UCI and Spanish federation. It is solely about him getting caught while breaking the rules by (sorry for the capitals) HAVING CLEN IN HIS SYSTEM WITHOUT A VALID EXCUSE.

It's good it's over.

 

[hrotha]

You didn't answer my question. Why would someone intentionally take a contaminated food supplement.

You get the banned substance in your system.
If you're caught: "It wasn't me, honest, it was a contaminated supplement!"

At best, taking these supplements is reckless.

 

[Benotti69]

What CAS thought: "This dude doped. He used blood transfusion as proven by the platizisers. Explains the small amount of clen as well. But the test is not certified yet for anti doping measures. However, there is no need for us to rule on the exact way how the clen came into the body of this boy. The rules allow us to let this point open. So we won't mess arround and just state that there are several possibilities. Including food supplements. We should mention this to show that we considered absolutely everything."

What CAS wrote: "We do not know how this Clen came into his system for sure. Might have been blood, might have been steak. Might have been supplement."

They could have left out this very sentence as it is of no importance for the verdict at all (lawyers call this an obiter dictum). They choose to include it just to show that they saw the possibility and that a food supplement was a likely concept to explain the clen WITHOUT relying on the plastiziser-results which would not have been proper evidence. Lawyers call that an obiter dictum. It is an irrelevant comment.

It is none of the judges' business why a dude like AC would take a food supplement two weeks into a three-weeks-race. Another example: Had the case come to CAS, it would have been none of the judges' business why a guy like Vino would use easily detectable foreign blood instead of his own for blood doping. That is not the way judges think. They had a strict rule (no clen threshold, undisputed double positive). The facts were clear in a way that AC had no valid excuse for the presence of the substance in his system. That was all they needed.

For the record: AC doped. He is and will always be a cheat. Period. In Addition, unlike Armstrong, Basso, Ullrich, Scarponi, Valverde et al he got busted by an in-contention control. This is not about him being a nice or a ruthless guy, not about him being cyclings greatest talent ever or being only well protected by UCI and Spanish federation. It is solely about him getting caught while breaking the rules by (sorry for the capitals) HAVING CLEN IN HIS SYSTEM WITHOUT A VALID EXCUSE.

It's good it's over.

Clear and concise, but it wont appease Contador's fans. he may be the nicest guy in the peloton, best looking and most talented, but he got caught doping.

He could not prove how it got there.

So it had to be doping.

He doped he got caught. He'll be back like all the other dopers. Vino, Valverde, Basso, Di Luca, Scarponi, Rasmussen et al.

Who was in charge of doping controls on the 2010 TdF? AFLD or UCI?

If it was AFLD they deserve a round of applause for sending some samples to Cologne.

It is a pity more samples cannot be retested.

 

[Fetisoff]

Just a quick question to the Contador "apologists" - what do you think of Ezequiel Mosquera's ban?

 

[Publicus]

Well, if you understood my post - then why did you bring up that I did not highlight something, which was irrelevant?

You're a lawyer, right?
You stated that "CAS essentially admits that it was more than likely..." - I merely brought notice to the relevant point that CAS ruled it was the "most likely" of the "scenarios presented" - as a lawyer I thought you'd appreciate the distinction between CAS giving an answer that is legally sound yet logically questionable.

I've already addressed your point in a previous post--two to be exact. I've moved on from the matter. You are of course welcome to continuing belaboring the point (as history has shown is your wont ), but I'm not interested in participating. If you like you can tell everyone you bested a lawyer on the Internet! Don't forget the #winning hashtag or it doesn't count

 

[The Hitch]

Just a quick question to the Contador "apologists" - what do you think of Ezequiel Mosquera's ban?

A disgrace. very unfair.