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

[Fetisoff]

A disgrace. very unfair.

Would you have been satisfied with a Contador-style ban, or do you think he should have walked?

 

[LaFlorecita]

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

But it's not enough to enhance performance.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Would you have been satisfied with a Contador-style ban, or do you think he should have walked?

Yes, just as Alberto should've been cleared.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

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

The possibility that AC took a contaminated supplement was "offered" by CAS and WADA to AC and his legal team as a possible explanation for his positive test result. But AC and his legal team rejected that possibility and adamantly adhered to the explanation that his positive result came from the injestion of tainted meat from a contaminated cow.

In other words, AC rejected that lifeline. If AC and his legal team had accepted this offer as an explanation, then the investigation would have turned to attempts to hunt down the source of the contaminated supplement. And if they could have found the source, tested, and affirmed the presence of CLEN in THAT source, he could possibly been given a favorable verdict of no ban.

But since AC stuck with the cow explanation and could not prove that as being the source, he was doomed as the burden of proof was on him, not WADA or CAS.

This is all explained better in the following CN analysis, a good read:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/analysis-cas-vs-alberto-contador

There is a hidden lessons learned to the racer here: accept other possible explanations as possible sources and tie up the investigations hunting those sources down. Then maybe in another 565 days a verdict could be reached. Sad, sad, sad the time it all took.

 

[SiAp1984]

This is all explained better in the following CN analysis, a good read:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/analysis-cas-vs-alberto-contador

There is a hidden lessons learned to the racer here: accept other possible explanations as possible sources and tie up the investigations hunting those sources down. Then maybe in another 565 days a verdict could be reached. Sad, sad, sad the time it all took.

You are right. Just one more thing:

We must not forget: Had the Spanish federation done their job, we would not have had this mess. They had absolutely no reason to reverse their one-year ban. AC should not have raced from after this point. The battle would have happend - AC trying to get out, WADA and UCI to hang him for two years - but AC would not have stolen any more races from their true winners.

 

[Publicus]

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.

Based on the facts presented I would say there is no difference. With the contaminated meat, the argument would be that eating meat should be safe in the EU because of its testing regime and vigorous ban on CB, so if he ingested contaminated meat there was no reasonable action he could have taken to protect himself that hasn't already been taken.

 

[El Pistolero]

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

His ban should have been backdated from the Vuelta 2010 and end after the Vuelta in 2012. They should also not fine him because he didn't get any salary in 2011 yet has to pay 70% of his so called salary of 2011 to the UCI.

 

[LaFlorecita]

The possibility that AC took a contaminated supplement was "offered" by CAS and WADA to AC and his legal team as a possible explanation for his positive test result. But AC and his legal team rejected that possibility and adamantly adhered to the explanation that his positive result came from the injestion of tainted meat from a contaminated cow.

In other words, AC rejected that lifeline. If AC and his legal team had accepted this offer as an explanation, then the investigation would have turned to attempts to hunt down the source of the contaminated supplement. And if they could have found the source, tested, and affirmed the presence of CLEN in THAT source, he could possibly been given a favorable verdict of no ban.

But since AC stuck with the cow explanation and could not prove that as being the source, he was doomed as the burden of proof was on him, not WADA or CAS.

This is all explained better in the following CN analysis, a good read:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/analysis-cas-vs-alberto-contador

There is a hidden lessons learned to the racer here: accept other possible explanations as possible sources and tie up the investigations hunting those sources down. Then maybe in another 565 days a verdict could be reached. Sad, sad, sad the time it all took.

But the person I replied to posted that he might have taken the supplement intentionally. Now, I don't think Alberto is the smartest guy around but he can't be that stupid can he?

 

[Publicus]

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).

AC provided actual evidence that he did not take a supplement on the relevant rest day and that he only took supplements (during the Tour or at any other time) provided by the team to avoid contamination. For some reason that is not clearly spelled out in the opinion, CAS decides that it is possible that AC took a supplement that wasn't provided by the team and because supplements could be contaminated, it was more than likely the source. So they disregard his evidence and create this scenario from thin air (this is the basis for sanctioning him) and then say he failed to prove no fault/non-negligence (and thus a reduced sentence) because (drumroll please) he hasnt produced the phantom contaminated supplement he swore under oath he didn't take and they don't know when he took this unknown supplement he swore under oath he did not take.

IMO, this is some very shoddy analysis on the part of CAS. It's almost like they want to have this challenged in court.

 

[El Pistolero]

Real courts should all learn from sport tribunals. Why make a distinction between intentional homicide and unintentional homicide when you can treat them all the same way!

Or why make a distinction between minor offences and big offences when you can give everybody the same punishment! Killing somebody? 12 years. Stealing an apple? 12 years!

 

[Fetisoff]

His ban should have been backdated from the Vuelta 2010 and end after the Vuelta in 2012. They should also not fine him because he didn't get any salary in 2011 yet has to pay 70% of his so called salary of 2011 to the UCI.

So would you agree, that given all the circumstances (i.e. Alberto's getting convicted) this was the right sentence (i.e. back-date the suspension, and take away the results)?

 

[SiAp1984]

... he swore under oath ...

Just a question because I do not know: Did AC actually testify under oath? I do not know the procedural rules applied by CAS.

 

[El Pistolero]

So would you agree, that given all the circumstances (i.e. Alberto's getting convicted) this was the right sentence (i.e. back-date the suspension, and take away the results)?

The difference being that they tested positive for something different(Mosquera a masking agent for EPO and it just happens to be that his team-mate tested positive for EPO AND that masking agent) and Contador was allowed to ride in 2011 while Mosquera was sidelined(so backdating his ban wouldn't cause any problems).

 

[SiAp1984]

Real courts should all learn from sport tribunals. Why make a distinction between intentional homicide and unintentional homicide when you can treat them all the same way!

This is not the same story. Criminal law applies completely different thresholds of evidence then civil law (eg in dubio pro reo is a rule of criminal procedural law). And dogmatically, this is a pure civil law case. Eg OJ Simpson got cleared by a criminal court and still a civil court awarded damages to his victims families if I remember correctly.

 

[Publicus]

The possibility that AC took a contaminated supplement was "offered" by CAS and WADA to AC and his legal team as a possible explanation for his positive test result. But AC and his legal team rejected that possibility and adamantly adhered to the explanation that his positive result came from the injestion of tainted meat from a contaminated cow.

In other words, AC rejected that lifeline. If AC and his legal team had accepted this offer as an explanation, then the investigation would have turned to attempts to hunt down the source of the contaminated supplement. And if they could have found the source, tested, and affirmed the presence of CLEN in THAT source, he could possibly been given a favorable verdict of no ban.

But since AC stuck with the cow explanation and could not prove that as being the source, he was doomed as the burden of proof was on him, not WADA or CAS.

This is all explained better in the following CN analysis, a good read:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/analysis-cas-vs-alberto-contador

There is a hidden lessons learned to the racer here: accept other possible explanations as possible sources and tie up the investigations hunting those sources down. Then maybe in another 565 days a verdict could be reached. Sad, sad, sad the time it all took.

He "rejected it" because he didn't take any supplements that day. He also provided evidence that he only took supplements provided by the team. CAS rejected this without any evidence to support their conclusion (as far as I can tell). It seems to me folks are suggesting the smart thing to do was to lie and say he had taken a supplement, but then that beings up the problem of producing a contaminated supplement. It seems to me this theory, based on the evidence, is more far-fetched than the meat contamination theory

 

[Cimber]

But the person I replied to posted that he might have taken the supplement intentionally. Now, I don't think Alberto is the smartest guy around but he can't be that stupid can he?

He might have taken the supplement intentionally (vitamins, minerals, proteins etc), but he probably didnt known that they was tiny traces on clen in it. If he did know he would be braindead so I think its safe to assume that he didnt.

 

[roundabout]

Contador didn't provide evidence. He just said that he only uses supplements during races.

I'll read the file again though.

 

[Fetisoff]

The difference being that they tested positive for something different(Mosquera a masking agent for EPO and it just happens to be that his team-mate tested positive for EPO AND that masking agent) and Contador was allowed to ride in 2011 while Mosquera was sidelined(so backdating his ban wouldn't cause any problems).

Well, the difference is, if I'm not mistaken is that Contador actually tested for substance that was on the prohibited list, with a zero tolerance policy against it. And while I don't believe for one second that Mosquiera's amigo Garcia was using the starch to cover up for EPO, and Eze just happened to have it in his system, he was never proven to cheat, and still got a much stiffer penalty.

 

[Abstainer]

It could be far worse.

Consider this:

1. Contador grew up in the Spanish system were doping is virtually mandatory
2. Contador raced for Manolo Saiz, whose riders were routinely doped
3. Contador knew Dr Fuentes
4. Contador rode for Johann Bruyneel, whose riders were routinely doped
5. Contador has been associated with a number of dodgy doctors and trainers
6. Contador rode for that stalwart of anti-doping teams, Astana

With this sort of CV, it seems to me that Contador has dodged a bullet.

He will return from suspension with his reputation slightly dented but basically in tact. It could have been so much worse.

 

[Publicus]

Just a question because I do not know: Did AC actually testify under oath? I do not know the procedural rules applied by CAS.

I will try to confirm, but that is normally the case even in arbitration.

 

[SiAp1984]

I will try to confirm, but that is normally the case even in arbitration.

I am not sure as at least in German law the testimony of a party of the process oath is the exception. I know that CAS didn't apply German law, but I really wonder, which set of rules they applied.

 

[El Pistolero]

Well, the difference is, if I'm not mistaken is that Contador actually tested for substance that was on the prohibited list, with a zero tolerance policy against it. And while I don't believe for one second that Mosquiera's amigo Garcia was using the starch to cover up for EPO, and Eze just happened to have it in his system, he was never proven to cheat, and still got a much stiffer penalty.

Mosquera's product is also on the list of forbidden products.

 

[Publicus]

I am not sure as at least in German law the testimony of a party of the process oath is the exception. I know that CAS didn't apply German law, but I really wonder, which set of rules they applied.

They applied Swiss law. Here's whati found from a quick google search:

http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/bl...ny-in-arbitration-proceedings-in-switzerland/

Not definitive, but it gives me some comfort on the question.

 

[Publicus]

Contador didn't provide evidence. He just said that he only uses supplements during races.

I'll read the file again though.

Witness testimony is evidence. He also provided evidence of what supplements he used and provided declarations from the 6 manufacturers. How he proves that he didn't take a supplement that he says he did not take and that that unknown supplement did or did not contain CB us beyond my intellectual capacities.

 

[SiAp1984]

They applied Swiss law. Here's whati found from a quick google search:

http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/bl...ny-in-arbitration-proceedings-in-switzerland/

Not definitive, but it gives me some comfort on the question.

A OK, thanks. Interesting. Unfortunately, I do not know much about arbitration.