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

[Fetisoff]

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

****, my bad. I wonder why I thought otherwise.

 

[roundabout]

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.

I got the impression from paragraphs 394 and 483 that witness testimony alone is not enough. I do agree that it's extremely difficult to verify the statements unlike the first 2 theories proposed.

 

[RownhamHill]

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.

I can't for the life of me see the logic in this argument. So Contador has a burden of proof, on the balance of probabilities, to show no fault or negligence right? So, what we're saying is, had he submitted the exact same evidence, but just appended an argument that a supplement (that he didn't to his knowledge take) might have been contaminated then - given that CAS decided, on the balance of probabilities, that this was the most likely explanation - then he would have satisfied his burden of proof and would have got off? How can that make any kind of sense?

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

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 "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

TBH, I don't know what the idea of supplements means. Some are probably banned, some not. So was CAS trying to trap him into admitting something else? I dunno. I just think AC was being honest, as Publicus implies. Yes, that theory does seem more far fetched, but the ppl at CAS/WADA have to keep an open mind on these things and think outside the box so to speak, trying to determine if there are other possibilities. Even if they don't seem so credible.

On another note, I dunno about anyone else other than Zommegan, but I think AC should keep his titles rather than have them stripped. I mean, he didn't test +ive at those events. Then how do we reconcile how he affected those races. Pretty sure SAXO would like to keep the points. OFC then the ban would have to extend beyong August 2012. What do others think?

 

[Publicus]

TBH, I don't know what the idea of supplements means. Some are probably banned, some not. So was CAS trying to trap him into admitting something else? I dunno. I just think AC was being honest, as Publicus implies. Yes, that theory does seem more far fetched, but the ppl at CAS/WADA have to keep an open mind on these things and think outside the box so to speak, trying to determine if there are other possibilities. Even if they don't seem so credible.

On another note, I dunno about anyone else other than Zommegan, but I think AC should keep his titles rather than have them stripped. I mean, he didn't test +ive at those events. Then how do we reconcile how he affected those races. Pretty sure SAXO would like to keep the points. OFC then the ban would have to extend beyong August 2012. What do others think?

When they say supplements they mean vitamins and other dietary supplements. Essentially they claim he took a contaminated supplement that for some reason he refuses to disclose (how they arrive at the conclusion is beyond me).

 

[Publicus]

I got the impression from paragraphs 394 and 483 that witness testimony alone is not enough. I do agree that it's extremely difficult to verify the statements unlike the first 2 theories proposed.

Their testimony alone wasn't sufficient to rule out the possibility he took other supplements [frankly Im not sure what evidence would rule out that possibility]. It's an unbelievable statement in my opinion. "AC: Here's every supplement I took during the Tour. CAS: Yeah, but that doesn't mean you didn't take something else, which could have been contaminated. Therefore you didn't meet your burden and because you didn't produce the unknown contaminated supplement or establish when you took it, you failed to provide evidence that you weren't negligent in taking that unknown supplement which contained CB on some unknown date."

It just boggles the mind.

 

[LaFlorecita]

When they say supplements they mean vitamins and other dietary supplements. Essentially they claim he took a contaminated supplement that for some reason he refuses to disclose (how they arrive at the conclusion is beyond me).

Really, I can't understand what the hell was going on in their minds...

 

[TheMight]

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.

Yeah, this is the fundamental problem here. They did the same thing with Valverde. It's effective, their riders racked up wins, racked up more fan support, and got the big contracts. Then when the punishment is finally issued, they can still play it up to the fans that they'd raced clean and the events were long ago in the past.

Maybe this has to be handed over to the race organizers, uninvite teams unless they sit riders with ongoing issues.

 

[Maxiton]

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.

You must admit, Abstainer makes a strong point here. It could have been a great deal worse. It might also have been lighter and easier, if only Contador had taken the one year ban when offered. (Although WADA would likely have appealed that, too.)

He could have taken the ban without admitting any guilt at all. He could have said, I unknowingly ingested something that allowed this trace Clen to enter my body, and while I don't agree with this rule and will fight to change it, for now I must abide by it.

 

[The Plediadian]

When they say supplements they mean vitamins and other dietary supplements. Essentially they claim he took a contaminated supplement that for some reason he refuses to disclose (how they arrive at the conclusion is beyond me).

So, the clen first came from contaminated meat, from the Basqueland. Then when no meat was found to be contaminated within the borders of Spain a new story arrises> meat came from South America, or Mexico, where clen is known to be used in cattle raising.
Now Albertos' clen has come from supplements provided by his trainers.
When the story changes once, it loses credibility.
The second time it changes, something stinks, a payoff, or a lie if that explanation by Albertos' lawyers was accepted by any court.

 

[doolols]

You must admit, Abstainer makes a strong point here.

He/she certainly does. Talk about weight of circumstantial evidence. No one can claim that AC was always drug and dope free.

A few points that have occurred to me when wading through these posts:

* The only appeal allowable is on the process of the proceedings. The judgement can't be appealed. New evidence can't be introduced.

* The contaminated supplements? CAS didn't say this is how the readings came about. They said it's more likely than either of the other two methods. As someone said earlier, this carries no weight. And the fact he had already said he took no supplements on the day in question rules it out.

A rather good analogy was quoted earlier - if you are caught drunk-driving, the authorities don't have to prove where you were drinking, and how much you ingested of what you were drinking. It's not important. The rules state you mustn't have ANY traces of clenbuterol in your system. The tests showed he did, and he has never challenged the tests or the scientific process. So, the two year ban is right and proper, because those are the rules. And the timing of the ban is more than fair to him, IMO.

The people I feel sorry for are the minor players in the team, whose livelihoods are now at risk because of this. AC, no matter what happens (and he's already stated he'll not retire), he'll be able to carry on with his lifestyle. Smaller people on the team could lose a lot if the team is prevented from continuing on the Pro tour.

People (esp. LaFlorecita) should stop whining on and on about how unfair it is, without offering any new insight. Get over it. No wonder people can't be bothered to read the whole thread, because it's full of people telling us how upset they are.

 

[Nilsson]

So, the clen first came from contaminated meat, from the Basqueland. Then when no meat was found to be contaminated within the borders of Spain a new story arrises> meat came from South America, or Mexico, where clen is known to be used in cattle raising.
Now Albertos' clen has come from supplements provided by his trainers.
When the story changes once, it loses credibility.
The second time it changes, something stinks, a payoff, or a lie if that explanation by Albertos' lawyers was accepted by any court.

You can't blame Contador that suppliers do not have appropriate registration, through which the exact location of where the meat came from can not be known for sure. The opposite actually: CAS could have seen it as an argument that made contamination more likely. They didn't because it was, in any case, most likely from Castilla Y Leon (or at least Spain) and therefore EU statistics diminishing the possibility of contaminated meat were decisive...

 

[rickshaw]

I appologize in advance, I am sorry

Sorry: I have not waded through all the cloudy water of this thread to get hear, so If this has been said already, I am sorry. As I understand things...

There is no threshold for Clen(whatzit). This means it is a simple Yes / No situation. If the substance is found in a test, the athlete is guilty. If nothing is found the athlete is not guilty of anything. Therefore, since Cen was found in ACs blood, AC is guilty as charged.

The rest of what happened afterwords is just trying to "get off" the charges by AC or , "making the charges stick" by the doping cops.

In the end all the smoke and mirrors generated by the AC legal camp were not plausible enough to satisfy an independent court of law.

It is not complicated. Guilty as charged.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Back from a workout, and I'm going to try and reply a few people at once:

Originally Posted by LaFlorecita View Post
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?

I am of the opinion that the term "contaminated food supplement" means more than the connotated meaning that it was a vitamin with some CB sprinkled on top. I think they are using that phrase to say that AC knowing took a banned substance, for its performance enhancing effect.

That performance enhancing effect may be minimal, but in a changing world of doping controls, the assumptions of micro dosing, and a possible awareness of what thresholds would get caught, motivated AC to take a drug that is often present in the body in levels that are undetected. Unfortunately for him, his sample was one of a handful that got sent to the more advanced laboratory.

Originially Posted by Publicus 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.

We agree, in a sort of "he didn't not unprove his innocence" = "he was found guilty" kind of way.

I can't for the life of me see the logic in this argument. So Contador has a burden of proof, on the balance of probabilities, to show no fault or negligence right? So, what we're saying is, had he submitted the exact same evidence, but just appended an argument that a supplement (that he didn't to his knowledge take) might have been contaminated then - given that CAS decided, on the balance of probabilities, that this was the most likely explanation - then he would have satisfied his burden of proof and would have got off? How can that make any kind of sense?

Sort of. [had he claimed a contaminated supplament] He would still have to prove that he ingested it without any knowledge. That would be very hard to do, given the evidence of team supplements, doctors records, and so on. Further, just because it is a more likely scenario [that he took a contaminated supplement] does not mean he is off the "strict liability" hook. The difference would be that It would be only a little less difficult (according to the probabilities decided in the case) to convince the judges that it was a total and plausible accident.

The reason I think AC's team did not go this direction is it would contradict the evidence of team supplaments/doctors/etc.

Their testimony alone was sufficient wasn't enough to rule out the possibility he took other supplements [frankly Im not sure what evidence would rule out that possibility]. It's an unbelievable statement in my opinion. "AC: Here's every supplement I took during the Tour. CAS: Yeah, but that doesn't mean you didn't take something else, which could have been contaminated. Therefore you didn't meet your burden and because you didn't produce the unknown contaminated supplement or establish when you took it, you failed to provide evidence that you weren't negligent in taking that unknown supplement which contained CB on some unknown date."

It just boggles the mind.

This "didn't not prove is uninnocence" ruling is only necessary to discount Contador's defence, which is all they needed to do.

Because of the positive result , the prosecution needed to thoroughly disagree with the defense's argument (which it did). It may seem silly, but (as a non-lawyer) it seems necessary to close any loopholes that could be exploited in an appeal.


To sum; the CAS enough evidence to suspend AC. They did not accept the way AC tried to prove accidental ingestion (meat), but then also took a step further to close any loose ends (supplement).

 

[SiAp1984]

You can't blame Contador that suppliers do not have appropriate registration, through which the exact location of where the meat came from can not be known for sure. The opposite actually: CAS could have seen it as an argument that made contamination more likely. They didn't because it was, in any case, most likely from Castilla Y Leon (or at least Spain) and therefore EU statistics diminishing the possibility of contaminated meat were decisive...

Contador's blamed for the presence of a banned substance in his body. The presence is proven (AB positive) and undisputed by his attorneys.

Remaining problem is that nobody knows if a) AC did eat this meat or not, b) meat was contaminated or not, c) AC consumed clen before dauphinée and got blood reinjected at the tour (my favorite theory), d) had vitamin pills contaminated with clen, e) consumed clen before the test in a ridiculous low dose just to see if he would test positive etc. As long as AC doesn't prove that the meat was contaminated and in the very same moment produced the clen-dose in his doping samples, he is busted. And CAS found that didn't prove his point.

It would have been better had he not raced last season, but the sanction still is OK:

- His name is now officially tainted. He's now morally in the same category as Landis. Had he come through, he would have been more the Delgado-type of doper.
- He loses important titles, putting out of sight his chance to ever break LAs Tour record (considering his performance in last years tour, this chance was not too big at all).
- He misses at least this years tour (if ASO is smart, they prevent him from racing the 2013-Tour as well, just as they did with Vinokourov and Basso after their bans), the Giro and the Olympics.
- He might have to pay a huge amount of money to UCI.

So I'm fine with him racing (and getting booed on the road) again from August 5th on.

 

[Fetisoff]

Sorry: I have not waded through all the cloudy water of this thread to get hear, so If this has been said already, I am sorry. As I understand things...

There is no threshold for Clen(whatzit). This means it is a simple Yes / No situation. If the substance is found in a test, the athlete is guilty. If nothing is found the athlete is not guilty of anything. Therefore, since Cen was found in ACs blood, AC is guilty as charged.

The rest of what happened afterwords is just trying to "get off" the charges by AC or , "making the charges stick" by the doping cops.

In the end all the smoke and mirrors generated by the AC legal camp were not plausible enough to satisfy an independent court of law.

It is not complicated. Guilty as charged.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

What is the status of clenbuterol?

Clenbuterol is a prohibited substance and there is no threshold under which this substance is not prohibited.

At present, and based on expert opinions, there is no plan to introduce a threshold level for clenbuterol.

It is possible that under certain circumstance the presence of a low level of clenbuterol in an athlete sample can be the result of food contamination. However, each case is different and all elements need to be taken into account, along with the context of the case.

Under the World Anti-Doping Code, result management of cases foresees the opportunity for an athlete to explain how a prohibited substance entered his/her body

WADA is working closely with countries, International Federations and event organizers to help minimize the risk of contamination through the monitoring of meat to official hotels and restaurants. This is a government issue and not a WADA issue.


http://www.wada-ama.org/en/World-An...s/Prohibited-List/QA-on-2012-Prohibited-List/

 

[SiAp1984]

To sum; the CAS enough evidence to suspend AC. They did not accept the way AC tried to prove accidental ingestion (meat), but then also took a step further to close any loose ends (supplement).

Exactly. That's what they did.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

When they say supplements they mean vitamins and other dietary supplements. Essentially they claim he took a contaminated supplement that for some reason he refuses to disclose (how they arrive at the conclusion is beyond me).

I think this is CAS code for "AC took PEDs" I think it is a rational path to conclude that. (How did it get in his blood [if not for meat or recorded supplements]? - PEDs - AC: I didn't take drugs - CAS: of course he would say that, but we can prove he did something to get drugs in his system)

In the end all the smoke and mirrors generated by the AC legal camp were not plausible enough to satisfy an independent court of law.

It is not complicated. Guilty as charged.

Its complicated because the CAS listened to the smoke and lasers argument, but then the CAS invented a story, and decided it was because Contador didn't prove of a second shooter on the grassy knoll, that the ruling should stand.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Dont know if it has been posted already. Forgive me if it has:

WADA president: Alberto Contador is a 'cheat':

http://www.sgvtribune.com/sports/ci_19910086?

It hasn't. And it makes me want to puke. What a ****ing *******.

 

[Benotti69]

It hasn't. And it makes me want to puke. What a ****ing *******.

I dont know, Contador doped, has ridden for doping teams, is linked with Opertion Puerto, was found to have a banned substance in his system during a TdF anti doping test and you are angry at everyone else, except Contador.

That's like blaming the police, the judge, the coroner and all the witnesses for the death of someone murdered but not the murderer.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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

You didn't address the point - you said we can agree to disagree - I do not wish to pursue the matter, but you could have just apologized at the time and ended the matter there.

 

[RownhamHill]

Back from a workout, and I'm going to try and reply a few people at once:

Sort of. [had he claimed a contaminated supplament] He would still have to prove that he ingested it without any knowledge. That would be very hard to do, given the evidence of team supplements, doctors records, and so on. Further, just because it is a more likely scenario [that he took a contaminated supplement] does not mean he is off the "strict liability" hook. The difference would be that It would be only a little less difficult (according to the probabilities decided in the case) to convince the judges that it was a total and plausible accident.

The reason I think AC's team did not go this direction is it would contradict the evidence of team supplaments/doctors/etc.

But what does the bolded bit mean? That he has to prove that he'd ingested a supplement without any knowledge of the thing he was ingesting, or that he'd ingested something he thought was legitimate, without knowledge that it was actually contaminated with a prohibited substance?

If it was the former, then you're arguing that the only way someone isn't at fault from taking a contaminated supplement is if they take the supplement itself without knowing about it (perhaps a podium girl had been taking some contaminated energy gel just before a presentation, and there was some residue on her lips when she kissed him?)

If it's the latter (which appeals more to my understanding of natural justice) then how would you prove that other than common sense? Can anyone conceive of a situation in which a rider gets a supplement, somehow (I've no idea of how, but let's just go with it) establishes it is contaminated with a prohibited substance, and then takes it anyway??? But, if I understand the convoluted logic of the judgement, this seems to be what we're meant to believe in order to see that Contador was doping.

The more I think about the judgement, the more the whole things looks like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

 

[Publicus]

Back from a workout, and I'm going to try and reply a few people at once:

[1] I am of the opinion that the term "contaminated food supplement" means more than the connotated meaning that it was a vitamin with some CB sprinkled on top. I think they are using that phrase to say that AC knowing took a banned substance, for its performance enhancing effect.

That performance enhancing effect may be minimal, but in a changing world of doping controls, the assumptions of micro dosing, and a possible awareness of what thresholds would get caught, motivated AC to take a drug that is often present in the body in levels that are undetected. Unfortunately for him, his sample was one of a handful that got sent to the more advanced laboratory.



We agree, in a sort of "he didn't not unprove his innocence" = "he was found guilty" kind of way.



Sort of. [had he claimed a contaminated supplament] He would still have to prove that he ingested it without any knowledge. [2] That would be very hard to do, given the evidence of team supplements, doctors records, and so on. Further, just because it is a more likely scenario [that he took a contaminated supplement] does not mean he is off the "strict liability" hook. The difference would be that It would be only a little less difficult (according to the probabilities decided in the case) to convince the judges that it was a total and plausible accident.

The reason I think AC's team did not go this direction is it would contradict the evidence of team supplaments/doctors/etc.




[3] This "didn't not prove is uninnocence" ruling is only necessary to discount Contador's defence, which is all they needed to do.

Because of the positive result , the prosecution needed to thoroughly disagree with the defense's argument (which it did). It may seem silly, but (as a non-lawyer) it seems necessary to close any loopholes that could be exploited in an appeal.


To sum; the CAS enough evidence to suspend AC. They did not accept the way AC tried to prove accidental ingestion (meat), but then also took a step further to close any loose ends (supplement).

[1] Your supposition is not supported by the CAS opinion.
[2] If he had advance the theory that it was contaminated supplement, then you are in fact correct, the balance of the evidence CONTADOR presented demonstrated that none of the supplements he took were contaminated. His team SPECIFICALLY ruled out contaminated supplement because (A) according to his testimony, he did not take any supplements on the rest day and (B) he only took the supplements provided by the team to avoid contamination (see the other evidence).

[3] I'm not sure what you are trying to say here "didn't not prove is uninnocence". To my mind that translates into "did prove is uninnocence" (eliminated the double negative). On the issue of the supplement, as noted above, AC's team THOROUGHLY demonstrated why it was not the likely source. CAS was only able to make its ruling by (A) deciding that despite AC and his teammates testimony to the contrary, it was possible that AC took another supplement not provided by the team, (B) implicitly argues that AC has chosen NOT to reveal what the nature of the supplement, (C) supplements have been shown to be contaminated in the past and therefore (D) it is more than likely that that this unknown supplement was the source of the CB contamination. IMO, CAS position is not supported by any meaningful evidence.

 

[vcampbell]

I dont know, Contador doped, has ridden for doping teams, is linked with Opertion Puerto, was found to have a banned substance in his system during a TdF anti doping test and you are angry at everyone else, except Contador.

That's like blaming the police, the judge, the coroner and all the witnesses for the death of someone murdered but not the murderer.

Tons of riders was linked with Operation Puerto, tons of riders ridden for doping teams (at least 50%, but I think there are more), and also they excluded the chance of a transfusion, so your example is not really good.

 

[RownhamHill]

I think this is CAS code for "AC took PEDs" I think it is a rational path to conclude that.

I think there's a fairly fundamental problem with this opinion though.

If this really was what CAS thought, then why on earth didn't they say "in our opinion, we think it is most likely that AC took PEDS"?

And why didn't WADA, you know, suggest that the most likely route was that AC took PEDS?

What possible reason, in a court, in a case about prohibited substances that were detected by a test, would a judge use code words to talk about their opinion?