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

[Cimber]

Well, I think that the key issue for Saxo Bank (the CEO has said so himself) was that CAS rules that doping was a very unlikely source for the positive clen test, and found food supplement much more likely. Aka Contador broke the rules, but did not dope (just trying to explain how they see it, and tbh then CAS's verdict makes it easy for one to come to hat conslusion).

I am 100% sure Saxo Bank wouldnt make such an had had CAS ruled that they found the most likely source to be doping.

One thing we all need to remember about strict liability is that u may be banned without having doped (i.e. u can break the rules without using doping).

 

[python]

<snip>
I think we should direct our questions towards the regulations and not this case per se. From what I've seen and heard, the ban is just a consequence of the current regulations, probably without leeway to successfully appeal, <snip>.

WillemS, kudos for 2 thoughtful posts. i have come to the same conclusion…
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=787142&postcount=85

conclusions ? Well, it will hardly come as a surprise to those familiar with my consistently expressed views. i don’t blame the panel for the strange verdict nor do i blame contador - i tend to think they both were unfairly framed by the messy and outdated wada rules on strict liability in general and clenbuterol specifically

where i disagree with you is that one of the concerned sides should seize their efforts b/c of the ‘rules in place’. i know where you are coming from (wink) but quite conversely, i feel the inappropriate rules that led to the strange cas verdict are exposed by the saxobank advert, as they should.

edit: cas is one of the only authoritative forces that can induce wada to a change. for ex, as i noted several times, the panel by applying swiss civil code, forced wada to depart from its own rigid interpretation of strickt liability and present 2 alternative scenarios (transfusion and supplement contamination).

 

[Cimber]

WillemS, kudos for 2 thoughtful posts. i have come to the same conclusion…
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=787142&postcount=85


where i disagree with you is that one of the concerned sides should seize their efforts b/c of the ‘rules in place’. i know where you are coming from (wink) but quite conversely, i feel the inappropriate rules that led to the strange cas verdict are exposed by the saxobank advert, as they should.

edit: cas is one of the only authoritative forces that can induce wada to a change. for ex, as i noted several times, the panel by applying swiss civil code, forced wada to depart from its own rigid interpretation of strickt liability and present 2 alternative scenarios (transfusion and supplement contamination).

Great post, and I wholeheartedly agree

 

[The Hitch]

I for one admire the loyalty shown by the team to their rider, and by Contadors people to their favorite son.

A nice contrast to the attitude the mainstream media demands of the public towards anyone with the slightest suspicion of doping.

This itself contrasts strongly with the attitude demanded towards people who have not yet been caught therefore must be clean- outright hero worship, which the riders are met with before the moment they become Judas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_r7oWEN3KM

 

[LaFlorecita]

I do not want to get involved in the possibly interesting, but difficult discussion about the Contador verdict. However, today's news about the Saxo bank ad depicting Contador (Cyclingnews.com: Saxo Bank show support for Contador), for me, shows that there is still a problem with the attitude towards doping in the professional peleton. Although whether Contador actually used doping is questionable, he is banned based on the current rules and I therefore feel his former (?) team should accept that. We might question the rules, but this just undermines the whole system and quite possibly gives the wrong impression to young riders tempted to dope. You can get a ban and still get open support from anyone, make money with ads and be seen as a 'good guy'. This is not going to help. Contador should accept his ban, Saxo Bank as well, and lay back a bit (or appeal).

Saxobank, the sponsor and the team, both accept the punishment. They do however support their (ex-)rider because they think he's innocent.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Saxo Bank and Riis want to keep Contador on side with their support and they dont want to alienate him by putting out anything bad in the public about him. If they did that he would end up probably signing for Movistar on his return.

Sports minister: Spain has a doping problem

That probably as well, but Saxobank and Bjarne like Alberto a lot.

Btw, what has the link to do with the post?

 

[LaFlorecita]

He has nothing got to do with it. I was just going to post that link and then i seen your post and i wanted to respond to it so i said i might as well put the 2 of them together then to post separately.

Ah okay now I understand.

 

[The Hitch]

Saxo Bank and Riis want to keep Contador on side with their support and they dont want to alienate him by putting out anything bad in the public about him. If they did that he would end up probably signing for Movistar on his return.

Sports minister: Spain has a doping problem

I really do hope Madrid gets the olympics. Would be amazing. Also the Road race would be pretty frickin good if its in Madrid.

 

[LaFlorecita]

This is the interview with John Fahey the president of WADA that i was on about and saw on the BBC news show Hardtalk. Its a very good interview and he talks about Contador`s ban and the closure of the federal investigation into Armstrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00nftd5/Hardtalk_John_Fahey_President_World_AntiDoping_Agency/

Ugh I don't even want to see it. I already know what he's going to say in that clip. And I don't like it.

 

[LaFlorecita]

I didnt post it for you. I already know you wouldnt want to watch it but there are other people who might find it interesting to hear him just like me.

I know that you didn't post it for me. I mean, you wouldn't be that stupid now would you?

I think sniper might find it interesting... But I'm sorry, I can't handle anymore "he's a cheat" comments, especially from people that should actually have some sort of sense in them, and knowledge of the verdict.

 

[Walkman]

I didnt post it for you. I already know you wouldnt want to watch it but there are other people who might find it interesting to hear him just like me.

Don't care about LaFlorecita, I am watching it now and that's thank to you for posting it!

 

[LaFlorecita]

Don't care about LaFlorecita, I am watching it now and that's thank to you for posting it!

Yeah, I'm sure you like it.

 

[Beech Mtn]

I really do hope Madrid gets the olympics. Would be amazing. Also the Road race would be pretty frickin good if its in Madrid.

+1 to this.

I know that you didn't post it for me. I mean, you wouldn't be that stupid now would you?

I think sniper might find it interesting... But I'm sorry, I can't handle anymore "he's a cheat" comments, especially from people that should actually have some sort of sense in them, and knowledge of the verdict.

Totally agree with the bolded part, especially since I think AC was likely the only major contender to have his samples sent to the ultra-sensitive lab. Samples that would have been negative at any other lab (where everybody else's samples were tested). I think AC was singled out for extra scrutiny that others did not receive.

If anti-doping measures are going to be all about fair play and ending cheating, then the damn labs have to more consistent in their testing capabilities, or governing bodies need to make sure the samples from the same events are all tested at the same place or to consistent levels.

Whatever else he may have done or not done in his career, the word "cheat" really doesn't apply to AC in this particular situation.

 

[Marva32]

the word "cheat" really doesn't apply to AC in this particular situation.

Based on the levels, I don't think the clenbuterol was due to doping, but I do agree with his suspension based on the rules as they stand currently.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

+1 to this.



Totally agree with the bolded part, especially since I think AC was likely the only major contender to have his samples sent to the ultra-sensitive lab. Samples that would have been negative at any other lab (where everybody else's samples were tested). I think AC was singled out for extra scrutiny that others did not receive.

We know from the IO report that 10 samples (so more than just AC) were sent to Cologne, precisely to test for other substances and methods.

If anti-doping measures are going to be all about fair play and ending cheating, then the damn labs have to more consistent in their testing capabilities, or governing bodies need to make sure the samples from the same events are all tested at the same place or to consistent levels.

Whatever else he may have done or not done in his career, the word "cheat" really doesn't apply to AC in this particular situation.

Why?
As WADA have said, that is like arguing that it is unfair that a bank robber didn't get away because he was caught by the fastest cop on duty.

 

[The Hitch]

We know from the IO report that 10 samples (so more than just AC) were sent to Cologne, precisely to test for other substances and methods.



Why?
As WADA have said, that is like arguing that it is unfair that a bank robber didn't get away because he was caught by the fastest cop on duty.

And the money went to the slower bank robber?

 

[ferryman]

If AC appeals, and I hope he does not, does anyone know if he is then free to race again pending judgement? Or is that too simple? I think I read in a previous post (Python or Dr Mas most likely) that there has only ever been one successful appeal after a CAS ruling? If anyone has any info on this re procedure and likely timescales after an appeal has been lodged and feel interested enough to post please do.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If AC appeals, and I hope he does not, does anyone know if he is then free to race again pending judgement? Or is that too simple? I think I read in a previous post (Python or Dr Mas most likely) that there has only ever been one successful appeal after a CAS ruling? If anyone has any info on this re procedure and likely timescales after an appeal has been lodged and feel interested enough to post please do.

If AC appeals he remains banned.
I had expected AC to appeal, but that was based on any ban being from now, but as his ban is effectively over in August I doubt he will.

 

[Havetts]

And the money went to the slower bank robber?

A bank robber that has not been caught red handed, or caught at all.

 

[ferryman]

If AC appeals he remains banned.
I had expected AC to appeal, but that was based on any ban being from now, but as his ban is effectively over in August I doubt he will.

Cheers Doc. So if he does appeal though do you have any feel for how long before that is likely to come to Court? What I am getting at, is there any remote chance he could be successful in an appeal in time to still ride the Tour. Too many hypotheical's and lack of past cases to answer I guess.

 

[Merckx index]

If AC appeals he remains banned.
I had expected AC to appeal, but that was based on any ban being from now, but as his ban is effectively over in August I doubt he will.

I think you can make the opposite argument. If his ban were prospective, two years from now, he would miss much of that time while the appeal process dragged on. Probably all of this season, certainly the TDF. All that would have been in play would have been 2013 up to the Vuelta, so one GT.

With the retrospective ban that he actually has, he will miss this season up to the Vuelta, true. But if he won the appeal, he would get back those two GTs, and other notable results, that he lost. That is likely more than he would have achieved in the second year of a prospective ban, plus he can take his time with the appeal. It doesn’t matter how long it takes, if he wins it, he gets back those results.

 

[Cimber]

Based on the levels, I don't think the clenbuterol was due to doping, but I do agree with his suspension based on the rules as they stand currently.

Ye thats it. He broke the rules (which might needs to be changed btw) and is therefor banned. At the same time CAS states that the clen was problably not due to doping. Hence the cheat remarks ring quite hollow. Just because he broke the rules that doesnt make him a cheater since it gave him no advantage and since CAS find doping unlikely. It does, however, depict some of areas were Strict Liability can be considered a tad over the top.

I am not really against strict liability as such, since it is very needed in this sport, as long as the judged use common sense too, and not only go strictly by the rules when it makes little sense. Also maybe implement minimum thresholds on certain stuff, like fx clen.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Cheers Doc. So if he does appeal though do you have any feel for how long before that is likely to come to Court? What I am getting at, is there any remote chance he could be successful in an appeal in time to still ride the Tour. Too many hypotheical's and lack of past cases to answer I guess.

From memory Valverde appealed his case to the Swiss Courts and it took almost a year.

I think you can make the opposite argument. If his ban were prospective, two years from now, he would miss much of that time while the appeal process dragged on. Probably all of this season, certainly the TDF. All that would have been in play would have been 2013 up to the Vuelta, so one GT.

With the retrospective ban that he actually has, he will miss this season up to the Vuelta, true. But if he won the appeal, he would get back those two GTs, and other notable results, that he lost. That is likely more than he would have achieved in the second year of a prospective ban, plus he can take his time with the appeal. It doesn’t matter how long it takes, if he wins it, he gets back those results.

Ya - thats fair enough.
However he essentially gets to keep most of his earnings from that time - as the prizemoney is usually distributed amongst the team.

Perhaps he will wait for the decision on costs and penalties and if it goes against him then just appeal that decision?!

 

[The Hitch]

A bank robber that has not been caught red handed, or caught at all.

No. the bank robber gets caught but has connections that get him out

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ye thats it. He broke the rules (which might needs to be changed btw) and is therefor banned. At the same time CAS states that the clen was problably not due to doping. Hence the cheat remarks ring quite hollow. Just because he broke the rules that doesnt make him a cheater since it gave him no advantage and since CAS find doping unlikely. It does, however, depict some of areas were Strict Liability can be considered a tad over the top.

No, CAS said it is only 'possible' that the Clen came from contaminated supplements - and that was just from the theories presented.

To the blue - no-one has said that he did not get an advantage from it.

I am not really against strict liability as such, since it is very needed in this sport, as long as the judged use common sense too, and not only go strictly by the rules when it makes little sense. Also maybe implement minimum thresholds on certain stuff, like fx clen.

Again - Contador could have been cleared if he was able to show that the clen came from contaminated meat - he was given every opportunity to do so and they dismissed it as unlikely.